ELECTION  OE  ISAAC  STEPHENSON 


REPORT 

OF  THE 

COMMITTEE  ON  PRIVILEGES  AND  ELECTIONS 
UNITED  STATES  SENATE 

TOGETHER  WITH  THE 

HEARINGS  HELD  BEFORE  THE  SUBCOMMITTEE 

PURSUANT  TO 


SENATE 


Document 
No.  312 


S.  RES.  136 


DIRECTING  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  PRIVILEGES  AND  ELECTIONS,  OR 
ANY  SUBCOMMITTEE  THEREOF,  TO  INVESTIGATE  WHETHER 
CORRUPT  METHODS  AND  PRACTICES  WERE  USED  OR 
EMPLOYED  IN  THE  ELECTION  OF  ISAAC  STEPHEN- 
SON AS  A SENATOR  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 
FROM  THE  STATE  OF  WISCONSIN 


IN  TWO  VOLUMES 

VOL.  1 


Pages  1 to  996 

(DIGEST  INDEX  IN  EACH  VOLUME) 


WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE 
1912  " 


62d  Congress  1 viTr'VATP'  / Document 

2d  Session  / l No.  312 


ELECTION  OE  ISAAC  STEPHENSON 


REPORT 

OF  THE 

COMMITTEE  ON  PRIVILEGES  AND  ELECTIONS 
UNITED  STATES  SENATE 


TOGETHER  WITH  THE 

HEARINGS  HELD  BEFORE  THE  SUBCOMMITTEE 

PURSUANT  TO 

S.  RES.  136 

DIRECTING  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  PRIVILEGES  AND  ELECTIONS,  OR 
ANY  SUBCOMMITTEE  THEREOF,  TO  INVESTIGATE  WHETHER 
CORRUPT  METHODS  AND  PRACTICES  WERE  USED  OR 
EMPLOYED  IN  THE  ELECTION  OF  ISAAC  STEPHEN- 
SON AS  A SENATOR  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 
FROM  THE  STATE  OF  WISCONSIN 


IN  TWO  VOLUMES 

VOL.  1 

Pages  1 to  996 

(DIGEST  INDEX  IN  EACH  VOLUME) 


WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE 
1912 


In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States, 

February  12,  1912. 

Resolved , That  one  thousand  additional  copies  of  the  report  and 
accompany  ing  papers  presented  by  the  Committee  on  Privileges  and 
Elections,  who  were  directed  to  investigate  whether  corrupt  methods 
and  practices  were  used  or  employed  in  the  election  of  Isaac  Stephen- 
son as  a Senator  of  the  United  States  from  the  State  of  Wisconsin, 
•be  printed  for  the  use  of  the  Senate,  and  that  four  hundred  and  fifty 
additional  copies  of  the  report,  together  with  the  hearings  held  before 
the  committee,  be  printed  for  the  use  of  the  Senate. 

Attest : 

Charles  G.  Bennett, 

Secretary . 

By  H.  M.  Hose, 

Assistant  Secretary. 


COMMITTEE  ON  PRIVILEGES  AND  ELECTIONS, 


WILLIAM  P.  DILLINGHAM.  Vermont,  Chairman. 


ROBERT  J.  GAMBLE,  South  Dakota. 
WELDON  B.  HEYBURN,  Idaho. 
MOSES  E.  CLAPP,  Minnesota. 
GEORGE  SUTHERLAND,  Utah. 
WIILLIAM  O.  BRADLEY,  Kentucky. 
WESLEY  L.  JONES,  Washington. 
GEORGE  T.  OLIVER,  Pennsylvania. 


| WILLIAM  S.  KENYON,  Iowa. 
THOMAS  H.  FAYNTER,  Kentucky. 
JOSEPH  F.  JOHNSTON,  Alabama. 
DUNCAN  U.  FLETCHER,  Florida. 
JOHN  W.  KERN,  Indiana. 

LUKE  LEA,  Tennessee. 

ATLEE  POMERENE,  Ohio. 


Ferdinand  H.  Pease,  Clerk. 


Ooc , 
57 


REPORT-  OF  COMMITTEE. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2016  with  funding  from 
University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign 


https://archive.org/details/electionofisaacs01unit 


[Senate  Report  No.  349,  62d  Cong.,  2d  sess.] 


CHARGES  RELATIVE  TO  ELECTION  OF  ISAAC 
STEPHENSON. 


February  12,  1912. — Ordered  to  be  printed. 


Mr.  Heyburn,  from  the  Committee  on  Privileges  and  Elections, 
submitted  the  following 

REPORT. 

[To  accompany  S.  Res.  13G.] 

The  Committee  on  Privileges  and  Elections,  to  whom  was  referred 
certain  charges  preferred  by  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  Wiscon- 
sin against  Isaac  Stephenson,  a Senator  of  the  United  States  from  the 
State  of  Wisconsin,  with  instructions  to  report  to  the  Senate  whether 
in  the  election  of  said  Isaac  Stephenson  as  a Senator  of  the  United 
States  from  the  State  of  Wisconsin  there  were  used  or  employed 
corrupt  methods  or  practices,  have  had  the  same  under  consideration 
and  submit  the  following  report: 

On  August  15,  1911,  the  Senate  adopted  the  following  resolution: 

Resolved,  That  the  Senate  Committee  on  Privileges  and  Elections  or  any  sub- 
committee thereof  be  authorized  and  directed  to  investigate  certain  charges  pre- 
ferred by  the  Legislature  of  Wisconsin  against  Isaac  Stephenson,  a Senator  of 
the  United  States  from  the  State  of  Wisconsin,  and  report  to  the  Senate  whether 
in  the  election  of  said  Isaac  Stephenson,  as  a Senator  of  the  United  States  from 
the  said  State  of  Wisconsin  there  were  used  or  employed  corrupt  methods  or 
practices;  that  said  committee  or  subcommittee  be  authorized  to  sit  during  the 
recess  of  the  Senate,  to  hold  its  session  at  such  place  or  places  as  it  shall  deem 
most  convenient  for  the  purposes  of  the  investigation,  to  employ  stenographers, 
to  send  for  persons  and  papers,  and  to  administer  oaths ; and  that  the  expenses 
of  the  inquiry  shall  be  paid  from  the  contingent  fund  of  the  Senate,  upon 
vouchers  to  be  approved  by  the  chairman  of  the  committee  or  chairman  of  the 
subcommittee. 

Pursuant  to  the  authority  given  by  said  resolution  the  Committee 
on  Privileges  and  Elections  appointed  a subcommittee  consisting  of 
Mr.  Heyburn,  chairman,  Mr.  Sutherland,  Mr.  Bradley,  Mr.  Paynter. 
and  Mr.  Pomerene,  with  full  powers  to  investigate  said  charges. 

On  January  20,  1912,  the  subcommitte  reported  to  the  full  com- 
mittee as  follows: 


IN  THE  MATTER  OF  THE  INVESTIGATION  OF  THE  CHARGES  AGAINST  ISAAC  STEPHEN- 
SON, A SENATOR  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  FROM  THE  STATE  OF  WISCONSIN. 

To  the  honorable  the  Committee  on  Privileges  and  Elections  of  the  United  States 
Senate : 

Your  subcommittee  proceeded  pursuant  to  the  terms  of  its  appointment  to 
investigate  the  above-mentioned  charges,  and  in  pursuance  of  said  duty  met  in 


VII 


VIII 


SENATOR  FROM  WISCONSIN. 


the  city  of  Washington  and,  having  organized,  proceeded  to  adopt  a plan  for 
holding  such  investigation. 

It  was  agreed  by  your  subcommittee  that  the  investigation  should  commence 
on  October  2,  1911.  at  the  city  of  Milwaukee,  in  the  State  of  Wisconsin. 

Accordingly  your  subcommittee  met  at  the  city  of  Milwaukee  on  the  above- 
mentioned  date,  all  parties  in  interest  being  present.  Hon.  Charles  E.  Little- 
field, W.  E.  Black,  and  H.  A.  J.  Upliam,  Esqs.,  appeared  as  counsel  for  Senator 
Stephenson. 

The  governor  and  the  attorney  general  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin  were  notified 
by  the  chairman  of  your  subcommittee  of  the  time  and  place  of  the  hearing  and 
were  invited  to  indicate  to  the  committee  whether  or  not  they  desired  to  be 
present  and  participate  in  any  manner  in  such  investigation.  The  governor  of 
Wisconsin,  speaking  for  the  State,  informed  your  subcommittee  that  no  one  on 
behalf  of  the  State  would  appear  at  such  investigation. 

Your  subcommittee  then  proceeded  to  the  examination  of  witnesses  and  docu- 
ments, which  examination  occupied  25  days,  during  which  time  124  witnesses 
were  sworn,  35  affidavits  received,  and  2.100  pages  of  printed  testimony  taken, 
which  testimony,  affidavits,  and  exhibits  are  herewith  submitted  as  a part  of 
the  report  of  your  subcommittee. 

Your  subcommittee  has  given  the  fullest  consideration  to  all  the  testimony 
introduced  and  has  considered  its  weight  and  effect  under  the  rules  pertaining 
to  the  investigation  and  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  charges  preferred  against 
Senator  Isaac  Stephenson  have  not  been  sustained,  and  your  subcommittee  finds 
that  the  election  of  said  Isaac  Stephenson  as  a Senator  of  the  United  States 
from  the  State  of  Wisconsin  was  not  procured  by  corrupt  methods  or  practices 
in  said  election  of  Isaac  Stephenson. 

W.  B.  Heyburn,  Chairman. 

George  Sutherland. 

W.  O.  Bradley. 

Atlee  Pomerene. 

Mr.  Heyburn,  chairman  of  the  subcommittee,  submitted  a state- 
ment of  his  views  in  support  of  the  conclusions  reached,  and  on  the 
request  of  members  of  the  committee  further  consideration  of  the 
matter  was  postponed  to  February  3,  1912,  on  which  date  a further 
postponement  was  had  to  February  10,  1912,  with  the  understanding 
that  any  member  of  the  committee  might  file  a statement  of  his  views 
to  accompany  the  final  report  of  the  committee,  and  that  a vote  might 
be  taken  on  that  date. 

On  February  10,  1912,  the  Committee  on  Privileges  and  Elections 
met  in  regular  session  and  received  a statement  of  the  views  of  Mr. 
Pomerene  and  Mr.  Sutherland  in  support  of  the  report  of  the  sub- 
committee, and  proceeded  to  the  consideration  of  the  report  of  the 
subcommittee  together  with  the  views  expressed  by  the  members 
thereof  upon  a full  record  of  the  testimony  and  proceedings  in  the 
case. 

On  motion  it  was  ordered  that  the  report  of  the  subcommittee  be 
adopted  and  that  said  subcommittee  be  discharged. 

Whereupon  it  was  ordered  that  Mr.  Heyburn  be  instructed  to  re- 
port the  action  of  the  committee  to  the  Senate,  together  with  a tran- 
script of  testimony  and  of  all  the  proceedings  of  the  subcommittee, 
including  the  address  of  Hon.  Charles  E.  Littlefield  before  the  whole 
committee,  and  also  the  individual  views  presented  by  members  of 
the  committee.  Leave  was  given  to  file  a minority  report  by  those 
dissenting  from  the  conclusions  reached. 

Wherefore  your  committee,  having  given  full  consideration  to  the 
law  and  to  the  testimony  and  to  all  of  the  facts  and  circumstances 
brought  to  its  notice,  does  find  that  the  charges  preferred  against 
Isaac  Stephenson,  a Senator  of  the  United  States  from  the  State  of 


SENATOR  FROM  WISCONSIN. 


IX 


Wisconsin,  are  not  sustained,  and  your  committee  further  finds  that 
the  election  of  said  Isaac  Stephenson  as  a Senator  of  the  United 
States  was  not  procured  by  corrupt  methods  or  practices. 

Wm.  P.  Dillingham. 
Robert  J.  Gamble. 

W.  B.  Heyburn. 

Geo.  Sutherland. 
George  T.  Oliver. 

Jos.  F.  Johnston. 
Duncan  U.  Fletcher. 
Atlee  Pomerene. 

W.  O.  Bradley. 


VIEWSOF  MR.  HEYBURN  IN  SUPPORT  OF  THE  REPORT 
OF  THE  COMMITTEE. 


The  subcommittee  having  reported  to  the  whole  committee  in 
favor  of  Isaac  Stephenson,  I desire  to  submit  herewith  the  reasons 
which  actuated  me  in  arriving  at  that  conclusion: 

jurisdiction. 

On  August  15,  1911,  the  United  States  Senate  adopted  the  follow- 
ing resolution: 

Resolved,  That  the  Senate  Committee  on  Privileges  and  Elections  or  any  subcom- 
mittee thereof  be  authorized  and  directed  to  investigate  certain  charges  preferred  by 
the  Legislature  of  Wisconsin  against  Isaac  Stephenson,  a Senator  of  the  United  States 
from  the  State  of  Wisconsin,  and  report  to  the  Senate  whether  in  the  election  of  said 
Isaac  Stephenson,  as  a Senator  of  the  United  States  from  the  said  State  of  Wisconsin 
there  were  used  or  employed  corrupt  methods  or  practices;  that  said  committee  or  sub- 
committee be  authorized  to  sit  during  the  recess  of  the  Senate,  to  hold  its  session  at 
such  place  or  places  as  it  shall  deem  most  convenient  for  the  purposes  of  the  investiga- 
tion, to  employ  stenographers,  to  send  for  persons  and  papers,  and  to  administer 
oaths;  and  that  the  expenses  of  the  inquiry  shall  be  paid  from  the  contingent  fund  of 
the  Senate,  upon  vouchers  to  be  approved  by  the  chairman  of  the  committee  or  chair- 
man of  the  subcommittee. 

Pursuant  to  the  authority  given  by  said  resolution  the  Committee 
on  Privileges  and  Elections  appointed  a subcommittee  consisting  of 
Senators  Heyburn,  Sutherland,  Bradley,  Pa\mter,  and  Pomerene,  with 
full  powers  “ to  investigate  said  charges  preferred  by  the  Legislature 
of  Wisconsin  relating  to  the  election  of  Isaac  Stephenson,  a Senator 
from  the  State  of  Wisconsin.” 

meeting  of  subcommittee 

In  performance  of  said  duty  the  subcommittee  met  at  Milwaukee, 
Wis.,  on  October  2,  1911,  in  the  Federal  Building,  a quorum  of  said 
subcommittee  being  present. 

The  chairman  announced  that  the  subcommittee  would  recognize  a 
duly  authorized  representative  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin,  in  view  of 
the  fact  that  the  State  had  submitted  through  its  governor  to  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States  the  charges  to  be  investigated.  No  one 


X 


SENATOR  FROM  WISCONSIN. 


appearing,  the  chairman  then  instructed  the  secretary  of  the  subcom- 
mittee to  communicate  with  the  governor  and  attorney  general  of  the 
State  and  advise  them  that  the  committee  was  in  session  in  Milwaukee 
for  the  purpose  of  investigating  the  charges  aforesaid,  and  to  inquire 
whether  or  not  the  State  desired  to  be  represented  at  the  bearing,  and, 
pursuant  to  such  instruction,  the  secretary  sent  the  following  com- 
munication to  the  governor: 

Milwaukee,  Wis.,  October  2,  1911. 

Hon.  Francis  E.  McGovern, 

Governor  of  Wisconsin,  Madison,  Wis.: 

A subcommittee  of  the  Committee  on  Privileges  and  Elections  of  the  United  States 
Senate,  duly  appointed,  with  instructions  to  investigate  the  election  of  Isaac  Stephenson 
as  a Senator  of  the  United  States  from  the  State  of  Wisconsin,  as  recommended  by  the 
Legislature  of  Wisconsin  as  provided  in  joint  resolution  58  of  said  legislature,  has 
entered  upon  the  investigation  in  the  Federal  Building,  in  the  city  of  Milwaukee.  As 
the  State  appears  to  be  unrepresented  by  counsel,  you  are  requested  to  advise  the 
committee  whether  or  not  it  is  the  desire  of  the  State  to  be  represented*  by  counsel 
before  this  committee,  and  if  so,  designate  in  writing  such  person  to  represent  the  State. 

W.  B.  Heyburn,  Chairman. 

To  which  communication  the  governor  replied  as  follows: 

Executive  Chamber, 
Madison,  Wis.,  Octobers,  1911. 

Hon.  W.  B.  Heyburn, 

Chairman  Subcommittee  of  the  United  States  Senate 

Committee  on  Privileges  and  Elections , Milwaukee,  Wis. 

My  Dear  Sir:  In  reply  to  your  telegram  of  yesterday,  in  which  you  request  me  to 
advise  your  committee  “whether  or  not  it  is  the  desire  of  the  State  to  be  represented 
by  counsel”  before  your  subcommittee,  permit  me  to  say  that  I find  there  is  very 
serious  doubt  that  I have  any  power  to  act  m the  matter.  Joint  resolution  58,  to  which 
you  refer,  confers  no  such  authority.  It  simply  requests  the  United  States  Senate 
“to  investigate  the  manner,  means,  and  methods  by  and  through  which  Isaac  Stephen- 
son secured  his  election  to  the  United  States  Senate,”  recommends  to  the  district 
attorney  of  Dane  County  that  prosecutions  be  commenced  against  all  persons  shown 
to  have  committed  perjury  in  the  senatorial  inquiry  in  this  city,  and  suggests  that 
prosecutions  be  commenced  in  other  counties  of  the  State  for  such  violations  of  the 
corrupt-practices  or  bribery  statutes  as  the  evidence  may  justify. 

In  the  absence  of  any  specific  authority  conferred  by  this  joint  resolution  the  only 
other  possible  source  is  chapter  268  of  the  laws  of  Wisconsin  for  the  year  1911.  Care- 
ful consideration  of  this  statute  leaves  me  in  doubt  as  to  whether  it  confers  power 
upon  me  to  employ  at  the  expense  of  the  State  counsel  to  attend  the  investigation 
your  subcommittee  is  now  conducting.  Nor  can  I see  that  much  good  is  likely  to 
come  from  such  employment.  Your  invitation  comes  so  late  as  practically  to  pre- 
clude the  possibility  of  anyone  whom  I might  select  rendering  any  real  service  to 
your  committee  or  materially  assisting  in  the  investigation  now  in  progress.  That 
investigation  has  already  begun.  The  transactions  to  be  inquired  into  are  numerous 
and  involved,  as  appears  from  the  fact  that  the  testimony  already  taken  occupied 
many  months  of  the  time  of  committees  of  the  State  legislature  and  now  fills  a number 
of  large  volumes  of  printed  reports.  To  be  of  service  counsel  for  the  State  should 
have  been  employed  months  ago.  I say  this  with  no  feeling  of  personal  responsi- 
bility in  the  matter  for  the  reason  that  until  your  telegram  came  yesterday  there  was 
no  ground  for  anticipating  that  the  appearance  of  an  attorney  for  the  State  at  this 
hearing  would  be  acceptable  to  your  committee.  Indeed,  more  than  a week  ago, 
under  date  of  September  25,  the"  Associated  Press  quoted  you  as  having  expressed 
yourself  as  chairman  of  the  subcommittee  as  follows:  “The  State  of  Wisconsin  will 
not  have  an  attorney  in  the  investigation  of  the  election  of  Isaac  Stephenson  by  the 
United  States  Senate  committee.  This  hearing  is  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United 
States  Senate,  which  does  not  recognize  the  State  as  a party  to  the  investigation. 
This  is  an  investigation,  not  a trial.” 

An  additional  reason  why  I should  not  avail  myself  of  your  invitation  at  this  time 
is  furnished  by  the  practice  of  other  committees  charged  with  duties  similar  to  yours. 
So  far  as  I know  no  State  has  been  represented  by  counsel  at  any  of  these  investigations. 
The  work  has  been  done  either  by  the  members  of  the  committee  alone  or  by  counsel 
of  their  own  choosing.  At  any  rate,  the  responsibility  for  a thorough,  searching 
inquiry  is  upon  your  subcommittee  acting  as  the  agent  of  the  United  States  Senate 


SENATOR  FROM  WISCONSIN. 


XI 


in  determining  a question  relative  to  the  “election,  returns,  and  qualifications”  of  one 
of  its  own  Members.  Neither  the  State  of  Wisconsin  nor  its  legislature  desires  to 
assume  the  role  of  prosecutor  or  to  sustain  any  other  relation  to  this  investigation  than 
that  of  petitioner  for  a thorough,  fearless,  and  impartial  inquiry. 

For  the  present,  therefore,  I shall  take  no  action  concerning  the  matter  mentioned 
in  your  telegram.  Assuring  you,  however,  of  my  appreciation  of  your  consideration 
in  extending  the  invitation,  I am, 

Very  truly,  yours,  Francis  E.  McGovern. 

The  chairman  inquired  whether  or  not  counsel  were  present  to 
represent  Mr.  Stephenson.  Whereupon  ITon.  Charles  E.  Littlefield, 
Mr.  W.  E.  Black,  and  Mr.  H.  A.  J.  Upham  appeared  on  his  behalf 
and  were  recognized  by  the  committee. 

The  joint  resolution  and  specific  charges  certified  to  the  United 
States  Senate  by  the  governor  of  Wisconsin  were  then  read.  (Tran- 
script, pp.  4 and  5.) 

Before  entering  upon  the  examination  of  witnesses  by  the  com- 
mittee Hon.  Charles  E.  Littlefield,  of  counsel  for  Mr.  Stephenson, 
requested  leave  to  make  a statement,  which  leave  was  granted. 
(Transcript,  pp.  6-23.) 

The  subcommittee  then  proceeded  to  the  examination  of  witnesses 
and  documents,  which  examination  occupied  25  days,  during  which 
time  116  witnesses  were  sworn  and  examined,  36  affidavits  received, 
and  upward  of  2,100  pages  of  printed  testimony  taken,  which  testi- 
mony, affidavits,  and  exhibits  are  herewith  offered  as  a part  of  the 
report  of  the  subcommittee. 

The  subcommittee  was  directed  to  investigate  certain  charges  pre- 
ferred by  the  Legislature  of  Wisconsin  against  Mr.  Stephenson. 
These  charges  were  set  forth  in  the  communication  of  the  governor 
of  Wisconsin,  and  the  papers  accompanying  the  same,  certified  to  the 
United  States  Senate,  among  which  was  the  joint  resolution  adopted 
by  the  Legislature  of  Wisconsin  on  June  26,  1911,  which  is  found  on 
page  2 of  the  transcript. 

The  charges  referred  to  in  the  resolution  under  which  the  subcom- 
mittee acted  are  as  follows: 

SPECIFIC  CHARGES. 

1.  That  Isaac  Stephenson,  of  Marinette,  Wis.,  now  United  States  Senator  and  a 
candidate  for  reelection,  did,  as  such  candidate  for  reelection,  give  to  one  E.  A. 
Edmonds,  of  the  city  of  Appleton,  Wis.,  an  elector  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin  and  said 
city  of  Appleton,  a valuable  thing,  to  wit,  a sum  of  money  in  excess  of  $106,000,  and 
approximating  the  sum  of  $250,000,  as  a consideration  for  some  act  to  be  done  by  said 
E.  A.  Edmonds,  in  relation  to  the  primary  election  held  on  the  1st  day  of  September, 
1908,  which  consideration  was  paid  prior  to  said  primary  election,  and  that  said  Isaac 
Stephenson  was  at  the  time  of  such  payment  a candidate  for  the  Republican  nomina- 
tion for  United  States  Senator  at  such  primary,  and  did  by  such  acts  as  above  set 
forth  violate  section  4543b  of  the  statutes.  * - 

2.  That  said  Isaac  Stephenson  did,  prior  to  said  primary,  pay  to  said  Edmonds  above- 
mentioned  sums  with  the  design  that  said  Edmonds  should  pay  to  other  electors  of  this 
State,  out  of  said  sums  above  mentioned  and  other  sums  of  money  received  by  said 
Edmonds  from  said  Isaac  Stephenson,  prior  to  said  primary,  sums  ranging  from  $5  per 
day  to  $1,000  in  bulk,  as  a consideration  for  some  act  to  be  done  in  relation  to  said 
primary  by  said  electors  for  said  Isaac  Stephenson  as  such  candidate,  in  violation  of 
said  section. 

3.  That  with  full  knowledge  and  with  instructions  from  said  Isaac  Stephenson,  as 
to  how  and  for  what  purposes  said  sums  were  to  be  expended,  said  sums  were  so  paid 
as  above  stated  to  said  Edmonds  by  said  Isaac  Stephenson  and  that  said  sums  were 
paid  as  above  stated  for  the  purposes  above  stated  and  also  for  the  purpose  of  bribing 
and  corrupting  a sufficient  number  of  the  electors  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin  to  encom- 
pass the  nomination  of  said  Isaac  Stephenson  at  said  primary  for  the  office  of  United 
States  Senator. 


XII 


SENATOR  FROM  WISCONSIN. 


4.  That  in  pursuance  of  the  purposes  and  design  above  stated  said  Isaac  Stephenson 
did,  by  and  through  his  agents,  prior  to  said  primary,  pay  to  one  U.  G.  Keller,  of  Sauk 
County,  an  elector  of  this  State,  the  sum  of  $300  as  a consideration  for  some  act  to  be 
done  by  said  Keller  for  said  Stephenson  preliminary  to  said  primary,  corruptly  and 
unlawfully. 

5.  That  in  further  pursuance  of  such  purposes  and  design  said  Isaac  Stephenson,  by 
and  through  his  agents,  prior  to  said  primary,  paid  to  one  Hambright,  of  Racine,  Wis., 
large  sums  of  money  as  a consideration  for  some  act  to  be  done  by  said  Hambright  for 
said  Stephenson  preliminary  to  said  primary,  said  Hambright  being  then  an  elector 
of  this  State,  corruptly  and  unlawfully. 

6.  That  in  further  pursuance  of  the  purposes  and  design  above  stated  said  Isaac 
Stephenson  did,  by  and  through  his  agents,  prior  to  said  primary,  pay  to  one  Roy 
Morse,  of  Fond  du  Lac,  Wis.,  then  an  elector  of  this  State,  the  sum  of  $1,000  as  a con- 
sideration for  some  act  to  be  done  by  said  Morse  for  said  Isaac  Stephenson  preliminary 
to  said  primary,  and  corruptly  and  unlawfully. 

7.  That  in  further  pursuance  of  such  purposes  and  design  said  Isaac  Stephenson, 
by  and  through  his  agents,  prior  to  said  primary,  paid  to  divers  persons,  then  electors 
of  the  county  of  Grant,  Wis.,  ranging  from  $5  per  day  and  upward,  as  a consideration 
for  some  act  to  be  done  by  said  several  electors  for  said  Isaac  Stephenson  preliminary 
to  said  primary,  corruptly  and  unlawfully. 

8.  That  in  further  pursuance  of  such  purposes  and  design,  said  Isaac  Stephenson, 
by  and  through  his  agents,  prior  to  said  primary,  did  pay  to  divers  persons  who  were 
at  such  time  electors  in  this  State  a consideration  for  some  act  to  be  done  for  said  Isaac 
Stephenson  by  such  electors  preliminary  to  such  primary,  corruptly  and  unlawfully. 

9.  That  in  further  pursuance  of  such  purposes  and  designs  said  Isaac  Stephenson, 
by  and  through  his  agents,  prior  to  said  primary,  did  pay  to  electors  of  this  State,  who 
were  of  a different  political  opinion  and  who  held  to  other  political  principles  than  those 
of  the  Republican  Party,  more  particularly  Democrats,  sums  of  money  as  a considera- 
tion for  some  act  to  be  done  by  such  electors  for  said  Isaac  Stephenson  preliminary  to 
said  primary,  corruptly  and  unlawfully. 

10.  That  in  further  pursuance  of  such  purposes  and  design  said  Isaac  Stephenson, 
by  and  through  his  agents,  prior  to  such  primary,  did  offer  to  pay  to  Edward  Pollock, 
of  Lancaster,  Wis.,  certain  sums  of  money,  as  editor  of  the  Teller,  a newspaper  pub- 
lished in  said  city  of  Lancaster,  Wis.,  and  to  other  editors  of  newspapers  who  were  at 
such  time  electors  of  this  State,  and  for  the  purpose  of  purchasing  the  editorial  support 
of  such  editors  and  as  a consideration  of  something  to  be  done  relating  to  such  primary, 
corruptly  and  unlawfully. 

11.  That  said  Isaac  Stephenson  did,  prior  to  such  primary,  by  and  through  his  agents, 
promise  and  agree  to  pay  to  one  Lester  Tilton,  a then  resident  and  elector  of  this  State, 
and  residing  at  the  city  of  Neillsville,  Wis.,  a sum  in  excess  of  $500  to  procure  or  aid 
in  procuring  the  nomination  of  said  Lester  Tilton  to  the  assembly  of  this  State  from 
from  Clark  County,  and  did  offer  to  give  to  said  Lester  Tilton  a sum  in  excess  of  $500 
if  said  Lester  Tilton  would  become  a candidate  for  the  assembly  from  said  Clark 
County  if  said  Lester  Tilton  would  support  said  Isaac  Stephenson  for  the  office  of 
United  States  Senator,  all  of  which  is  in  violation  of  sections  4542b  and  4543b  of  the 
statutes. 

12.  That  said  Isaac  Stephenson  did,  by  and  through  his  agents,  give  and  promise 
and  pay  or  agree  to  pay  to  other  electors  of  this  State  sums  of  money  to  procure  or  aid 
in  procuring  the  nomination  of  such  electors  to  the  senate  and  assembly  of  this  State 
other  than  those  electors  residing  in  the  district  wh^re  said  Isaac  Stephenson  resides. 

13.  That  E.  M.  Heyzer  and  Max  Sells,  prior  to  said  primary,  being  at  such  time 
employees  of  the  Chicago  & North  Western  Railway  Co.,  a corporation  doing  business 
in  this  State,  did  contribute  and  agree  to  contribute  free  services  as  such  employees 
for  the  purpose  to  defeat  the  candidacy  of  former  assemblyman  E.  F.  Nelson,  from  the 
district  embracing  Florence,  Forest,  and  Langlade  Counties,  for  the  nomination  for 
assemblyman  from  said  district,  all  of  which  was  done  with  the  knowledge  and  consent 
and  under  the  direction  of  said  Isaac  Stephenson,  his  agents,  and  employees,  contrary 
to  chapter  492,  Laws  of  1905. 

14.  That  in  further  pursuance  of  the  purposes  and  design  above  set  forth  said  Isaac 
Stephenson,  by  and  through  his  agents,  did,  in  addition  to  paying  certain  sums  as  above 
set  forth, .offer  and  agree  to  pay  to  electors  of  this  State,  prior  to  said  primary,  a premium 
or  bonus  to  those  who  in  his  employ  carried  their  respective  precincts  in  such  primary 
for  said  Isaac  Stephenson  as  such  candidate. 

15.  That  said  Isaac  Stephenson,  if  claiming  an  election  by  virtue  of  receiving  a 
plurality  of  votes  at  such  primary,  then  said  Isaac  Stephenson  has  violated  chapter 
502  of  the  laws  of  1905  by  failing  and  neglecting  to  file  his  expense  account  as  provided 
by  said  chapter. 


SENATOR  FROM  WISCONSIN. 


XI  If 


16.  Charging  generally  the  primary  nomination  or  election  of  said  Isaac  Stephenson 
was  obtained  by  the  use  of  large  sums  of  money  corruptly  and  illegally,  by  the  viola- 
tion of  sections  4542b,  4543b,  and  4478b  of  the  statutes  relating  to  illegal  -voting,  brib- 
ery, and  corruption,  and  other  laws  above  set  forth  relating  to  elections  and  primary 
elections. 

John  J.  Blaine,  a State  senator,  who  made  the  said  16  specific 
charges,  which  constituted  the  basis  of  the  legislative  investigation, 
was  examined  in  detail  as  to  each  of  such  charges  and  failed  to  sustain 
any  of  them,  either  by  his  own  testimony  or  by  reference  to  the  tes- 
timony of  others.  The  charges  were  made  on  information  and  belief 
according  to  his  own  testimony.  He  seemed  upon  examination  to 
have  no  information  upon  which  any  belief  as  to  their  truth  could  be 
based. 

An  inspection  of  his  testimony  (transcript,  p.  592,  etc.)  will  fully 
justify  the  conclusion  of  the  subcommittee  that  such  charges  were  not 
sustained. 

These  charges  were  investigated  by  two  legislative  committees; 
first,  by  a joint  committee  which  submitted  a report  which  was  not 
finally  acted  upon;  second,  by  a committee  of  three  members  of  the 
State  senate,  only  one  member  of  which  was  a member  of  the  legisla- 
ture when  l>he  report  of  that  committee  was  made. 

The  time  within  which  the  joint  legislative  committee  might  take 
testimony  and  report  was  limited  by  the  legislature  to  expire  on  the 
13th  day  of  April,  1909,  and  on  that  day  the  said  committee  met  and 
adopted  a resolution  that  each  member  make  an  outline  of  his  pro- 
posed report  and  submit  it  at  a later  day  for  discussion  before  the 
committee. 

Said  committee  then  adjourned  subject  to  the  call  of  the  chairman 
of  the  senate  or  assembly  committee. 

This  ended  the  work  of  the  joint  investigating  committee. 

The  State  senate,  acting  independently  of  the  assembly  and  in  view 
of  the  expiration  of  the  time  within  which  the  joint  committee  might 
finish  its  work,  adopted  a resolution  on  March  25,  1909,  authorizing 
the  president  of  the  senate  to  appoint  a committee  consisting  of 
three  members  to  complete  the  investigation  that  had  been  carried 
on  by  the  joint  committee  and  to  u further  fully,  fairly,  and  thoroughly 
investigate  the  campaign  and  election  of  Isaac  Stephenson  as  a United 
States  Senator,  and  the  campaign  and  election  of  members  of  the 
legislature  so  far  as  their  election  in  any  way  pertains  to  or  affects 
the  election  of  Isaac  Stephenson  as  a United  States  Senator.” 

SPECIFIC  QUESTIONS  PRESENTED  FOR  CONSIDERATION. 

In  the  order  of  their  importance  the  duties  of  the  subcommittee  may 
be  classified  as  follows: 

First.  To  investigate  the  proceedings  by  the  legislature,  including 
the  actions  pf  Senator  Stephenson  and  those  representing  him,  dur- 
ing the  session  of  the  legislature. 

Second.  To  investigate  the  campaign  and  election  of  members  of 
the  legislature  so  far  as  their  election  in  any  way  pertains  to  or 
affects  the  election  of  Isaac.  Stephenson  as  a United  States  Senator. 

Third.  The  primary  election  and  the  campaign. 


XIV 


SENATOR  FROM  WISCONSIN. 


ELECTION  OF  A SENATOR  BY  THE  LEGISLATURE. 

The  law  providing  for  the  election  of  Senators  by  the  legislature  is 
as  follows,  being  chapter  1,  title  2,  of  the  Revised  Statutes  of  the 
United  States: 

Sec.  14.  The  legislature  of  each  State  which  is  chosen  next  preceding  the  expira- 
tion of  the  time  for  which  any  Senator  was  elected  to  represent  such  State  in  Congress 
shall,  on  the  second  Tuesday  after  the  meeting  and  organizing  thereof,  proceed  to 
elect  a Senator  in  Congress. 

Sec.  15.  Such  election  shall  be  conducted  in  the  following  manner:  Each  house 
shall  openly,  by  a viva  voce  vote  of  each  member  present,  name  one  person  for  Sena- 
tor in  Congress  from  such  State,  and  the  name  of  the  person  so  voted  for  who  receives 
a majority  of  the  whole  number  of  votes  cast  in  each  house  shall  be  entered  on  the 
journal  of  that  house  by  the  clerk  or  secretary  thereof;  or  if  either  house  fails  to  give 
such  majority  to  any  person  on  that  day,  the  fact  shall  be  entered  on  the  journal.  At 
twelve  o’clock  meridian  of  the  day  following  that  on  which  proceedings  are  required 
to  take  place  as  aforesaid  the  members  of  the  two  houses  shall  convene  in  joint  assem- 
bly, and  the  journal  of  each  house  shall  then  be  read,  and  if  the  same  person  has  re- 
ceived a majority  of  all  the  votes  in  each  house  he  shall  be  declared  duly  elected 
Senator.  But  if  the  same  person  has  not  received  a majority  of  the  votes  in  each  house, 
or  if  either  house  has  failed  to  take  proceedings  as  required  by  this  section,  the  joint 
assembly  shall  then  proceed  to  choose,  by  a viva  voce  vote  of  each  member  present, 
a person  for  Senator,  and  the  person  who  receives  a majority  of  all  the  votes  of  the 
joint  assembly,  a majority  of  all  the  members  elected  to  both  houses  being  present 
and  voting,  shall  be  declared  duly  elected.  If  no  person  receives  such  majority  on 
the  first  day,  the  joint  assembly  shall  meet  at  twelve  o’clock  meridian  of  each  succeed- 
ing day  during  the  session  of  the  legislature  and  shall  take  at  least  one  vote  until  a 
Senator  is  elected. 

Sec.  16.  (Relates  to  filling  vacancies.) 

Sec.  17.  (Also  relates  to  the  filling  of  vacancies.) 

Sec.  18.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  executive  of  the  State  from  which  a Senator  has 
been  chosen,  to  certify  his  election,  under  the  seal  of  the  State,  to  the  President  of  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States. 

Sec.  19.  The  certificate  mentioned  in  the  preceding  section  shall  be  countersigned 
by  the  secretary  of  state  of  the  State. 

PROCEEDINGS  IN  THE  LEGISLATURE. 

The  Forty-ninth  Legislature  of  Wisconsin  consisted  of  33  senators 
and  100  assemblymen,  and  convened  at  the  capitol  at  Madison  on 
January  13,  1909,  at  12  o’clock  m. 

On  Thursday,  January  14,  1909,  the  organizing  of  both  houses 
was  complete,  and  the  assembly  adjourned  until  Tuesday,  January 
19,  at  10  o’clock. 

The  senate  organized  on  January  13,  1909,  and  on  January  14 
Senator  Husting  introduced  joint  resolution  3,  providing  for  the 
investigation  of  the  primary  election,  which  was  laid  over  until  the 
next  session,  and  the  senate  adjourned  until  Tuesday,  January  19, 
at  10  o’clock  a.  m. 

On  Tuesday,  January  26,  the  senate  considered  joint  resolution  3, 
and  a substitute  was  introduced  by  Senator  Blaine.  (Senate  Journal, 
pp.  72-77.)  This  substitute  contains  the  specific  charges. 

On  January  26,  1909,  a vote  was  taken  on  the  election  of  United 
States  Senator,  each  house  voting  separately. 

In  the  senate  the  total  number  of  votes  cast  was  17.  Mr.  Stephen- 
son received  12  votes,  Brown  4,  Rummel  1.  (Senate  Journal,  pp. 
78-79.) 

On  the  same  day,  January  26,  upon  the  call  of  the  roll  in  the 
assembly,  the  total  number  of  votes  cast  for  Senator  was  84.  Mr. 
Stephenson  received  60,  Neal  Brown  16,  Jacob  Rummel  3,  S.  A.  Cook 


SENATOR  FROM  WISCONSIN. 


XV 


2,  H.  A.  Cooper  1,  J.  H.  Stout  1,  and  John  J.  Esch  1,  which  result 
was  announced  by  the  speaker.  (Assembly  Journal,  pp.  74-75.) 

On  Wednesday,  January  27,  resolutions  were  introduced  in  the 
senate,  among  others  joint  resolution  8,  being  an  arraignment  of  the 
United  States  Senate  and  a demand  for  its  abolition,  introduced  by 
Senator  Gaylord.  (Senate  Journal,  p.  86.)  It  was  referred  to  the  com- 
mittee on  Federal  relations.  This  is  mentioned  in  passing  only  to 
show  the  temper  of  the  legislature  on  the  day  of  the  first  joint  ballot 
for  United  States  Senator. 

At  12  o’clock  noon  of  January  27,  1909,  the  two  houses  met  in  joint 
convention.  The  lieutenant  governor,  presiding,  stated: 

Gentlemen  of  the  joint  convention,  you  are  assembled  here  for  the  purpose  of 
expressing  your  choice  for  United  States  Senator.  In  order  to  comply  with  the  Fed- 
eral law  the  clerk  of  the  senate  and  the  clerk  of  the  assembly  will  read  from  the  journal 
of  each  house,  respectively,  the  proceedings  of  the  preceding  day  with  reference  to 
the  election  of  a United  States  Senator. 

The  senate  journal  (p.  94)  and  the  assembly  journal  (p.  80)  records 
as  follows: 

The  chief  clerk  of  the  senate  read  the  journal  of  the  senate  of  January  26,  1909,  and 
the  chief  clerk  of  the  assembly  read  the  journal  of  the  assembly  of  January  26,  1909. 

The  president  then  said:  “ The  clerk  will  call  the  roll.  As  your  names  are  called 
you  will  arise  from  your  seats  and  announce  the  candidate  of  your  choice.” 

Senator  Hudnall  said: 

I rise  to  protest  against ‘any  other  proceedings  being  taken  in  the  joint  assembly  at 
this  time  except  the  announcement  of  the  presiding  officer  that  Hon.  Isaac  Stephenson 
is  elected  to  the  United  States  Senate  for  the  term  commencing  March  4,  1909.  I do 
that  for  the  reason  that  it  appears  from  the  journal  of  the  senate  that  the  total  number 
of  votes  cast  for  persons  were  17,  of  which  Isaac  Stephenson  received  12,  Neal  Brown 
4,  Jacob  Pummel  1,  and  the  journal  of  the  assembly  shows  that  of  the  members  who 
voted  for  persons  there  were  60  for  Stephenson,  10  for  Brown,  and  3 for  Jacob  Pummel; 
and  it  further  appears  from  both  journals  of  senate  and  assembly  that  Isaac  Stephenson 
received  a majority  of  all  the  votes  cast  in  each  house. 

It  devolves  then  upon  the  president  of  this  joint  assembly  to  declare  Isaac  Stephen- 
son duly  elected  to  the  United  States  Senate,  and  then  the  duty  devolves  upon  the 
president  of  the  senate  and  speaker  of  the  assembly  to  certify  his  election  to  the  gov- 
ernor and  to  the  secretary  of  state,  and  they  to  certify  his  election  to  the  United  States 
Senate.  Any  other  proceeding  is  out  of  order  and  nugatory. 

Senator  Hudnall  stated  that  he  made  this  statement  as  a protest 
and  as  a point  of  order.  The  president  held  the  point  of  order  not 
well  taken  and  held  that  Senator  Hudnall  was  out  of  order  in  his 
protest. 

The  presiding  officer  then  directed  the  nomination  of  candidates, 
and  the  joint  assembly  proceeded  to  vote  for  a United  States  Senator. 
There  were  131  votes  cast,  of  which  Isaac  Stephenson  received  65, 
and  the  presiding  officer  announced  that  “it  appears  from  the  records 
of  the  convention  that  no  person  has  received  a majority  of  the  votes 
cast  for  United  States  Senator.”  Whereupon  the  joint  convention 
dissolved. 

On  no  other  day  until  the  4th  of  March,  1909,  did  anyone  receive  a 
majority  of  the  votes  cast  in  joint  assembly.  On  that  day  (the  4th  of 
March),  upon  the  twenty-fourth  ballot  of  the  joint  assembly  there 
were  123  votes  cast  of  which  Isaac  Stephenson  received  63.  Where- 
upon the  chairman  of  the  joint  assembly  announced  the  election  of 
Isaac  Stephenson,  and  the  joint  assembly  adjourned  sine  die. 

At  each  session  of  the  joint  assembly  the  question  as  to  whether  any 
vote  in  the  joint  assembly  was  necessary  was  raised  by  protest 
against  such  proceedings  upon  the  grounds  that,  Mr.  Stephenson 


XVI 


SENATOR  FROM  WISCONSIN. 


having  received  a majority  of  the  votes  cast  in  each  house  voting 
separately,  no  other  or  further  duty  remained  for  the  joint  assembly 
than  that  of  reading  the  journals  of  the  two  houses  of  the  proceedings 
in  each  relative  to  the  election  of  a United  States  Senator  on  the  day 
previous.  These  journals  were  read  and  the  fact  disclosed  that  in 
each  house  Mr.  Stephenson  had  received  a majority  of  all  the  votes 
cast.  It  remained  only  that  “he  shall  be  declared  duly  elected 
Senator.”  The  statute  does  not  prescribe  who  shall  declare  the 
person  receiving  a majority  of  the  votes  in  each  house  elected  Senator, 
nor  in  what  form  such  declaration  shall  be  made. 

From  the  reading  of  the  law  it  would  seem  that  when  the  two 
Houses  voting  separately  each  gave  Mr.  Stephenson  a clear  majority 
and  having  met  in  joint  session  on  the  day  following  the  vote  in  the 
separate  houses,  the  journal  of  the  proceedings  of  the  two  houses 
voting  separately  being  read  in  joint  convention  and  the  result 
announced,  the  election  was  completed;  the  mere  failure  to  declare 
him  elected  could  not  in  any  way  defeat  the  will  of  the  two  houses  as 
expressed  in  their  separate  votes. 

The  failure  to  make  a specific  declaration  of  his  election  was  not 
vital.  The  action  of  the  governor  and  secretary  of  state  in  deferring 
the  certificate  of  his  election  or  in  misstating  the  time  of  his  election 
could  not  affect  that  election. 

If  we  are  correct  in  assuming  that  the  election  of  Isaac  Stephenson 
was  accomplished  when  the  record  of  the  two  houses  was  read  and 
announced  in  the  joint  assembly,  then  the  failure  or  delay  of  the 
executive  officers  to  perform  their  duty  could  in  no  way  defeat  his 
election  as  of  the  date  of  the  meeting  of  the  first  joint  assembly. 

ACTS  OF  BRIBERY  CHARGED. 

Charges  of  bribery  in  the  interest  of  Mr.  Stephenson’s  election  had 
been  freely  made  both  before  the  subcommittee  and  before  the  legisla- 
tive investigating  committee.  Not  one  of  these  charges  have  been 
sustained  by  the  testimony. 

The  word  “bribery”  has  been  applied  to  many  acts  that  do  not 
constitute  bribery. 

The  procurement  of  advertising  space  or  editorial  comment  in  the 
newspapers  upon  the  payment  of  money  by  or  on  behalf  of  a candi- 
date for  office  can  not  under  any  construction  of  law  be  held  to  be 
bribery. 

The  procurement  of  the  services  of  men  to  speak  either  publicly 
or  personally  on  behalf  of  any  candidate,  or  to  canvass  the  electorate 
on  his  behalf,  is  not  bribery  under  any  reasonable  construction  of  the 
law. 

If  the  testimony  were  true  that  money  was  offered  to  Assembly- 
man  Leuch  to  go  upon  the  floor  and  vote  for  the  purpose  of  effecting 
a quorum  it  would  not  constitute  bribery.  It  was  the  duty  of  such 
member  to  go  upon  the  floor  and  vote. 

The  charge  of  an  attempt  to  bribe  II.  P.  Pestalozzi  utterly*  failed 
of  proof  before  your  committee. 

The  charge  of  unlawful  dealings  with  the  Milwaukee  Free  Press 
utterly  failed  of  proof.  It  was  conceded  that  Mr.  Stephenson  owned 
a controlling  interest  in  that  paper  and  he  was  certainly  entitled  to 
have  its  support  and  to  sustain  his  interest  in  it. 


SENATOR  FROM  WISCONSIN. 


XVII 


BRIBERY. 

The  law  of  Wisconsin  relative1  to  bribery  is  as  follows: 

Sec.  39.  Bribery  of  signers  to  petitions , etc. — 1.  Any  person  who  shall  offer,  or  with 
knowledge  of  the  same  permit  any  person  to  offer  for  his  benefit,  any  bribe  to  a voter 
to  induce  him  to  sign  any  * * * nomination  paper  * * * and  any  person 
who  shall  accept  any  such  bribe  or  promise  of  gain  of  any  kind  in  the  nature  of  a bribe 
as  consideration  for  signing  the  same,  whether  such  bribe  or  promise  of  gain  in  the 
nature  of  a bribe  be  offered  or  accepted  before  or  after  such  signing,  or  any  candidate 
who  shall  knowingly  cause  a nomination  paper,  or  papers,  to  be  signed  in  his  behalf 
by  more  than  the  maximum  number  of  qualified  electors  provided  for  his  district  by 
subdivision  5 of  section  11-5  of  this  act,  shall  be  guilty  of  a misdemeanor  and  upon 
trial  and  conviction  thereof  be  punished  by  fine  of  not  less  than  $25  nor  more  than 
$500  or  by  imprisonment  in  the  county  jail  of  not  less  than  10  days  or  more  than  6 
months,  or  by  both  such  fine  and  imprisonment. 

Penalties:  Caucus  and  general  election  laws  applicable. — 2.  Any  act  declared  an 
offense  by  the  general  laws  of  this  State  concerning  caucuses  and  elections  shall  also, 
in  like  case,  be  an  offense  in  primaries  and  shall  be  punished  in  the  same  form  and 
manner  as  therein  provided,  and  all  the  penalties  and  provisions  of  the  law  as  to 
such  caucuses  and  elections,  except  as  herein  otherwise  provided,  shall  apply  in 
such  case  with  equal  force  and  to  the  same  extent  as  though  fully  set  forth  in  this  act. 

Sec.  40.  General  election  laws  applicable  (secs.  11-25). — The  provisions  of  the  statutes 
now  in  force  in  relation  to  the  holding  of  elections,  the  solicitation  of  voters  at  the  polls, 
the  challenging  of  voters,  the  manner  of  conducting  elections,  of  counting  the  ballots 
and  making  return  thereof,  and  all  other  kindred  subjects,  shall  apply  to  all  primaries 
in  so  far  as" they  are  consistent  with  this  act,  the  intent  of  this  act  being  to  place  the 
primary  upder  the  regulation  and  protection  of  the  laws  now^in  force  as  to  elections. 

Sec.  263.  Bribery  at  elections  (sec.  4478).— The  following  persons  shall  be  deemed 
guilty  of  bribery  at  elections: 

1.  Every  person  who  shall,  directly  or  indirectly,  by  himself  or  by  any  other  person 
on  his  behalf,  give,  lend,  or  agree  to  give,  or  lend,  or  offer,  promise  or  promise  to 
procure  or  endeavor  to  procure  any  money  or  valuable  consideration,  to  or  for  any 
voter,  to  or  for  any  person  on  hehalf  of  any  voter,  or  to  or  for  any  other  person  in  order 
to  induce  any  voter  to  vote  or  refrain  from  voting,  or  do  any  such  act  as  aforesaid, 
corruptly,  on  account  of  such  voter  having  voted  or  refrained  from  voting  at  any  elec- 
tion. 

2.  Every  person  who  shall,  directly  or  indirectly,  by  himself  or  by  any  other  person 
on  his  behalf,  give  or  procure,  or  agree  to  give  or  procure,  or  offer,  promise,  or  endeavor 
to  procure  any  office,  place  of  employment,  public  or  private,  to  or  for  any  voter,  or 
to  or  for  any  person  on  behalf  of  any  voter,  or  to  or  for  any  other  person  in  order  to 
induce  such  voter  to  vote  or  refrain  from  voting,  or  do  any  such  act  as  aforesaid,  cor- 
ruptly, on  account  of  any  voter  having  voted  or  refrained  from  voting  at  any  election.' 

3.  Every  person  who  shall,  directly  or  indirectly,  by  himself  or  by  any  other  person 
on  his  behalf,  make  any  such  gift,  loan,  offer,  promise,  procurement,  or  agreement  as 
aforesaid  to  or  for  any  person  in  order  to  induce  such  person  to  procure  or  endeavor  to 
procure  the  election  of  any  person  to  a public  office,  or  the  vote  of  any  voter  at  any 
election. 

4.  Every  person  who  shall,  upon  or  in  consequence  of  any  such  gift,  loan,  offer, 
promise,  procurement,  or  agreement,  procure,  or  engage,  promise  or  endeavor  to 
procure  the  election  of  any  person  to  a public  office  or  the  vote  of  any  voter  at  any 
election. 

5.  Every  person  who  shall  advance  or  pay  or  cause  to  be  paid  any  money  to  or  for 
the  use  of  any  other  person  with  the  intent  that  such  money  or  any  part  thereof  shall 
be  expended  in  bribery  at  any  election,  or  who  shall  knowingly  pay  or  cause  to  be 
paid  any  money  wholly  or  in  part  expended  in  bribery  at  any  election. 

Penalty.— And  any  person  so  offending  shall  be  punished  by  imprisonment  in  the 
State  prison  for  a term  of  not  less  than  six  months  nor  more  than  two  years:  Provided , 
That  the  foregoing  shall  not  be  construed  to  extend  to  any  money  paid  or  agreed  to  be 
paid  for  or  on  account  of  any  legal  expenses  authorized  by  law  and  bona  fide  incurred 
at  or  concerning  any  election. 

Sec.  264  (sec.  4478a).  The  following  persons  shall  also  be  deemed  guilty  of  bribery 
at  elections: 


* Reference  is  to  “Election  Laws  of  Wisconsin,”  published  by  .1.  A.  Frear,  secretary  of  state,  1908. 


15235—12 2 


XVIII 


SENATOR  FROM  WISCONSIN. 


1.  Every  voter  who  shall,  before  or  during  any  election,  directly  or  indirectly,  by 
himself  or  by  any  other  person  on  his  behalf,  receive,  agree,  or  contract  for  any  money 
gift,  loan,  or  valuable  consideration,  office,  place  of  employment,  public  or  private, 
for  himself  or  for  any  other  person  for  voting  or  agreeing  to  vote  or  for  refraining  or 
agreeing  to  refrain  from  voting  at  any  election. 

2.  Every  person  who  shall,  after  any  election,  directly  or  indirectly,  by  himself  or 
by  any  other  person  in  his  behalf,  receive  any  money  or  valuable  consideration  on 
account  of  any  person  having  voted  or  refrained  from  voting  or  having  induced  any 
other  person  to  vote  or  refrain  from  voting  at  any  election;  and  any  voter  or  other  person 
60  offending  shall  be  punished  by  imprisonment  in  the  county  jail  not  less  than  one 
month  nor  more  than  one  year. 

Sec.  266.  Office  obtained  by  bribery , vacant  (sec.  4481). — Any  person  who  shall  obtain 
any  office  or  shall  have  been  elected  to  any  office  at  any  election,  at  which  election 
he  shall  have  induced  or  procured  any  elector  to  vote  for  him  for  such  office  by  bribery, 
shall  be  disqualified  from  holding  said  office,  and  he  shall  be  ousted  therefrom,  and 
said  office  shall  be  deemed  and  held  vacant,  to  be  filled  by  election  or  appointment 
as  other  vacancies,  according  to  law. 

Sec.  294.  Bribery  at  caucas  or  convention  (sec.  4479). — Any  person  being,  or  seeking 
to  be,  a candidate  for  any  office  at  any  election  authorized  by  law  who  shall  give,  or 
promise  to  give,  to  any  elector  or  other  person  any  money  or  thing  of  value  or  any 
pecuniary  advantage  or  benefit  for  the  purpose  of  inducing  or  influencing  such  elector 
or  other  person  to  vote  for  him  in  any  convention  or  meeting  of  the  people  held  for 
the  purpose  of  nominating  any  person  or  persons  to  be  voted  for  at  any  such  election 
to  make  him  the  nominee  of  any  such  convention  or  meeting  and  the  candidate  to  be 
voted  for  for  any  office  at  such  election,  or  who  shall  so  give  or  promise  any  such  thing 
to  any  such  person  for  the  purpose  of  inducing  or  influencing  any  person  to  sign  any 
nomination  paper  which  seeks  to  have  him  nominated  as  a candidate  for  any  office  to 
be  so  voted  for;  and  any  such  elector  or  other  person  who  shall  ask,  solicit,  or  receive 
any  money  or  thing  of  value  or  any  pecuniary  advantage  or  benefit  from  such  candi- 
date as  a consideration  or  inducement  for  his  vote  at  any  such  convention  or  meeting 
of  the  people,  or  his  signature  to  any  such  paper,  shall  be  punished  by  imprisonment 
in  the  county  jail  not  more  than  one  year  or  by  fine  not  exceeding  $500. 

Sec.  296.  Bribery  in  connection  with  caucus  (sec.  4542b). — Every  person  who,  by 
bribery  or  corrupt  or  unlawful  means,  prevents  or  attempts  to  prevent  any  voter  from 
attending  or  voting  at  any  preliminary  meeting  or  caucus  mentioned  in  sections  11a 
to  Hi,  or  who  shall  give  or  offer  to  give  any  valuable  thing  or  bribe  to  any  officer, 
inspector,  or  delegate  whose  office  is  therein  created,  or  who  shall  give  or  offer  to  give 
any  valuable  thing  or  bribe  to  an  elector  as  a consideration  for  some  act  to  be  done  in 
relation  to  such  preliminary  meeting,  caucus,  or  convention,  or  who  shall  interfere 
with  or  in  any  manner  disturb  any  preliminary  meeting,  caucus,  or  convention  held 
under  said  provisions  shall  be  punished  as  provided  in  section  4542a. 

Sec.  298.  Bribery  of  voter;  disturbance  at  caucus  or  convention. — Every  person  who, 
by  bribery  or  corrupt  or  unlawful  means,  prevents  or  attempts  to  prevent  any  voter 
from  attending  or  voting  at  any  caucus  mentioned  in  this  act,  or  who  shall  give  or  offer 
to  give  any  valuable  thing  or  bribe  to  any  officer,  inspector,  or  delegate  whose  office  is 
created  by  this  act,  or  who  shall  give  or  offer  to  give  any  valuable  thing  or  bribe  to  any 
elector  as  a consideration  for  some  act  to  be  done  in  relation  to  such  caucus  or  conven- 
tion, or  who  shall  interfere  with  or  in  any  manner  disturb  any  caucus  or  convention 
held  under  the  provisions  of  this  act  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  a misdemeanor  and 
upon  conviction  thereof  shall  be  punished  in  the  manner  hereinafter  provided.  (Ch. 
341,  1899.) 

CHARGES  OF  CORRUPTION  IN  THE  LEGISLATURE. 

On  page  2271  of  the  Report  of  the  State  Senate  Investigating  Com- 
mittee an  attempt  is  made  to  summarize  the  corruption  alleged  to 
exist  in  connection  with  the  election  by  the  legislature,  and  the  first 
objection  is  that  Mr.  Stephenson  was  elected  by  the  legislature  by  a 
majority  of  three  votes  while  the  charges  of  corruption  against  him 
were  being  investigated  by  the  legislature.  This  charge  seems  hardly 
worthy  of  serious  consideration.  It  was  admitted  that  he  was 
elected  by  the  legislature,  and  there  is  no  law  or  rule  that  would 
invalidate  the  election  because  of  the  pendency  of  these  charges. 
That  was  a matter  for  the  members  of  the  legislature  to  consider  in 
determining  whether  or  not  they  would  vote  for  him. 


SENATOR  FROM  WISCONSIN. 


XIX 


ABSENT  MEMBERS  ON  MARCH  4. 

The  next  charge  is  that  the  election  of  Mr.  Stephenson  was  made 
possible  by  three  members,  who,  it  is  claimed,  at  the  instigation  of 
Mr.  Stephenson’s  managers  and  agents,  absented  themselves  from 
the  joint  assembly  when  it  became  known  that  their  presence  would 
prevent  the  election  of  Mr.  Stephenson,  and  it  was  charged  that  the 
absence  of  these  three  members  had  been  procured  by  fraudulent  or 
wrongful  means  by  or  on  behalf  of  Mr.  Stephenson.  It  was  the  only 
charge  of  corruption  in  connection  with  the  election  of  Mr.  Stephen- 
son by  the  legislature  worthy  of  consideration. 

The  result  of  the  vote  on  March  4 consequent  upon  the  absence  of 
these  three  members  is  made  plain  in  the  testimony  of  Richard  J. 
White  (p.  1324)  and  by  an  examination  of  the  journal  of  the  joint 
assembly  on  March  4.  On  that  day  the  total  number  of  votes  cast 
was  123,  of  which  Isaac  Stephenson  received  63. 

The  members  of  the  legislature  whose  absence  from  the  chamber 
on  March  4 was  questioned  were  Messrs.  Farrell,  Ramsey,  and 
Towne. 

On  March  3 Farrell  voted  for  Neal  Brown,  Ramsey  voted  for 
George  W.  Peck,  and  Towne  did  not  vote  at  all. 

On  March  2 Farrell  and  Ramsey  voted  for  Neal  Brown,  and  Towne 
voted  for  Lucknow. 

On  March  1 neither  Farrell,  Ramsey,  nor  Towne  voted  at  all. 

On  February  27  Ramsey  voted  for  Wall,  Farrell  voted  for  Neal 
Brown,  and  Towne  did  not  vote  at  all. 

On  February  26  Towne  voted  for  Thomas  A.  Stewart;  neither 
Farrell  nor  Ramsey  seem  to  have  voted. 

These  instances  are  cited  to  show  that  on  the  face  of  the  trans- 
action there  was  nothing  unusual  in  the  absence  of  either  of  the 
three  absentees  on  March  4,  and  nothing  in  their  absence  to  raise 
the  presumption  of  corruption  therein. 

It  is  true  that  had  these  three  members  been  present  and  voted 
the  total  vote  would  have  been  126,  and  the  63  votes  received  by 
Mr.  Stephenson  would  not  have  elected,  but  the  evidence  clearly 
establishes  the  fact  that  Mr.  Ramsey,  one  of  the  three  absentees, 
was  paired  with  Mr.  Fenelon  and  that  such  pairs  had  been  univer- 
sally recognized,  so  that  Mr.  Ramsey  can  not  be  said  to  have  been 
absent  for  any  corrupt  purpose,  nor  would  his  absence  from  the 
joint  assembly  affect  the  result  of  the  vote.  Being  paired,  he  could 
not  have  voted.  In  that  event,  had  Farrell  and  Towne  been  pres- 
ent the  total  vote  would  have  been  125,  of  which  Mr.  Stephenson 
received  63.  Sixty-three  would  have  been  a majority  and  would 
have  elected  Mr.  Stephenson,  so  that  the  absence  of  Farrell  and 
Towne  did  not  affect  the  result  of  the  election,  and  it  can  not  there- 
fore be  said  that  the  election  was  brought  about  through  corrupt 
practices  so  far  as  the  absence  of  Farrell  and  Towne  was  concerned. 

It  is  not  charged  that  any  other  member  who  voted  for  Mr.  Ste- 
phenson did  so  either  from  corrupt  motives  or  actions  on  his  own  part 
or  that  he  was  procured  to  do  so  by  any  corrupt  action  on  the  part  of 
any  person  in  the  interest  of  Mr.  Stephenson. 

The  votes  cast  for  Mr.  Stephenson  were  those  that  had  been  con- 
sistently supporting  him  throughout  the  contest.  There  was  no 
change  in  his  favor  upon  which  any  presumption  of  corruption  could 
be  based. 


XX 


SENATOR  FROM  WISCONSIN. 


Does  the  evidence  show  or  tend  to  show  that  there  were  corrupt 
measures  or  unlawful  methods  adopted  to  secure  the  absence  of 
either  Farrell  or  Towne  ? 

There  has  been  much  sensational  testimonyintroduced  before  the  sub- 
committee, which  was  heard  largely  because  such  testimony  had  been 
received  by  the  legislative  investigating  committee  for  the  purpose 
of  showing  bribery  or  corrupt  methods  in  connection  with  the  absence 
of  Ramsey,  Farrell,  and  Towne.  It  was  not  shown  that  any  money 
had  been  traced  to  either  of  these  men  from  any  source  in  connection 
with  the  matter;  but  it  was  claimed  that  a fund  had  been  raised  to 
be  used  for  corrupt  purposes,  and  that,  on  the  assumption  that  such 
fund  had  been  raised,  it  must  at  least  in  part  have  been  used  to  bring 
about  the  absence  of  these  three  members  of  the  legislature. 

It  was  claimed  that  Senator  Stephenson  had  entered  into  an 
arrangement  with  Edward  Hines  and  R.  J.  Shields  for  using  money 
for  corrupt  purposes  to  be  furnished  by  Mr.  Stephenson,  and  much 
hearsay  testimony  was  introduced  for  the  purpose  of  establishing 
such  fact.  There  can  be  no  question  but  what  the  effort  to  establish 
any  such. charge  utterly  failed.  There  was  no  evidence  upon  which 
any  reasonable  conclusion  that  such  corruption  fund  had  been  either 
raised  or  used  could  be  based. 

. The  charge  as  to  a meeting  between  the  three  absentees  or  some  of 
them  and  Mr.  Regan  and  Mr.  Puelicher  at  the  Plankington  House  in 
Milwaukee  centered  about  the  testimony  taken  before  the  legislative 
investigating  committee  of  a witness,  Frank  T.  Wagner,  who  was 
utterly  discredited  both  at  the  legislative  investigation  and  by 
testimony  introduced  before  the  subcommittee.  It  was  shown  that 
he  is  now  under  sentence  in  the  penitentiary  for  perjury  for  having 
testified  to  seeing  these  men  in  the  Plankington  Hotel  and  hearing 
a conversation  upon  which  the  charge  that  they  had  entered  into  a 
corrupt  bargain  at  that  time  rested.  All  the  testimony  in  regard  to 
such  a transaction  fell  to  the  ground,  and  was  so  manifestly  "without 
foundation  as  to  call  for  no  consideration  except  its  dismissal. 

CHARGE  OF  BRIBERY  OF  OTHER  MEMBERS. 

There  seems  to  have  been  some  remark  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Damo- 
chowski  and  Mr.  Lyons  as  to  the  tender  of  money  being  made  them 
in  connection  with  this  election,  but  on  the  witness  stand  they  both 
stated  that  whatever  statements  they  made  in  that  regard  were  made 
in  jest  and  that  there  was  no  foundation  in  truth  for  them. 

Some  sensational  testimony  was  introduced  in  regard  to  state- 
ments made  by  Mr.  R.  J.  Shields  as  to  having  received  money  or 
handled  money  in  the  interest  of  Mr.  Stephenson  in  a corrupt  manner 
in  dealing  with  members  of  the  legislature,  and  members  of  the 
senate  legislative  investigating  committee  had  gone  to  the  office  of 
a certain  attorney  in  Chicago  and  there  met  Mr.  Wirt  Cook  of  Duluth, 
Minn.,  who  recited  to  them  some  hearsay  statements  as  to  conversa- 
tions and  acts  which  were  fully  investigated  by  the  subcommittee  and 
found  to  be  entirely  without  foundation. 

We  may  therefore  safely  dismiss  the  charges  of  corruption  in  con- 
nection with  the  action  of  the  legislature  in  electing  Mr.  Stephenson, 
, whether  such  election  is  held  to  have  been  on  January  26  or  on  March 
4,  1909. 


SENATOR  FROM  WISCONSIN. 


XXI 


GENERAL  CAMPAIGN  AND  ELECTION. 

It  appears  that  Mr.  Stephenson  contributed  $2,000  to  the  Repub- 
lican State  central  committee.  Against  this  contribution  no  legiti- 
mate objection  can  be  urged.  It  was  not  in  violation  of  any  law 
nor  for  other  than  general  election  purposes. 

It  was  also  shown  by  testimony  that  Mr.  Stephenson  before  the 
primary  gave  money  to  C.  C.  Wellensgard,  Levi  H.  Bancroft,  and 
Thomas  Reynolds,  who  were  candidates  for  the  legislature.  These 
men  testified  that  they  used  the  money  in  the  interest  of  Mr.  Stephen- 
son at  the  direct  primaries.  If  we  eliminate  Mr.  Stephenson  from 
the  direct  primaries  the  contributions  which  he  made  to  these  candi- 
dates for  nomination  and  election  to  the  legislature  would  be  in  viola- 
tion of  no  law.  It  appears  from  the  testimony  that  they  w re  at 
the  time  voluntary  and  ardent  supporters  of  Mr.  Stephenson  regard- 
less of  any  money  which  they  may  have  received  or  which  may  have 
been  placed  in  their  hands  by  him  for  any  purpose. 

There  is  not  sufficient  evidence  upon  which  to  base  a charge  of 
bribery  or  any  other  charge  that  would  affect  the  validity  of  the 
election  of  Mr.  Stephenson  in  either  of  these  cases. 

DIRECT  PRIMARY. 

The  subcommittee,  in  determining  the  scope  of  the  investigation,  was 
confronted  with  the  question  as  to  how  far,  if  at  all,  the  charges 
affecting  the  candidacy  of  Isaac,  Stephenson  before  the  direct  primary 
should  be  considered. 

The  State  legislative  committee  had  directed  its  attention  prin- 
cipally to  the  direct  primary  and  the  conduct  of  the  candidates 
therein. 

It  was  doubtless  competent  for  the  legislature  to  provide  for  direct 
primaries  for  the  nomination  of  candidates  for  the  legislature  and  to 
place  legal  restrictions  about  them  to  secure  the  integrity  of  their 
elections,  but,  as  herein  elsewhere  more  fully  stated,  it  is  not  compe- 
tent for  the  legislature  to  provide  for  the  nomination  of  candidates 
for  the  United  States  Senate  at  direct  primaries. 

The  status  of  Mr.  Stephenson  at  such  primaries  is  not  comparable 
to  that  of  candidates  for  the  legislature  or  for  any  State  office. 

The  language  of  the  resolution  under  which  the  subcommittee  acted 
directs  it  to  report  whether  “in  the  election  of  Isaac  Stephenson  there 
were  used  or  employed  corrupt  methods  or  practices,”  and  the  lan- 
guage of  the  last  paragraph  of  section  1 of  the  resolution,  bringing  the 
matter  to  the  attention  of  the  United  States  Senate,  strictly  con- 
strued, refers  only  to  the  election. 

When  we  speak  of  the  election  of  a United  States  Senator  under 
existing  constitutional  and  legislative  provisions  we  contemplate  only 
the  election  by  the  legislature  of  the  State.  There  is  as  yet  no  recog- 
nition to  be  given  extra-legislative  proceedings  in  the  nature  of  what 
is  termed  “direct  primaries,”  no  such  method  of  selection  being 
recognized  by  any  law  of  the  United  States. 

The  subcommittee  has,  however,  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  Sen- 
ate in  the  record  of  its  proceedings  all  the  facts  obtainable  relating  to 
the  conduct  of  the  primary.  Should  it  be  the  judgment  of  the  Senate 
that  such  facts  are  irrelevant,  then  the  consideration  would  be  limited 


XXII 


SENATOR  FROM  WISCONSIN. 


to  matters  concerning  the  election  of  members  of  the  legislature, 
and  the  acts  and  conduct  of  members  of  the  legislature  and  candi- 
dates in  relation  to  the  election  of  a Senator  by  the  legislature. 

The  direct  primary,  legally  speaking,  is  no  part  of  an  election  of  a 
United  States  Senator.  The  duty  of  an  election  of  a Senator  does  not 
under  any  law  rest  with  the  electorate,  but  is  vested  by  the  Consti- 
tution solely  in  the  legislature.  The  legislature  electing  had  no  exist- 
ence until  after  the  general  election.  The  nomination  of  such  mem- 
bers at  the  primary  vested  in  the  nominees  not  even  an  inchoate 
status.  A State  may  give  force  and  effect  to  a direct  primary  law 
providing  for  the  nomination  of  candidates  for  State  or  minor  offices 
to  be  elected  under  the  laws  of  the  State,  but  the  legislature  has  no 
power  to  regulate  in  any  manner  or  to  any  extent  the  election  of  a 
United  States  Senator,  and  there  is  no  such  proceeding  known  under 
any  law  of  the  United  States  as  the  nomination  of  a candidate  for  the 
United  States  Senate. 

The  question  arises,  Can  any  act  in  contravention  of  a law  that 
is  absolutely  void  work  a forfeiture  of  any  right  to  an  office  vested 
through  the  compliance  with  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  United 
States?  Did  the  proceedings  preceding  and  at  the  direct  primary 
relative  to  a choice  for  United  States  Senator  amount  to  more  than  a 
‘‘straw  vote”? 

The  mere  fact  that  the  Legislature  of  Wisconsin  had  undertaken 
to  include  a senatorial  selection  within  the  provisions  of  its  direct- 
primary law,  in  the  absence  of  power  to  so  legislate,  could  not  affect 
the  validity  of  an  election  by  the  legislature  made  pursuant  to  national 
law;  this  must  be  obvious  from  the  fact  that  the  legislature  was  not 
in  duty  bound  to  elect  anyone  or  consider  anyone  a candidate  for 
election  because  of  the  action  of  the  direct  primary.  It  might  have 
ignored  such  action  altogether,  and  its  having  done  so  would  not  in 
any  way  affect  the  validity  of  its  action. 

There  is  no  law  of  the  United  States  recognizing  such  a thing  as 
“candidacy”  for  the  United  States  Senate,  and  no  legal  status  is 
given  to  the  frame  of  mind  constituting  an  intention  on  the  part  of  a 
man  or  his  friends  that  he  become  a candidate  before  the  legislature. 

The  question  also  arises  as  to  the  period  when  a man  can  be  charged 
with  responsibility^  for  his  acts  so  as  to  affect  the  validity  of  his  sub- 
sequent election  by  the  legislature. 

It  frequently  occurs  that  none  of  the  men  who  are  avowed  candi- 
dates are  chosen.  The  matter  rests  solely  with  the  legislature,  and 
under  existing  laws  one  legislature  can  not  dictate  the  rule  governing 
a subsequent  legislature  in  the  manner  of  its  procedure  relative  to 
matters  resting  entirely  within  its  discretion. 

It  would  be  entirely  within  the  power  of  a legislature,  charged  with 
the  responsibility  of  electing  a United  States  Senator  before  proceed- 
ing to  elect  a Senator,  to  repeal  any  legislation  enacted  by  a previous 
legislature  which  placed  a limit  upon  or  directed  its  action. 

It  seems  from  this  consideration  of  the  question  we  must  conclude 
that  the  direct-primary  proceedings  can  not  be  held  to  affect  the 
validity  of  an  election  by  the  legislature. 


SENATOR  FROM  WISCONSIN. 


XXIII 


FAILURE  TO  FILE  PROPER  EXPENSE  ACCOUNT. 

The  fifteenth  specific  charge  is  based  upon  the  failure  or  neglect  of 
Isaac  Stephenson  to  make  and  file  an  expense  account  under  the  laws 
of  Wisconsin.  This  requirement  is  under  section  270  of  the  election 
laws  which  provides  that  every  person  who  shall  be  a candidate 
before  any  convention  or  at  any  primary  or  election  to  fill  an  office 
for  which  a nomination  paper  or  certificate  of  nomination  may  be 
filed,  shall,  within  thirty  days  after  the  election  held  to  fill  such 
office,  make  out  and  file  with  the  officer  empowered  by  law  to  issue 
the  certificate  of  election  to  such  office  or  place,  a statement  in  writ- 
ing, etc.,  and  that  any  person  failing  to  comply  with  this  section 
shall  be  punished  by  fine  of  not  less  than  $25  or  more  than  $500. 
This  being  a penal  statute,  the  validity  of  an  election  could  not  be 
affected  by  the  failure  to  comply  with  it. 

GENERAL  COMMENT. 

The  rule  adopted  by  the  several  candidates  for  said  office  seems  to 
have  been  unanimous  in  regard  to  filing  expense  accounts. 

Senator  Stephenson’s  expense  account  was  $107,793.05. 

S.  A.  Cook’s  expense  account  was  $42,293.29. 

William  H.  Hatton’s  expense  account  was  $26,413. 

Francis  E.  McGovern’s  expenditure  was  $11,063.88. 

Neal  Brown’s  expense  account  was  $1,075.87. 

The  total  expenditures  of  all  candidates  for  the  office  of  United 
States  Senator  before  the  primary  election  was  about  $225,000. 

Less  than  one-half  of  the  voters  at  the  general  election  voted  at  the 
primary.  The  total  vote  cast  in  the  Republican  primaries  for  the 
nomination  of  United  States  Senator  was  182,915,  being  81  per  cent 
of  the  total  primary  vote  cast  by  all  political  parties  for  Senator. 

The  total  vote  cast  in  the  Democratic  Party  for  United  States 
Senator  was  37,479,  or  about  17  per  cent  of  the  total  primary  vote 
of  all  parties  cast  for  Senator,  and  about  23  per  cent  of  the  total 
Democratic  vote  cast  for  governor  at  the  general  election. 

Mr.  Stephenson,  a Republican  candidate,  received  56,909  votes. 

Mr.  Cook,  a Republican  candidate,  received  47,825  votes. 

Mr.  McGovern,  a Republican  candidate,  received  42,631  votes. 

Mr.  Hatton,  a Republican  candidate,  received  35,552  votes. 

Mr.  Brown,  a Democratic  candidate,  received  24,937  votes. 

Mr.  Hoyt,  a Democratic  candidate,  received  12,227  votes. 

Mr.  Rummel,  Social  Democratic  candidate,  received  4,047  votes. 

On  the  basis  of  the  total  vote  received  by  each  senatorial  candidate 
and  the  total  cost  of  each  candidate’s  campaign: 

Mr.  Stephenson  »pent  $1.89  for  every  vote  cast  for  him. 

Mr.  Cook  spent  $0.88  for  every  vote  cast  for  him. 

Mr.  Hatton  spent  $0.85  for  every  vote  cast  for  him. 

Mr.  McGovern  spent  $0.26  for  every  vote  cast  for  him. 

Mr.  Brown  spent  $0.42  for  every  vote  cast  for  him. 

Mr.  Hoyt  spent  $0.16  for  every  vote  cast  for  him. 

And  there  was  spent  in  behalf  of  Mr.  Rummel,  the  Socialist  Demo- 
cratic candidate,  about  $1  per  vote. 


XXIV 


SENATOR  FROM  WISCONSIN. 


Were  it  possible  to  hold  that  Mr.  Stephenson  was  subject  to  the 
same  restrictions  under  the  laws  of  Wisconsin  as  a candidate  for  a 
State  office,  we  would  feel  compelled  to  enter  more  fully  upon  the 
nature  and  character  of  the  expenditures  made  by  him  and  on  his 
behalf  during  the  primary  campaign. 

The  amount  of  money  expended  by  Mr.  Stephenson,  Mr.  Cook, 
Mr.  Hatton,  and  Mr.  McGovern  in  the  primary  campaign  was  so 
extravagant  and  the  expenditures  made  by  and  on  behalf  of  these 
gentlemen  were  made  with  such  reckless  disregard  of  propriety  as  to 
justify  the  sharpest  criticism.  Such  expenditures  were  in  violation 
of  the  fundamental  principles  underlying  our  system  of  Government, 
which  contemplated  the  selection  of  candidates  by  the  electors  and 
not  the  selection  of  the  electors  by  the  candidate. 

Regardless  of  any  statute  requiring  that  strict  accounts  be  kept  of 
money  expended  by  and  on  behalf  of  candidates,  a candidate  and 
every  man  representing  him  should  know  that  public  opinion  would 
expect  the  parties  to  place  and  maintain  themselves  in  a position  so 
that  if  any  of  their  acts  were  questioned  they  could  justify  such  acts 
.to  the  extent  of  giving  every  detail  in  regard  thereto. 

While  I do  not  believe  that  the  law  of  Wisconsin  could  constitute 
any  man  a candidate  or  place  him  in  the  position  of  and  under  the 
responsibilities  of  a candidate  for  an  office  over  which  the  State  had 
no  control  and  which  was  not  to  be  filled  under  any  law  of  the  State, 
yet  I feel  impelled  to  criticize  the  acts  of  those  in  charge  of  the  ex- 
penditure of  the  money  of  men  who  are  called  candidates  for  the 
Senate,  and  especially  of  Mr.  Stephenson,  in  the  irresponsible  and 
reckless  manner  in  which  they  disbursed  the  money  furnished  them 
by  Mr.  Stephenson  during  the  period  of  the  primary  campaign. 

The  failure  to  keep  detailed  accounts,  the  destruction  of  memo- 
randa, the  shifting  of  records  and  papers  concerning  the  campaign 
from  one  place  to  another,  the  adoption  of  mysterious  methods  and 
roundabout  ways  in  regard  to  matters  that  might  just  as  well  have 
been  performed  in  open  daylight  in  the  presence  of  the  people,  would 
go  far  toward  creating  the  impression  that  there  was  some  occasion 
for  Mr.  Stephenson’s  representatives  to  avoid  candor  and  to  obscure 
conditions. 

The  subcommittee  has  gone  carefully  through  all  of  the  letters  and 
correspondence  which  had  been  in  the  hands  of  Mr.  Stephenson  and 
his  managers  and  which  had  been  shifted  from  Milwaukee  to  Marinette 
and  from  Marinette  to  points  in  Michigan,  and  back  again,  under 
most  unusual  and  mysterious  circumstances.  These  letters  are  not 
out  of  the  ordinary  political  correspondence  of  campaign  managers 
and  citizens  whose  votes,  influence,  or  services  are  solicited  in  behalf 
of  a candidate. 

The  letters  transmitting  and  acknowledging  the  receipt  of  money 
have  been  considered  separately  from  those  giving  information  in 
regard  to  political  conditions  and  instructions  in  regard  to  how 
pcditical  work  shall  be  done.  There  is  nothing  in  the  letters  trans- 
mitting or  acknowleding  the  receipt  of  money  that  would  seem  to  add 
anything  to  the  information  given  bv  witnesses  in  explaining  these 
expenditures  so  far  as  they  could  explain  them.  The  subcommittee 
has  not  thought  it  necessary  to  print  this  correspondence,  which  is  in 
evidence  and  might  be  held  to  constitute  a part  of  the  record  of  the 
investigation.  In  our  judgment,  it  would  add  nothing  in  the  way  of 


SENATOR  FROM  WISCONSIN. 


XXV 


assistance  to  the  committee  in  ascertaining  the  facts  necessary  and 
proper  to  be  considered  in  connection  with  the  investigation. 

Were  a candidate  for  a State  office  in  Wisconsin  to  conduct  a cam- 
paign in  the  manner  in  which  the  campaign  of  Mr.  Stephenson,  and 
of  other  men  who  sought  election  to  the  United  States  Senate,  were 
conducted,  it  would  be  very  difficult  to  justify  such  conduct  under  the 
laws  of  the  State. 

The  joint  senatorial  primary  investigating  committee  in  its  report 
(submitted  Mar.  18,  1910,  but  never  acted  upon),  after  reviewing  the 
testimony,  says: 

Your  committee  believes  that  the  Republican  senatorial  candidates  and  their  man- 
agers did  not  deliberately  plan  to  violate  the  law,  but  in  their  desire  to  win  these  can- 
didates, particularly  Stephenson,  Cook,  and  Hatton,  conducted  their  campaigns  with 
the  idea  of  getting  results,  and  men  were  hired  and  money  spent,  and  State  officials 
and  employees  and  members  of  the  legislature  were  used  without  much  regard  to 
propriety.  All  of  the  Republican  candidates  probably  spent  all  they  could  afford 
and  the  amount  spent  by  the  different  candidates  was  probably  limited  more  by  their 
ability  to  spend  than  their  appreciation  of  the  moral  effect  of  the  expenditure  of  such 
large  sums  of  money  to  secure  the  nomination. 

This  committee  evidently  looked  upon  the  result  of  the  direct 
primary  as  shown  by  the  vote  cast  therein  for  each  of  the  men  who 
sought  election  to  the  United  States  Senate  as  constituting  a legal 
nomination.  I entertain  a different  view  of  that  matter  and  look 
upon  the  primary  nomination  as  a mere  expression  of  a choice  with- 
out legal  effect,  and  do  not  recognize  such  expression  as  binding  upon 
the  legislature. 

CONCLUSION. 

The  testimony  clearly  shows  that  the  candidates  felt  compelled  to 
spend  more  money  than  they  wanted  to  spend.  The  pressure  upon 
them  from  those  who  were  undertaking  to  manage  their  campaigns 
seems  to  have  been  very  great  and  persistent,  but  I can  find  nothing 
in  the  testimony  nor  in  the  circumstances  or  conditions  surrounding 
the  senatorial  contest  which  resulted  in  the  election  of  Mr.  Stephenson 
that  in  my  judgment  would  justify  the  committee  in  recommending 
that  the  seat  be  vacated,  or  that  he  be  declared  not  legally  elected 
to  the  United  States  Senate;  and  therefore  I recommend  that  the 
Senate  find  that  the  charges  preferred  by  the  Legislature  of  Wiscon- 
sin against  Isaac  Stephenson,  a Senator  of  the  United  States  from  the 
State  of  Wisconsin,  are  not  true,  and  that  Isaac  Stephenson  be  ac- 
quitted of  such  charges. 


W.  B.  Heyburn. 


. • 


. 


■ 


VIEWS  OF  MR.  POMERENE  AND  MR.  SUTHERLAND. 


The  Senate  Committee  on  Privileges  and  Elections  authorized 
and  directed  its  subcommittee  “ to  investigate  certain  charges  pre- 
ferred by  the  Legislature  of  Wisconsin  against  Isaac  Stephenson,  a 
Senator  of  the  United  States  from  the  State  of  Wisconsin,  and  to 
report  whether  ‘ there  was  used  or  employed  corrupt  methods  or 
practices  ’ in  his  election.” 

Without  intending  to  specifically  enumerate  the  charges  made  or 
to  review  in  extenso  the  evidence  in  support  or  in  refutation  thereof, 
it  will  be  sufficient  for  our  purpose  to  classify  the  charges  and  evi- 
dence pertaining  thereto,  as  follows  : 

First,  those  connected  with  the  proceedings  of  the  legislature 
affecting  the  election ; and, 

Second^  those  growing  out  of  the  primary  election. 

PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  LEGISLATURE. 

Each  house,  pursuant  to  the  Federal  statute,  convened  for  the 
election  of  the  United  States  Senator  on  January  26,  1909.  The 
senate  consisted  of  33  members  and  the  assembly  of  100  members. 
Thirty-three  members  of  the  senate  were  present,  and,  before  ballot- 
ing, passed  a resolution  providing  that  “ any  senator  who  does  not 
wish  to  vote  for  a candidate  may  vote  by  answering  6 present.’  ” 
The  roll  was  called,  and  IT  senators  voted  for  candidates,  12  of  whom 
voted  for  Isaac  Stephenson.  The  16  other  senators  simply  voted 
“ present.”  In  other  words,  a quorum,  in  the  language  of  the  statute, 
voted  for  “ one  person  for  Senator  in  Congress,”  and  of  this  quorum 
Isaac  Stephenson  received  a majority.  While  the  vote  “ present  ” 
of  the  16  senators  was  in  accordance  with  the  resolution  passed,  we 
do  not  believe  it  could  either  add  to  or  detract  from  the  requirements 
of  the  statute.  All  members,  no  doubt,  should  have  voted  for  “ some 
person,”  but  16  voted  “ present,”  which  was  equivalent  to  a blank 
vote. 

In  the  language  of  the  majority  of  the  committee  in  Ransom  v. 
Abbott,  “ Senate  Election  Cases,”  page  400,  “ The  vote  must  be  for 
a person , not  a blank — in  fact,  not  for  a myth,  but  for  a person.” 
Without  intending  to  review  the  authorities  it  is  clearly  established 
that  “ votes  knowingly  cast  for  a candidate  who  can  not  possibly  ex- 
ercise the  function  of  the  office  if  elected  are  thrown  away.”  (State 
ex  rel.  Bancroft  v.  Frear,  144  Wise.,  87.)  And,  if  this  be  true,  it  must 
follow  that  a mere  vote  of  “present”  is  nothing  more  than  a vote  for 
“ no  person,”  or,  in  other  words,  a “ blank,”  and  should  not,  therefore, 
be  counted  in  determining  whether  Senator  Stephenson  received  a 
majority  of  the  quorum  of  those  who  voted  for  “one  person  for 
Senator,”  and  thereby  complied  with  the  letter  and  spirit  of  the 
statute. 


XXVII 


XXVIII 


SENATOR  FROM  WISCONSIN. 


For  other  authorities  bearing  upon  this  proposition  see  Sawyer  v. 
Makie,  149  Mass.,  269 ; “ Cooley  on  Constitution  Limitations,”  932, 
Note  1;  Rushville  Gas  Co.  v.  Rushville,  6 L.  R.  A.,  315;  Hopkins  v. 
Duluth,  81  Minn.,  189 ; and  Commonwealth  v.  Cluley,  56  Pa.  St.,  270. 

On  the  same  day  in  the  assembly  82  votes  out  of  the  100  assemblymen 
were  cast,  and  Isaac  Stephenson  received  60  out  of  the  82  votes.  He, 
therefore,  received,  in  our  judgment,  “ a majority  of  the  whole  num- 
ber of  votes  cast  in  each  house.”  The  vote  thus  cast  was  entered 
upon  the  journal  of  the  senate  and  of  the  house.  In  conformity 
with  the  provisions  of  the  Federal  statute,  the  members  of  the  two 
houses  convened  at  12  o’clock  noon,  on  the  day  following,  in  joint 
assembly.  The  journal  of  each  house  was  read,  and  showed  the  re- 
sult of  the  balloting  on  the  previous  day  in  each  house  separately, 
as  hereinbefore  stated.  Having  received  a majority  of  all  of  the 
votes  cast  in  each  house,  it  was  the  duty  of  the  presiding  officer  to 
declare  Senator  Stephenson  duly  elected.  This  wTas  purely  a minis- 
terial dut}^,  and  the  mere  fact  that  he  failed  to  perform  that  duty 
could  not,  under  any  legal  principle,  undo  that  which  was  legally 
done  in  the  separate  and  joint  sessions,  and,  except  for  this  failure  of 
the  presiding  officer,  was  completely  done. 

Instead  of  declaring  the  result,  over  the  protest  of  Senator  Hud- 
nall,  a ballot  was  ordered  and  taken  on  that  day  and  on  each  suc- 
ceeding day  until  and  including  the  4th  day  of  March,  1909.  Prior 
to  March  4 no  one  in  any  of  the  sessions  received  a majority  of  the 
votes  cast.  On  March  4 there  were  123  votes  cast,  of  which  Isaac 
Stephenson  received  63,  and  he  wp^s  then  declared  duly  elected. 

CHARGES  OF  CORRUPTION  IN  ACTION  OF  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY. 

Charges  of  corruption  were  made  to  the  effect  that — 

(«)  Assemblyman  Leuch  was  offered  money  to  go  upon  the  floor 
and  vote  for  the  purpose  of  effecting  a quorum ; 

(b)  That  Assemblyman  Joseph  Damochowski  had  been  offered 
$1,500  for  his  vote;  and 

(c)  That  Assemblymen  Farrel,  Ramsey,  and  Towne  absented  them- 
selves from  the  joint  session  of  the  joint  assembly  on  March  4 through 
corrupt  influences. 

CHARGE  AS  TO  ASSEMBLYMAN  LEUCH. 

He  testified  that  David  H.  Davies,  on  March  1,  1909,  said : “ I 
have  authority  to  tell  you  that  you  can  have  anything  you  want  if 
you  will  stay  in  the  joint  convention  to-day  and  vote.”  Mr.  Davies 
denied  having  any  such  conversation,  and  swore  that  he  neither  au- 
thorized nor  was  in  a position  to  pay  or  promise  Mr.  Leuch  anything 
whatsoever.  Whether  this  conversation  occurred  or  not,  there  is 
no  evidence  connecting  it  directly  with  Senator  Stephenson,  or  even 
indirectly  through  an}^  authorized  agent. 

CHARGE  AS  TO  ASSEMBLYMAN  DAMOCHOWSKI. 

There  was  testimony  to  the  effect  that  Joseph  A.  Damochowski 
had  said  to  several  parties  that  he  had  been  offered  $1,500  for  his  vote 
in  the  assembly.  Pie  admitted  that  he  had  so  stated  upon  several 


SENATOR  FROM  WISCONSIN. 


XXIX 


occasions,  but  in  explanation  thereof  said  that  any  statements  he  made 
to  that  effect  were  in  jest,  and  that  no  such  offer  was  in  fact  made. 
Outside  of  these  admitted  statements,  there  was  no  evidence  either 
that  any  bribe  had  been  offered  to  or  received  by  him,  and  no  evidence 
tending  to  connect  Senator  Stephenson  or  his  managers  with  this 
alleged  attempt  to  bribe. 

MEMBERS  ABSENTING  THEMSELVES  ON  MARCH  4-. 

On  March  4,  123  members  of  the  joint  assembly  were  present  and 
voting.  Sixty-three  members  being  a majority  of  those  voting,  cast 
their  ballots  for  Mr.  Stephenson,  and,  having  for  the  first  time 
received  a majority  of  those  voting  in  the  joint  session,  he  was  duly 
declared  elected. 

We  think  it  is  fair  to  say  that  the  record  shows  that  an  effort 
was  made  by  some  of  the  friends  of  Mr.  Stephenson  either  to  pair 
some  of  those  who  were  opposed  to  Stephenson’s  election  with  those 
who  were  absent  and  favorable  to  his  election,  or  to  secure  the  ab- 
sence of  those  who  were  opposed  to  his  election,  for  the  purpose  of 
reducing  the  number  who  might  be  in  the  joint  session  and  voting, 
and  thereby  enable  those  who  were  favorable  to  his  election  to  have 
a majority  of  the  votes  cast. 

Richard  J.  White,  a friend  of  Mr.  Stephenson,  succeeded  in  pair- 
ing Ramsey,  a Democrat,  who  was  opposed  to  Stephenson’s  election, 
with  Mr.  Fenelon,  who  was  a supporter  of  Mr.  Stephenson  and  be- 
cause of  sickness  was  not  able  to  attend  the  session. 

Towne,  a Democrat,  left  the  chamber  just  before  the  voting  began 
and  was  taken  into  a cloakroom  by  C.  C.  Wayland,  one  of  Mr. 
Stephenson’s  lieutenants,  and  there  held  in  conversation  while  the 
balloting  was  going  on,  and  we  have  no  doubt  that  Wayland  pur- 
posely detained  him,  and  Towne — to  say  the  least — was  indifferent 
about  the  situation. 

Farrel  left  the  assembly  room  before  the  roll  was  called  and. went 
to  a cafe  for  luncheon,  and  did  not  return  until  sometime  after  the 
result  of  the  election  had  been  declared.  The  absence  of  Towme  and 
Farrel  while  the  joint  assembly  was  in  session  is  not  consistent  with 
their  duties  as  assemblymen,  nor  is  their  explanation  satisfactory. 
But,  whatever  the  facts  may  be,  there  is  no  evidence  in  the  record, 
nor  any  obtainable,  so  far  as  the  committee  knows,  which  would 
justify  the  conclusion  that  the  absence  of  any  of  these  three  men 
was  secured  by  corrupt  means.  It  was  necessai^  for  Ramsey,  Farrel, 
and  Towne  all  to  have  been  present  and  voting  in  order  to  prevent 
Stephenson  from  having  a majority  vote  in  the  session.  The  other 
seven  absentees  were  satisfactorily  accounted  for,  and  no  suspicion, 
so  far  as  we  know,  attaches  to  them. 

We  therefore  conclude: 

First,  that  the  election  in  fact  occurred  on  January  26,  1909;  and 

Second,  that  there  is  no  evidence  justifying  the  conclusion  that 
corrupt  “ methods  or  practices”  were  employed  in  securing  the  vote 
on  March  4,  1909,  even  if  it  should  be  held  that  the  election  took 
place  on  March  4. 

PRIMARY  ELECTION  IRREGULARITIES. 

Senator  Stephenson’s  account  filed  with  the  Secretary  of  State 
shows  that  there  was  expended  by  him  and  through  his  committee 


XXX 


SENATOR  FROM  WISCONSIN. 


in  connection  with  the  primary  election  $107,793.05.  He  received 
50,909  votes,  which  cost  him  $1.89  for  every  vote  cast. 

These  expenditures,  for  the  purpose  of  this  report,  may  be  divided 
into  the  following  classes: 

First,  moneys  paid  out  to  persons  employed  by  him  or  in  his  behalf 
to  circulate  nomination  papers  in  order  to  get  the  number  of  signa- 
tures required  by  the  Wisconsin  statutes  before  his  name  could  be 
placed  upon  the  ticket. 

Second,  moneys  paid  out  as  follows : 

(a)  to  neAvspapers  for  political  advertising; 

(b)  for  editorial  support; 

( c ) for  lithographs,  campaign  material,  postage,  telephone,  tele- 
graph, and  express  charges; 

( d ) office  expenses,  including  rent,  clerk  hire,  and  assistants. 

Third,  payment  for  services  of  speakers,  hall  rent,  music,  and  for 

men  devoting  their  time  and  efforts  in  cultivating  Stephenson  senti- 
ment throughout  the  State; 

Fourth,  moneys  expended  for  workers  at  the  polls,  and  for  con- 
veyances and  services  in  getting  out  the  voters ; 

Fifth,  for  drinks  and  cigars; 

Sixth,  money  given  to  C.  C.  Wellensgard,  L.  L.  Bancroft,  and 
Thomas  Reynolds,  who  were  candidates  for  the  legislature,  to  be 
used  by  them  in  the  interest  of  Senator  Stephenson ; 

Seventh,  money  paid  to  the  game  warden,  John  W.  Stone,  for  use 
in  the  Senator’s  campaign; 

Eighth,  $2,000  contributed  by  Senator  Stephenson  to  the  State 
campaign  committee  for  general  election  purposes;  and 

Ninth,  expenses  incurred  during  the  session  of  the  general  assembly 
in  opening  and  maintaining  headquarters  at  Madison  from  the 
beginning  of  the  session  until  after  March  4,  1909,  and  for  hotel 
bills  and  traveling  expenses. 

No  part  of  the  contribution  to  the  general  campaign  committee 
or  the  expenses  incident  to  the  headquarters  during  the  session  of 
the  general  assembly  were  ever  reported  to  the  secretary  of  state. 

The  above  we  believe  to  fairly  represent  the  different  classes  of 
expenditure,  which  were  disclosed  by  the  evidence. 

There  was  no  evidence  before  the  committee  from  which  it  could 
be  fairly  concluded  that  any  of  this  money  was  expended  for  “cor- 
rupt methods  or  practices,”  unless  those  recited  are  to  be  construed 
as  corrupt  under  the  provisions  of  the  Wisconsin  statutes. 

MANAGEMENT  OF  THE  CAMPAIGN. 

The  testimony  showed  that  Senator  Stephenson  had  on  deposit 
in  the  Marshall  & Illsley  Bank  $50,000,  which  was  used  in  the  cam- 
paign, with  other  added  as  required.  His  campaign  was  in  charge 
of  E.  A.  Edmonds,  J.  H.  Puelicher,  and  Rodney  Sackett. 

There  are  71  counties  in  the  State  and  2,200  election  precincts. 
The  method  of  the  managers  was  to  employ  a lieutenant  or  cam- 
paign manager  in  each  of  the  counties.  In  several  instances  one  man 
had  charge  of  a number  of  counties.  Arrangements  were  made  with 
these  managers  by  which  sums  of  money  would  be  placed  in  their 
hands  varying  from  $100  or  several  hundred  dollars  to  several  thou- 
sand dollars.  In  some  instances  the  manager  Avas  not  given,  and 


SENATOR  FROM  WISCONSIN. 


XXXI 


would  not  accept,  compensation  for  his  services.  In  others  definite 
arrangements  were  made  for  the  amount  of  compensation  the  man- 
ager was  to  receive,  and  in  many  cases  the  manager  would  determine 
and  retain  for  himself  such  sum  or  sums  as  he  deemed  proper.  It  is 
quite  clear  that  a very  substantial  part  of  the  money  expended  in  the 
organization  of  the  several  counties  never  went  beyond  the  pockets 
of  those  who  received  it.  The  money  expended  by  these  managers, 
so  far  as  the  testimony  discloses,  was  for  one  or  more  or  all  of  the 
purposes  above  described. 

WISCONSIN  ELECTION  STATUTES. 

The  Wisconsin  statutes  defining  election  offenses  are  fully  set 
forth  on  pages  10,  11,  and  12  of  the  views  submitted  by  Senator  Hey- 
burn,  chairman  of  the  subcommittee,  and  it  will  not  be  necessary, 
therefore,  to  insert  them  here. 

APPLICATION  OF  THE  LAW  TO  THE  FACTS NOMINATION  PAPERS. 

Before  a candidate  for  office  is  entitled  to  have  his  name  placed 
upon  the  ticket  at  a primary,  the  Wisconsin  statute  requires  that  pe- 
titions or  nomination  papers  shall  be  filed,  signed  by  at  least  1 per 
cent  of  the  voters  of  his  party  in  at  least  each  of  six  counties  in  the 
State,  and  in  the  aggregate  not  less  than  1 per  cent  nor  more  than 
10  per  cent  of  the  total  vote  of  his  party  in  the  State. 

The  testimony  shows  that  Senator  Stephenson  hired  and  paid  men 
to  circulate  his  nomination  papers  in  order  to  get  the  required  num- 
ber of  signatures,  but  there  was  no  evidence  showing  that  any  money 
was  paid,  in  the  language  of  the  statute,  to  induce  anyone  to  sign 
his  nomination  papers,  and  we  do  not  think  it  was  seriously  claimed 
by  those  who  were  interested  in  the  instigation  of  these  proceedings 
that  any  money  was  unlawfully  expended  for  this  purpose. 

EXPENDITURES  OF  MONEY  DURING  THE  PRIMARY  CAMPAIGN. 

Was  it  a violation  of  the  statute  to  pay  out  money  for  political 
advertising  in  the  newspapers,  or  for  editorial  support,  or  for  litho- 
graphs, campaign  material,  or  for  telegraph,  telephone,  or  express 
charges,  or  for  office  expenses,  including  rent  and  hire  of  assistants, 
or  for  the  hiring  of  speakers,  halls,  rent,  music,  and  for  men  devoting 
their  time  and  efforts  in  cultivating  Stephenson  sentiment  through- 
out the  State,  or  to  pay  workers  at  the  polls,  or  for  conveyances  and 
services  in  getting  out  the  voters,  or  for  money  for  drinks  and  cigars 
given  in  a social  way  during  the  campaign? 

A careful  examination  of  the  bribery  statutes  of  Wisconsin  wi11 
indicate  clearly  that  the  expenditures  of  money  of  the  character  re- 
cited only  comes  within  the  inhibitions  thereof,  when  they  are  made 
corruptly,  unless  section  298  forbids  it.  This  section  reads : 

Every  person  who,  by  bribery  or  corrupt  or  unlawful  means,  prevents  or 
attempts  to  prevent  any  voter  from  attending  or  voting  at  any  caucus  men- 
tioned in  this  act,  or  who  shall  give  or  offer  to  give  any  valuable  thing  or  bribe 
to  any  officer,  inspector,  or  delegate,  whose  office  is  created  by  this  act.  or  who 
shall  give  or  offer  to  give  any  valuable  thing  or  bribe  to  any  elector  as  a con- 
sideration for  some  act  to  be  done  in  relation  to  such  caucus  or  convention 
* * * shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  a misdemeanor,  etc. 


XXXII 


SENATOR  FROM  WISCONSIN. 


None  of  these  expenditures  can  come  within  any  of  the  provisions 
of  this  section,  unless  it  be  a violation  of  this  language : “ or  who 
shall  give  or  offer  to  give  any  valuable  thing  or  bribe  to  any  elector 
as  a consideration  for  some  act  to  be  done  in  relation  to  such  caucus 
or  convention.” 

It  should  be  stated  that  by  sections  39  and  40  of  the  election  laws 
of  Wisconsin,  the  criminal  penalties  applying  to  a caucus  and  elec- 
tions are  made  applicable  to  primary  elections. 

If  the  words  “To  give  any  valuable  thing  ” are  to  be  given  a com- 
prehensive and  literal  interpretation,  and  to  prohibit  the  giving  or 
offering  of  “ any  valuable  thing,”  “ as  a consideration  for  some  act”  to 
be  done,  it  would  not  have  been  necessary  to  write  into  the  statute 
the  words  “ or  bribe,”  because  the  former  expression  would  include 
the  latter.  The  purpose  of  the  statute  is  evidently  to  prohibit  cor- 
rupt giving. 

Words  of  a general  import  in  tlie  statute  are  limited  by  words  of  restricted 
import  immediately  following  and  relating  to  the  same  subject.  (36  Cyc.,  1110, 
Nance  v.  Southern  R.  R.  Co..  149  N.  C.,  366.) 

“ In  interpreting  a statute,  where  the  language  is  of  doubtful 
meaning,  the  court  will  reject  an  interpretation  which  would  make 
the  statute  harsh,  oppressive,  inequitable,  or  unduly  restrictive  of 
primary  private  rights.”  (Nance  v.  Southern  R.  R.  Co.,  149  N.  C., 
366.)  To  the  same  effect,  State  ex  rel.  v.  Jackson,  168  Indiana,  389. 

Again,  section  4543-C  requires  the  filing  of  accounts  of  expendi- 
tures of  a candidate.  This  must  contemplate  that  there  are  expendi- 
tures which  can  not  in  any  wise  be  regarded  as  a violation  of  the 
Wisconsin  laAvs.  If  a literal  interpretation  is  to  be  given  to  the 
words,  “ any  valuable  thing  * * * as  a consideration  for  some 

act  to  be  done.”  and  some  expenditures  be  prohibited,  whether  mor- 
ally corrupt  or  incorrupt,  would  the  legislature  require  the  candi- 
date to  convict  himself  by  filing  an  account?  This  is  a criminal 
statute,  and  it  must  be  strictly  construed  against  the  State  and  in 
favor  of  the  defendant  when  charged  with  its  violation. 

Applying  these  rules,  therefore,  it  would  seem  that  the  statute 
prohibited  the  giving  of  any  valuable  thing  corruptly  or  in  the  nature 
of  a bribe. 

We  have  no  sympathy  whatever  with  the  expenditure  of  money  in 
excessive  amounts,  whether  in  a senatorial  or  any  other  political 
campaign.  That  an  expenditure  of  $107,793.05  is  an  excessive 
amount  to  be  spent  in  the  candidacy  for  the  office  of  United  States 
Senator,  which  pays  a salary  for  six  years’  service  amounting  to 
$45,000,  goes  without  question;  that  it  is  demoralizing  and  should 
be  prevented  can  not  be  denied ; that  some  of  this  money  might  have 
been  spent  corruptly  may,  for  the  sake  of  the  argument,  be  conceded, 
but  it  is  not  sufficient  that  possible  or  even  probable  corruption  or 
bribery  exists.  The  evidence  must  show  it,  and  this  case,  like  all 
other  cases,  must  be  determined  from  the  facts  as  they  are  disclosed 
in  the  trial  and  under  the  law  as  it  then  existed.  The  committee, 
proceeding  upon  the  assumption  that  the  expenditure  of  so  large  a 
sum  of  money  required  the  fullest  investigation  and  explanation, 
probed  every  rumor  and  followed  every  clue  which  was  brought  to 
its  attention,  with  the  result  that  no  evidence  was  discovered  which 
would  justify  the  conclusion  that  any  of  this  sum  of  money  was 
corruptly  or  illegally  spent. 


SENATOR  FROM  WISCONSIN. 


XXXIII 


At  the  time  of  this  primary  there  was  no  statute,  either  State  or 
National,  limiting  the  amount  of  expenditures.  There  is  no  judicial 
or  legislative  decision,  so  far  as  we  are  advised,  limiting  the  amount 
which  may  be  legally  expended.  Can  we,  in  the  face  of  the  fact  that 
the  Congress  of  the  United  States  and  the  General  Assembly  of  the 
State  of  Wisconsin  prior  to  this  election  failed  to  limit  election 
expenditures,  now  arbitrarily  determine  that  because  this  sum  was 
spent  it  was  illegally  and  fraudulently  expended,  and  therefore 
vacate  the  Senator’s  seat?  Can  it  be  said  that  the  expenditure  of 
such  a sum  is  in  contravention  of  a public  policy  which  must  be  given 
the  force  and  effect  of  a statute?  If  so,  where  does  public  policy 
draw  the  line  between  what  shall  be  a legal  and  an  illegal  amount? 
The  situation  is  unfortunate,  but  the  Congress  and  the  State  Legisla- 
ture are  to  blame  for  not  having  limited  the  expenses  by  statute. 
Laws  can  not  be  enforced  retroactively,  and  surely  this  case  must  be 
decided  in  accordance  with  what  the  law  then  was  and  not  in  accord- 
ance with  what  the  law  ought  to  he.  Since  that  election  the  State 
of  Wisconsin  has  limited  the  amount  of  expenditure  in  a senatorial 
campaign  to  $7,500  and  the  Federal  Government  has  limited  it  to 
$10,000. 

EFFECT  OF  THE  PRIMARY  LAW. 

It  is  strenuously  argued  on  behalf  of  Senator  Stephenson  that  even 
if  the  primary  law  of  Wisconsin  was  violated  its  provisions  are 
unconstitutional,  because  section  3 of  Article  I of  the  Federal  Con- 
stitution provides  that  Senators  shall  be  chosen  by  the  legislature  and 
because  section  4 gives  Congress  the  right  to  prescribe  the  time  and 
manner  of  holding  elections  for  Senators  and  that  this  power  has 
been  exercised  by  the  Congress  in  the  manner  prescribed  by  sections 
14  and  15  of  the  Revised  Statutes  of  the  United  States. 

The  Wisconsin  primary  law,  in  substance,  provides  (chap.  451, 
Laws  of  1903)  as  follows: 

Party  candidates  for  tlie  office  of  United  States  Senator  shall  be  nominated 
as  other  State  officers.  (Subdivision  3 of  sec.  2.)  Nomination  papers  for  can- 
didates for  the  office  of  United  States  Senator  shall  be  filed  in  the  office  of  the 
secretary  of  state.  (Subdivision  1 of  sec.  6.)  The  person  receiving  the  greatest 
number  of  votes  at  the  primary  as  the  candidate  of  the  party  for  the  office 
voted  for  shall  be  the  candidate  of  that  party  for  such  office  (subdivision  1, 
sec.  18),  and  the  secretary  of  state  is  required  to  publish  in  the  official  State 
paper  a statement  of  the  result  of  the  canvass  of  the  primary  as  soon  as  the 
same  is  certified  to  him. 

These  are  all  of  the  requirements  found  in  the  Wisconsin  law  per- 
taining to  the  nomination  of  party  candidates  for  the  office  of  United 
States  Senators. 

May  the  people  of  a sovereign  State  not  provide  for  a method  of 
expressing  their  sentiment  in  the  selection  of  a Senator  who  shall 
represent  that  State  in  the  United  States  Senate?  May  they  not 
petition  in  such  form  and  manner  as  to  them  may  seem  proper?  And 
if  it  is  their  desire  to  so  petition,  may  they  not  prescribe  the  method 
of  petitioning  so  as  to  make  the  result  of  this  petition,  whether  it  be 
in  the  form  of  a letter  to  the  members  of  the  general  assembly  or  in 
the  form  of  a primary,  an  honest  expression  of  their  views  ? 

The  constitutionality  of  the  above  provisions  of  the  Wisconsin  law. 
was  passed  upon  by  the  supreme  court  of  that  State  in  the  case  of 


15235—12 3 


XXXIV 


•SENATOR  FROM  AVISCONSIN. 


State  ex  rel.  Van  Alstine  v.  Frear  (142  Wise.,  320).  On  page  349 
Barnes,  J.,  in  delivering  the  opinion  of  the  majority  of  the  court, 
says : 

Our  constitutions,  Stnte  and  National,  guarantee  the  right  of  petition.  Every 
citizen  of  the  State  has  the  right  to  petition  the  legislature  asking  that  the 
candidate  of  his  choice  be  elected  United  States  Senator.  Every  citizen  of  a 
senatorial  or  assembly  district  has  the  right  to  petition  his  local  representative 
to  the  same  effect.  The  lawmaker  is  thus  advised  of  public  sentiment,  a potent 
factor  for  him  to  consider  in  connection  with  other  matters  in  arriving  at  a 
conclusion.  Wherein  does  the  primary  nomination  for  United  States  Senator 
differ  from  the  exercise  of  the  right  of  petition?  The  legislative  candidate  is 
thereby  informed  of  something  that  he  has  the  right  to  know  and  of  something 
that  it  is  his  duty  to  heed.  He  may  not  regard  the  verdict  at  the  polls  as 
obligatory,  but  should  treat  it  as  advisory.  Moral  suasion  may  be  a perfectly 
legitimate  agency  to  employ  even  in  the  election  of  a United  States  Senator. 
That  the  electors  in  the  exercise  of  their  guaranteed  right  of  petition  might  do 
in  substance  and  effect  what  they  now  do  at  the  primaries  hardly  admits  of 
controversy.  The  framers  of  the  Constitution  could  not  have  supposed  that 
there  was  any  impropriety  in  the  people  advising  their  representatives  of  how 
they  desired  them  to  vote  on  the  senatorship,  else  an  exception  would  have  been 
incorporated  in  the  clause  guaranteeing  the  right  of  petition,  restricting  its 
application  to  matters  other  than  the  election  of  United  States  Senators. 

It  will  be  conceded  that  while  the  result  of  a primary  election, 
under  the  present  constitutional  provisions,  could  not  control  the 
State  senators  and  representatives  m their  choice  of  an  United  States 
Senator,  would  not  an  expression  of  the  will  of  the  people  at 
a primary  election  have  great  weight  with  their  representatives  in 
casting  their  votes?  And,  if  this  be  so,  ought  not  the  primary  elec- 
tion held  to  declare  this  choice  be  carefully  guarded  b,y  suitable 
penalties?  We  have  no  hesitancy  in  saying  that  if  the  evidence  dis- 
closed the  use  of  corrupt  methods  at  the  primaries,  it  would  affect 
the  result  of  the  election  by  the  general  assembly,  and  the  Senate 
would  be  justified  in  taking  cognizance  of  that  fact  and  unseating 
any  Senator  who  was  thus  delinquent. 

MONEYS  GIVEN  TO  CANDIDATES  FOR  THE  LEGISLATURE. 

The  testimony  disclosed  that  Senator  Stephenson,  before  the  pri- 
mary, gave  money  to  C.  C.  Wellensgard,  L.  H.  Bancroft,  and  Thomas 
Reynolds,  who  were  then  candidates  for  the  legislature.  They  did 
not  live  in  the  same  district  or  county  with  Mr.  Stephenson.  They 
were  his  personal  friends.  The  money  was  given  them  to  be  used 
in  behalf  of  Senator  Stephenson  for  the  nomination  as  the  Republi- 
can candidate  for  Senator. 

It  may  be  said  that  this  money  was  probably  used  by  these  men  to 
further  their  own  interests,  as  well  as  to  further  the  interests  of  Mr. 
Stephenson.  But,  whether  it  was  so  used  or  not,  there  is  no  evidence 
that  it  was  so  used,  or  that  it  was  given  to  them  for  that  purpose. 

On  the  contrary,  the  affirmative  and  uncontradicted  testimony  is 
all  to  the  effect  that  this  money  was  used  strictly  in  the  interest  of 
Mr.  Stephenson  and  none  of  it  to  further  the  interest  of  any  of  the 
legislative  candidates. 

MONEY  PAID  TO  GAME  WARDEN  JOHN  W.  STONE. 

Mr.  Stephenson’s  campaign  managers  gave  to  John  W.  Stone,  the 
game  warden  of  the  State.  $2,849.50  for  campaign  purposes.  This 
was  distributed  among  a number  of  the  deputy  game  wardens;  he 


SENATOR  FROM  WISCONSIN. 


XXXV 


retained  some  portion  of  it  himself,  and  in  testifying  before  the  legis- 
lative committee,  falsely  stated  the  amount  he  had  paid  out. 

Section  990-28  (sec.  28,  ch.  3G3,  1905)  provides: 

No  officer,  agent,  clerk,  or  employee  under  the  government  of  the  State  shall 
directly  or  indirectly  solicit  or  receive  or  be  in  any  manner  concerned  in  solicit- 
ing or  receiving  any  assessment,  subscription,  or  contribution,  or  political 
service,  whether  voluntary  or  involutary  for  any  political  purpose  whatever 
from  any  officer,  agent,  clerk,  or  employee  of  the  State. 

This  statute  makes  it  an  offense  for  any  officer , agent , clerk,  or 
employee  under  the  government  of  the  Stale  to  solicit  or  receive  any 
assessment,  subscription,  or  contribution,  or  political  service  from 
any  officer , agent , clerk , or  employee  of  the  State.  It  is  clear  that  this 
statute  was  not  violated  by  Senator  Stephenson,  since  he  was  not  an 
officer,  agent,  clerk,  or  employee  of  the  State.  Moreover,  the  statute 
makes  it  an  offense  on  the  part  of  the  recipient  of  the  fund  only.  No 
offense  is  committed  by  the  donor.  It  is  true,  the  money  should  not 
have  been  paid  to  the  game  warden,  and  the  giving  of  it  does  not 
show  that  fine  discrimination  which  ought  to  be  characteristic  of 
men  who  are  engaged  in  a campaign  of  this  character.  No  law  was 
violated  by  the  donor,  and  this  election  can  not  be  declared  illegal 
because  this  expenditure  was  made. 

FILING  OF  ACCOUNTS. 


Section  4543-C  of  the  revised  statutes  of  Wisconsin  requires  the 
making  out,  and  filing  with  the  secretary  of  state,  a statement  in 
writing,  subscribed  and  sworn  to  by  the  candidate — 

setting  forth  in  detail  each  item  in  excess  of  five  dollars  in  money,  or  property 
contributed,  disbursed,  expended,  or  promised  by  him,  and  to  the  best  of  his 
knowledge  and  belief  by  any  other  person  or  persons  for  him,  or  in  his  behalf, 
wholly  or  in  part  in  endeavoring  to  secure  or  in  any  way  in  connection  with 
his  nomination  or  election  to  such  office  or  place,  or  in  connection  with  the 
election  of  any  other  person  at  said  election,  the  dates  when,  and  the  persons 
to  whom,  and  the  purpose  for  which  all  said  sums  were  paid,  expended,  or 
promised  by  such  candidate  in  any  sum  or  sums  whatever. 

No  account  whatever  was  filed  of  the  amount  contributed  by 
Mr.  Stephenson  to  the  State  campaign  committee,  nor  of  the  amount 
expended  during  the  session  of  the  general  assembly.  The  account 
which  was  filed  of  the  expenses  incurred  in  connection  with  the 
primary  did  not  comply  with  the  law  in  that  it  lumped  the  expenses; 
gave  the  names  of  but  very  few  of  the  persons  to  whom  money  was 
paid;  did  not  give  the  dates  when  expended,  nor  as  fully  as  con- 
templated by  the  statutes  the  purposes  for  which  expended.  The 
account  as  filed  was  approved  by  the  general  counsel  of  Mr.  Stephen- 
son without  any  examination  of  the  statute,  and  simply  because  it 
conformed  with  certain  accounts,  which  had  been  filed  by  prominent 
candidates  for  other  offices.  A careful  examination  of  this  account 
justifies  the  belief  that  it  was  purposely  drawn  so  as  to  give  to  the 
public  as  little  information  as  possible. 

The  penalty  for  failing  to  comply  with  this  statute  is  a fine  only, 
and  it  does  not  provide  for  the  forfeiture  of  the  office.  If  it  did,  the 
statute  to  that  extent  would  be  unconstitutional,  but  Mr.  Stephenson, 
because  of  his  failure  to  file  a proper  account,  has  violated  the  statute 
and  is  subject  to  a fine.  However,  he  must  be  absolved  from  any 
moral  delinquency,  because  in  the  preparation  and  filing  of  his  ac- 


XXXVI 


SENATOR  FROM  WISCONSIN. 


count  he  consulted  with  counsel,  and  followed  their  advice,  and  if  it 
was  not  properly  done  they  were  to  blame  rather  than  he. 

In  addition  to  this,  the  validity  of  the  election  which  had  already 
taken  place  could  not  be  affected  by  the  failure  to  thereafter  perform 
some  act  enjoined  by  the  State  statute.  The  election  was  already  an 
accomplished  fact  and  its  validity  must  be  determined  by  the  facts 
theretofore  or  then  existing.  Anything  done  thereafter  can  not  be 
regarded  as  a substantive  ground  for  invalidating  the  election.  Its 
only  evidential  value  would  be  in  reflecting  light  upon  or  as  giving 
color  to  the  preexisting  facts. 

After  a careful  consideration  of  all  the  evidence  and  the  law,  we 
had  no  hesitancy  in  joining  in  the  report  presented  by  the  subcom- 
mittee. 

We  heartily  approve  these  wrords  of  Senator  Heyburn : 

The  amount  of  money  spent  by  Mr.  Stephenson,  Mr.  Cook,  Mr.  Hatton,  and 
Mr.  McGovern  in  the  primary  campaign  was  so  extravagant,  and  the  expendi- 
tures made  by  and  on  behalf  of  these  gentlemen  were  made  with  such  reckless 
disregard  of  propriety,  as  to  justify  the  sharpest  criticism.  Such  expenditures 
were  in  violation  of  the  fundamental  principles  underlying  our  system  of 
Government,  which  contemplated  the  selection  of  candidates  by  the  electors 
and  not  the  selection  of  the  electors  by  the  candidate. 

Regardless  of  any  statute  requiring  that  strict  accounts  be  kept  of  money 
expended  by  and  on  behalf  of  candidates,  a candidate  and  every  man  repre- 
senting him  should  know  that  public  opinion  would  expect  the  parties  to  place 
and  maintain  themselves  in  a position  so  that  if  any  of  their  acts  were  ques- 
tioned they  could  justify  such  acts  to  the  extent  of  giving  every  detail  in 
regard  thereto. 

While  I do  not  believe  that  the  law  of  Wisconsin  could  constitute  any  man  a 
candidate  or  place  him  in  the  position  of  and  under  the  responsibilities  of  a 
candidate  for  an  office  over  which  the  State  had  no  control  and  which  was  not 
to  be  filled  under  any  law  of  the  State,  yet  I feel  impelled  to  criticize  the  acts 
of  those  in  charge  of  the  expenditure  of  money  of  men  who  are  called  candi- 
dates for  the  Senate,  and  especially  of  Mr.  Stephenson,  in  the  irresponsible  and 
reckless  manner  in  which  they  disbursed  the  money  furnished  them  by  Mr. 
Stephenson  during  the  period  of  the  primary  campaign. 

The  failure  to  keep  detailed  accounts,  the  destruction  of  memoranda,  the 
shifting  of  records  and  papers  concerning  the  campaign  from  one  place  to  an- 
other, the  adoption  of  mysterious  methods  and  roundabout  ways  in  regard  to 
matters  that  might  just  as  well  have  been  performed  in  open  daylight  in  the 
presence  of  people,  wTould  go  far  toward  creating  the  impression  that  there  was 
some  occasion  for  Mr.  Stephenson’s  representatives  to  avoid  candor  and  to 
obscure  conditions. 

While  we  have  no  doubt  as  to  the  correctness  of  the  subcommittee’s 
finding,  we  do  not  want  it  to  be  understood  that  we  question  the 
propriety  of  filing  charges  challenging  the  validity  of  the  election 
or  of  the  making  demand  for  an  investigation  either  by  the  General 
Assembly  of  Wisconsin  or  by  the  United  States  Senate. 

An  enormous  sum  of  money  had  been  expended.  Messrs.  Ed- 
munds and  Sacket,  who  were  in  charge  of  the  campaign  as  Mr. 
Stephenson’s  managers,  knew  of  the  statute  requiring  the  filing  of 
an  account  of  their  expenditures.  They  destroyed  all  original  rec- 
ords of  accounts,  though  they  kept  what  purported  to  be  copies. 
They  grouped  these  items  and  amounts  in  such  a way  that  they  gave 
no  knowledge  whatever  to  the  public  except  the  totals  of  each  class 
of  expenditures.  The  account  was  not  filed  until  the  last  moment 
permitted  by  the  statute. 

Mr.  Puelicher,  a banker,  acted  as  treasurer.  He  did  not  open  an 
account  as  depositors  usually  do.  He  received  remittances,  kept 
private  memoranda,  paid  out  cash,  and  made  disbursements  of  these 


SENATOR  FROM  WISCONSIN. 


XXXVII 


funds,  but  kept  no  record  thereof  upon  the  bank's  books.  No  other 
customer’s  funds,  either  before  or  since,  were  received  or  disbursed 
in  a similar  way.  There  was  an  air  of  mystery  about  the  entire 

affair. 

After  the  investigation  by  the  committee  of  the  general  assembly 
was  started  Mr.  Stephenson’s  local  counsel  had  such  records  and  cor- 
respondence as  had  not  already  been  destroyed  moved  out  of  the 
State  for  the  purpose  of  keeping  them  beyond  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
general  assembly. 

It  may  be  said  in  passing,  however,  that  the  accounts  were  kept  on 
card  indexes,  and  Mr.  Sacket  gives  as  a reason  for  destroying  them 
that  they  were  made  with  lead  pencil  in  many  cases,  and  the  writing 
was  practically  obliterated,  so  that  he  made  copies  and  then  de- 
stroyed the  originals  (Record,  p.  161)  because  they  were  cumbersome 
and  inconvenient  (p.  523).  And  it  may  be  further  said  that  there 
seems  to  have  been  no  substantial  reason  for  moving  the  correspond- 
ence out  of  the  State.  It  was  all  before  the  committee,  and  an  ex- 
amination failed  to  disclose  anything  of  an  inculpatory  or  improper 
character  which  would  render  any  concealment  necessary. 

Can  there  be  any  wonder  that  the  public  became  suspicious  and 
the  members  of  the  general  assembly,  out  of  a decent  sense  of  self- 
respect,  should  demand  a thorough  investigation? 

If  Mr.  Stephenson  has  been  put  to  great  expense  and  trouble,  it 
is  due,  first,  to  the  reckless  expenditure  of  this  large  sum  of  money, 
and,  second,  to  the  studied  and  mysterious  efforts  of  his  managers 
and  local  attorneys  to  conceal  the  facts,  up  to  and  during  the"  in- 
vestigation before  the  joint  committee  of  the  general  assembly,  and 
the  separate  committee  of  the  State  senate. 

But  out  of  all  this  scandal  and  trouble  much  good  has  come. 
Public  sentiment  was  aroused.  The  unlimited  use  of  money  has 
been  condemned,  and  stringent  corrupt-practices  acts  have"  been 
adopted,  both  by  the  General  Assembly  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin 
and  by  the  Congress  of  the  United  States. 

Atlee  Pomerene. 

Geo.  Sutherland. 


HEARINGS  BEFORE  SUBCOMMITTEE 


LIST  OF  WITNESSES. 


Page 

Bancroft,  Levi  H 

701 

Beyer,  George 

880,909 

Blaine,  John  J 

592 

Bowman,  H.  A 

984 

Brown,  Harry  J 

438 

Dart,  George  W 

974 

Dolan,  P.  F 

918 

Edmonds,  E.  A 

59,178 

Epplingi  F.  J... 

Essmann,  William  L 

...  696,740,806 

French,  Charles  S 

871 

Gordon,  George  H 

741 

Haslam,  William  C 

963 

Hever,  A.  0 

890 

Hulbert,  A.  I 

953 

James,  Norman  L 

884 

Johnson,  Niels 

909 

Kingsley,  G.  L 

571 

Page. 

Kolb,  Gustave  C 970 

Lewis,  Hugh 912 

Littlefield,  E.  C.  (statement  of)...  6 

Morgan,  H.  H 925 

O’Connor,  D.  J 817 

Overbeck,  Henry 830 

Perrin,  Solon  L 652,  698 

Fuelicher,  J.  H 128 

Riordan,  D.  E 774 

Sacket,  Rodney 152,  374,  440 

Stephenson,  Isaac 23, 909 

Thayer,  L.  W ...  934 

Van  Cleve,  John  A 136,568 

Way  land,  Chellis  C 725 

Wellensgard,  Christian  C 835 

Wheeler,  William  G 893 

Wilcox,  Arthur  Nelson 993 


« 


XX  XIX 


SENATOR  FROM  WISCONSIN, 


MONDAY,  OCTOBER  2,  1911. 

Federal  Building, 

Milwaukee , Wis. 

The  subcommittee  met  at  10  o’clock  a.  m. 

Present:  Senators  Heyburn  (chairman),  Sutherland,  and  Pome- 
rene,  and  Mr.  Addison  T.  Smith,  who  had  been  designated  as  sec- 
retary. 

The  Chairman.  The  subcommittee  will  enter  upon  its  duties.  Pre- 
liminary to  taking  up  this  question  I will  state  that  the  subcommittee 
will  hear  a representative  who  may  desire  to  appear  on  behalf  of  the 
State  of  Wisconsin,  the  State  having  submitted  these  charges  through 
its  governor  to  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  I will  inquire 
whether  or  not  there  is  anyone  here  for  the  purpose  of  representing 
the  State  of  Wisconsin  ? Should  anyone  desire  to  appear  and  be  duly 
authorized,  the  subcommittee  will  recognize  him.  [A  pause.] 

The  secretary  of  the  subcommittee  will  be  instructed  to  communi- 
cate with  the  governor  and  the  attorney  general  of  the  State,  advising 
them  that  the  subcommittee  is  in  session  in  Milwaukee  for  the  pur- 
pose of  investigating  these  charges  which  were  submitted  to  the 
United  States  Senate  by  the  governor,  and  to  inquire  whether  or  not 
the  State  desires  to  be  represented  at  this  hearing. 

The  secretary  subsequently,  by  direction  of  the  subcommittee,  sent 
the  following  telegram: 

Milwaukee,  Wis.,  October  2 , 1911 . 

Hon.  Francis  E.  McGovern, 

Governor  of  Wisconsin,  Madison,  Wis.: 

A subcommittee  of  the  Committee  on  Privileges  and  Elections  of  the  United 
States  Senate,  duly  appointed,  with  instructions  to  investigate  the  election  of 
Isaac  Stephenson  as  a Senator  of  the  United  States  from  the  State  of  Wiscon- 
sin as  recommended  by  the  Legislature  of  Wisconsin  as  provided  in  joint  reso- 
lution 58  of  said  legislature,  has  entered  upon  the  investigation  in  the  Fed- 
eral Building,  in  the  city  of  Milwaukee.  As  the  State  appears  to  be  unrepre- 
sented by  counsel,  you  are  requested  to  advise  the  committee  whether  or  not  it 
is  the  desire  of  the  State  to  be  represented  by  counsel  before  this  committee, 
and  if  so,  designate  in  writing  such  person  to  represent  the  State. 

W.  B.  Heyburn,  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  The  subcommittee  would  inquire  whether  or  not 
there  are  counsel  who  desire  to  appear  for  Senator  Stephenson.  If  so, 
let  their  names  be  entered  in  due  form. 

Mr.  C.  E.  Littlefield.  Yes ; Mr.  W.  E.  Black,  Mr.  H.  H.  J.  Upham, 
and  I represent  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  The  next  proceeding  will  be  the  reading  of  the 
communication  from  the  governor  of  Wisconsin  addressed  to  the 
United  States  Senate. 

15235°— vol  l—li 1 


2 


SENATOR  FROM  WISCONSIN, 


The  secretary  read  as  follows: 


State  of  Wisconsin, 

Office  of  the  Secretary  of  State, 

Madison,  June  21,  1911 . 

President  of  the  United  States  Senate, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

Dear  Sir:  Herewith  I am  forwarding  you  by  express,  first,  certified  copy  of 
joint  resolution  No.  58,  regularly  executed  by  the  proper  officers  of  the  Senate 
and  Assembly  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin;  second,  certified  copy  of  volume  2, 
part  1,  Senatorial  Primary  Investigation;  and,  third,  certified  copy  of  volume  2, 
part  2,  Senatorial  Primary  Investigation,  all  of  which  is  in  compliance  with 
the  terms  of  the  joint  resolution. 

Very  truly,  yours,  J.  A.  Frear,  Secretary  of  State. 


United  States  of  America, 

The  State  of  Wisconsin, 

Department  of  State. 

To  all  to  whom  these  presents  shall  come: 

I,  J.  A.  Frear,  secretary  of  state  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin,  and  keeper  of 
the  great  seal  thereof,  do  hereby  certify  that  the  annexed  copy  of  joint  resolu- 
tion No.  58  has  been  compared  by  me  with  the  original  joint  resolution  on  file 
in  this  department,  and  that  the  same  is  a true  copy  thereof  and  of  the  whole 
of  such  original  joint  resolution. 

In  testimony  whereof  I have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  affixed  the  great  seal 
of  the  State  at  the  capitol  in  the  city  of  Madison,  this  27th  day  of  June,  A.  D. 
1911. 

[seal.]  J.  A.  Frear,  Secretary  of  State. 


No.  58  (Jt.  Res.  No.  10,  S.).  Joint  resolution  relating  to  the  investigation  of  the  primary 
and  general  election  of  1908  and  the  election  of  United  States  Senator  in  1909. 

Whereas  the  senate  committee  members  of  the  joint  investigation  committee 
and  the  senate  investigation  committee ' appointed  to  investigate  the  manner, 
means,  and  methods  by  which  the  primary  campaign  and  election  of  the  year 
1908  is  claimed  to  have  been  corruptly  and  unlawfully  conducted  and  to  fully, 
fairly,  and  thoroughly  investigate  the  campaign  and  election  of  Isaac  Stephen- 
son to  the  United  States  Senate  and  the  campaign  of  the  primary  and  general 
election,  and  the  primary  election  and  election  of  the  members  of  the  last  leg- 
islature, so  far  as  the  same  in  any  way  pertained  to  or  affected  the  election 
of  Isaac  Stephenson  to  the  United  States  Senate,  have,  in  accordance  with  the 
resolutions  adopted  for  said  purposes,  made  and  filed  their  report  to  the  gov- 
ernor of  the  State  of  Wisconsin ; and 

Whereas  the  senate  committee  members  of  the  joint  senatorial  primary  in- 
vestigation committee  and  the  senate  investigation  committee  have  in  said 
report  found  that  Isaac  Stephenson  did  commit  acts  of  bribery  and  attempted 
bribery  and  did  commit  other  acts  in  violation  of  the  corrupt-practices  laws  of 
Wisconsin  relating  to  said  matters ; and,  further,  that  the  managers  and  agents 
of  Isaac  Stephenson  in  said  primary  campaign  and  election  and  general  elec- 
tion and  senatorial  election  did,  by  acts  of  bribery  and  attempted  bribery  and 
other  acts  in  violation  of  the  corrupt-practices  laws  and  penal  statutes  of  Wis- 
consin relating  to  said  matters,  obtain  for  the  said  Isaac  Stephenson  votes 
without  which  he  would  not  have  been  elected,  and  that  for  such  reason  the 
election  of  said  Isaac  Stephenson  to  the  United  States  Senate  was  null  and 
void,  and  such  election  of  the  said  Isaac  Stephenson  to  the  United  States  Sen- 
ate should  be  annulled  by  the  United  States  Senate; 

Whereas  His  Excellency  Gov.  Francis  E.  McGovern,  on  the  17th  day  of  Janu- 
ary, 1911,  transmitted  to  the  consideration  of  the  Legislature  of  Wisconsin 
such  report  and  the  appendices  accompanying  the  same,  together  with  a report 
of  a majority  of  the  assembly  members  of  said  joint  senatorial  primary  investi- 
gation committee,  together  with  the  testimony  taken  by  both  of  said  committees: 

Section  1.  Therefore  he  it  resolved  hy  the  senate  ( the  assembly  concurring) , 
That  the  senate  and  assembly  concur  in  the  findings  and  recommendations  of 


SENATOR  FROM  WISCONSIN. 


3 


said  senate  committee  members  of  the  joint  senatorial  primary  investigation 
committee  and  the  senatorial  primary  investigation  committee  as  by  them  found 
and  recommended  and  as  above  recited. 

Be  it  further  resolved , That  a copy  of  the  report  and  appendices  of  said  senate 
committee  members  of  the  joint  senatorial  investigation  committee  and  of  the 
senate  primary  investigation  committee,  together  with  a copy  of  this  resolution 
embracing  the  preamble  and  section  1 of  this  resolution,  be  certified  by  the  secre- 
tary of  state  to  the  United  States  Senate  for  its  action  thereon.  And  the 
United  States  Senate  is  hereby  requested  to  investigate  the  manner,  means,  and 
methods  by  and  through  which  Isaac  Stephenson  secured  his  election  to  the 
United  States  Senate. 

Sec.  2.  Be  it  further  resolved,  That  a copy  of  the  report  of  the  senate  com- 
mittee members  of  the  joint  senatorial  primary  investigation  committee  and  the 
senate  primary  investigation  committee,  and  its  appendices,  together  with  a copy 
of  this  resolution,  be  certified  by  the  secretary  of  state  to  the  district  attorney  of 
Dane  County,  with  recommendation  from  the  senate  and  assembly  that  prosecu- 
tion be  commenced  against  all  persons  shown  by  the  evidence  in  said  investi- 
gation to  have  committed  perjury. 

And  it  is  further  recommended  by  the  senate  and  assembly  that  prosecution 
be  commenced  in  the  proper  counties  of  the  State  by  the  prosecuting  officers 
thereof  against  all  persons  shown  by  the  evidence  in  the  said  investigation  to 
have  been  guilty  of  a violation  of  the  corrupt-practices  or  bribery  statute,  or 
other  penal  statutes  relating  to  the  matters  referred  to  herein. 

H.  C.  Martin, 

Acting  President  of  the  Senate. 

C.  A.  Ingram, 
Speaker  of  the  Assembly. 

F.  M.  Wylie, 

Chief  Clerk  of  the  Senate. 

C.  E.  Shaffer, 

Chief  Clerk  of  the  Assembly. 


Received  June  26,  1911,  4.05  p.  m. 


Department  of  State. 

J.  A.  Frear, 
Secretary  of  State. 


The  Chairman.  The  secretary  will  next  read  the  authority  under 
which  the  committee  acts. 

The  secretary  read  as  follows : 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States, 

August  15,  1911. 

Resolved,  That  the  Senate  Committee  on  Privileges  and  Elections,  or  any  sub- 
committee thereof,  be  authorized  and  directed  to  investigate  certain  charges 
preferred  by  the  Legislature  of  Wisconsin  against  Isaac  Stephenson,  a Senator 
of  the  United  States  from  the  State  of  Wisconsin,  and  to  report  to  the  Senate 
whether  in  the  election  of  said  Isaac  Stephenson  as  a Senator  of  the  United 
States  from  the  said  State  of  Wisconsin  there  were  used  or  employed  corrupt 
methods  or  practices ; that  said  committee  or  subcommittee  be  authorized  to  sit 
during  the  recess  of  the  Senate,  to  hold  its  session  at  such  place  or  places  as  it 
shall  deem  most  convenient  for  the  purposes  of  the  investigation,  to  employ 
stenographers,  to  send  for  persons  and  papers,  and  to  administer  oaths;  and 
that  the  expenses  of  the  inquiry  shall  be  paid  from  the  contingent  fund  of  the 
Senate,  upon  vouchers  to  be  approved  by  the  chairman  of  the  committee  or 
chairman  of  the  subcommittee. 

Attest : 

Chas.  G.  Bennett,  Secretary, 

By  H.  M.  Rose,  Assistant  Secretary. 

The  Chairman.  In  connection  with  the  document  just  read  the 
authentication  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States 
will  appear  in  the  record. 

The  next  document  to  appear  in  the  record  will  be  the  certificate  of 
the  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Privileges  and  Elections  of  the 
United  States  Senate  designating  the  subcommittee. 


4 


SENATOR  FROM  WISCONSIN, 


The  secretary  read  as  follows : 

United  States  Senate, 
Committee  on  Privileges  and  Elections. 

I hereby  certify  that,  as  chairman  of  the  Senate  Committee  on  Privileges 
and  Elections,  I have  appointed  as  a subcommittee  to  investigate  certain  charges 
preferred  by  the  Legislature  of  Wisconsin,  connected  with  the  election  of 
Isaac  Stephenson  as  a Senator  of  the  United  States  from  the  State  of  Wisconsin, 
under  the  terms  of  Senate  resolution  No.  136,  adopted  August  15,  1911,  the  fol- 
lowing-named members  of  said  subcommittee:  Hon.  Weldon  B.  Heyburn  (chair- 
man), Hon.  George  Sutherland,  Hon.  William  O.  Bradley,  Hon.  Thomas  H. 
Paynter,  and  Hon.  Atlee  Pomerene. 

William  P.  Dillingham, 

Chairman  Senate  Committee  on  Privileges  and  Elections. 

Washington,  D.  C.,  September  2,  A.  D.  1911. 

The  Chairman.  The  secretary  will  now  read  the  specific  charges 
that  came  from  the  governor  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin  to  the  United 
States  Senate,  on  which  action  was  taken. 

The  secretary  read  as  follows : 

specific  charges. 

To  the  honorable  Senate  and  Assembly  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin: 

I,  John  J.  Blaine,  an  elector  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin  and  a member  of  the 
State  senate,  upon  information  and  belief,  do  hereby  specifically  charge  and 
allege : 

1.  That  Isaac  Stephenson,  of  Marinette,  Wis.,  now  United  States  Senator  and 
a candidate  for  reelection,  did,  as  such  candidate  for  such  reelection,  give  to 
one  E.  A.  Edmonds,  of  the  city  of  Appleton,  Wis.,  an  elector  of  the  State  of 
Wisconsin  and  said  city  of  Appleton,  a valuable  thing,  to  wit,  a sum  of  money 
in  excess  of  $106,000,  and  approximating  the  sum  of  $250,000,  as  a consideration 
for  some  act  to  be  done  by  said  E.  A.  Edmonds  in  relation  to  the  primary  elec- 
tion held  on  the  1st  day  of  September,  1908,  which  consideration  was  paid 
prior  to  said  primary  election,  and  that  said  Isaac  Stephenson  was  at  the  time 
of  such  payment  a candidate  for  the  Republican  nomination  for  United  States 
Senator  at  such  primary,  and  did  by  such  acts  as  above  set  forth  violate  section 
4542b  of  the  statutes. 

2.  That  said  Isaac  Stephenson  did,  prior  to  said  primary,  pay  to  said 
Edmonds  above-mentioned  sums  with  the  design  that  said  Edmonds  should  pay 
to  other  electors  of  this  State  out  of  said  sums  above  mentioned  and  other  sums 
of  money  received  by  said  Edmonds  from  said  Isaac  Stephenson,  prior  to  said 
primary,  sums  ranging  from  $5  per  day  to  $1,000,  in  bulk,  as  a consideration  for 
some  act  to  be  done  in  relation  to  said  primary  by  said  electors  for  said  Isaac 
Stephenson  as  such  candidate,  in  violation  of  said  section. 

3.  That  with  full  knowledge  and  with  instructions  from  said  Isaac  Stephen- 
son as  to  how  and  for  what  purposes  said  sums  were  to  be  expended  said  sums 
were  so  paid  as  above  stated  to  said  Edmonds  by  said  Isaac  Stephenson  and 
that  said  sums  were  paid  as  above  stated  for  the  purposes  above  stated  and 
also  for  the  purpose  of  bribing  and  corrupting  a sufficient  number  of  the 
electors  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin  to  encompass  the  nomination  of  said  Isaac 
Stephenson  at  said  primary  for  the  office  of  United  States  Senator. 

4.  That  in  pursuance  of  the  purposes  and  design  above  stated,  said  Isaac 
Stephenson  did,  by  and  through  his  agents,  prior  to  said  primary,  pay  to  one 
U.  C.  Keller,  of  Sauk  County,  an  elector  of  this  State,  the  sum  of  $300  as  a 
consideration  for  some  act  to  be  done  by  said  Keller  for  said  Stephenson  pre- 
liminary to  said  primary,  corruptly  and  unlawfully. 

5.  That  in  further  pursuance  of  such  purposes  and  design  said  Isaac  Stephen- 
son, by  and  through  his  agents,  prior  to  said  primary,  paid  to  one  Hambright, 
of  Racine,  Wis.,  large  sums  of  money  as  a consideration  for  some  act  to  be 
done  by  said  Hambright  for  said  Stephenson  preliminary  to  said  primary,  said 
Hambright  being  then  an  elector  of  this  State,  corruptly  and  unlawfully. 

6.  That  in  further  pursuance  of  the  purposes  and  design  above  stated  said 
Isaac  Stephenson  did,  by  and  through  his  agents,  prior  to  said  primary,  pay  to 
one  Roy  Morse,  of  Fond  du  Lac,  Wis.,  then  an  elector  of  this  State,  the  sum 
of  $1,000  as  a consideration  for  some  act  to  be  done  by  said  Morse  for  said 
Isaac  Stephenson  preliminary  to  said  primary,  corruptly  and  unlawfully. 


SENATOR  FROM  WISCONSIN. 


5 


7.  That  in  further  pursuance  of  such  purposes  and  design  said  Isaac  Stephen- 
son, by  and  through  his  agents,  prior  to  said  primary,  paid  to  divers  persons, 
then  electors  of  the  county  of  Grant,  Wis.,  ranging  from  $5  per  day  and  upward, 
as  a consideration  for  some  act  to  be  done  by  said  several  electors  for  said 
Isaac  Stephenson  preliminary  to  said  primary,  corruptly  and  unlawfully. 

8.  That  in  further  pursuance  of  such  purposes  and  design  said  Isaac  Stephen- 
son, by  and  through  his  agents,  prior  to  said  primary,  did  pay  to  divers  per- 
sons who  were  at  such  time  electors  in  this  State  a consideration  for  some  act 
to  be  done  for  said  Isaac  Stephenson  by  such  electors  preliminary  to  such 
primary,  corruptly  and  unlawfully. 

9.  That  in  further  pursuance  of  such  purposes  and  designs  said  Isaac  Stephen- 
son, by  and  through  his  agents,  prior  to  said  primary,  did  pay  to  electors  of 
this  State  who  were  of  a different  political  opinion  and  who  held  to  other 
political  principles  than  that  of  the  Republican  Party,  more  particularly  Demo- 
crats, sums  of  money  as  a consideration  for  some  act  to  be  done  by  such 
electors  for  said  Isaac  Stephenson  preliminary  to  said  primary,  corruptly  and 
unlawfully. 

10.  That  in  further  pursuance  of  such  purposes  and  design  said  Isaac 
Stephenson,  by  and  through  his  agents,  prior  to  such  primary,  did  offer  to 
pay  to  Edward  Pollock,  of  Lancaster,  Wis.,  certain  sums  of  money,  as  editor  of 
the  Teller,  a newspaper  published  in  said  city  of  Lancaster,  Wis.,  and  to  other 
editors  of  newspapers  who  were  at  such  time  electors  of  this  State,  for  the 
purpose  of  purchasing  the  editorial  support  of  such  editors  and  as  a considera- 
tion of  some  thing  to  be  done  relating  to  such  primary,  corruptly  and  unlaw- 
fully. 

11.  That  said  Isaac  Stephenson  did,  prior  to  such  primary,  by  and  through 
his  agents,  promise  and  agree  to  pay  to  one  Lester  Tilton,  a then  resident  and 
elector  of  this  State,  and  residing  at  the  city  of  Neillsville,  Wis.,  a sum  in 
excess  of  $500  to  procure  or  aid  in  procuring  the  nomination  of  said  Lester 
Tilton  to  the  assembly  of  this  State  from  Clark  County,  and  did  offer  to  give  to 
said  Lester  Tilton  a sum  in  excess  of  $500  if  said  Lester  Tilton  would  become 
a candidate  for  the  assembly  from  said  Clark  County,  if  said  Lester  Tilton 
would  support  said  Isaac  Stephenson  for  the  office  of  United  States  Senator, 
all  of  which  is  in  violation  of  sections  4542b  and  4543b  of  the  statutes. 

12.  That  said  Isaac  Stephenson  did,  by  and  through  his  agents,  give  and 
promise  and  pay  or  agree  to  pay  to  other  electors  of  this  State  sums  of  money 
to  procure  or  aid  in  procuring  the  nomination  of  such  electors  to  the  senate  and 
assembly  of  this  State  other  than  those  electors  residing  in  the  district  where 
said  Isaac  Stephenson  resides. 

13.  That  E.  M.  Heyzer  and  Max  Sells,  prior  to  said  primary,  being  at  such 
time  employees  of  the  Chicago  & Northwestern  Railway  Co.,  a corporation  doing 
business  in  this  State,  did  contribute  and  agree  to  contribute  free  services  as 
such  employees  for  the  purpose  to  defeat  the  candidacy  of  former  assemblyman 
E.  F.  Nelson,  from  the  district  embracing  Florence,  Forest,  and  Langlade  Coun- 
ties, for  the  nomination  for  assemblyman  from  said  district,  all  of  which  was 
done  with  the  knowledge  and  consent  and  under  the  direction  of  said  Isaac 
Stephenson,  his  agents,  and  employees  contrary  to  chapter  492,  laws  of  1905. 

14.  That  in  further  pursuance  of  the  purposes  and  design  above  set  forth 
said  Isaac  Stephenson,  by  and  through  his  agents,  did,  in  addition  to  pnying 
certain  sums  as  above  set  forth,  offer  and  agree  to  pay  to  electors  of  this  State 
prior  to  said  primary  a premium  or  bonus  to  those  who  in  his  employ  carried 
their  respective  precincts  in  such  primary  for  said  Isaac  Stephenson  as  such 
candidates. 

15.  That  said  Isaac  Stephenson  if  claiming  an  election  by  virtue  of  receiving 
a plurality  of  votes  at  such  primary,  then  said  Isaac  Stephenson  has  violated 
chapter  562  of  the  laws  of  1905,  by  failing  and  neglecting  to  file  his  expense 
account  as  provided  by  said  chapter. 

16.  Charging,  generally,  the  primary  nomination  or  election  of  said  Isaac 
Stephenson  was  obtained  by  the  use  of  large  sums  of  money  corruptly  and 
illegally,  by  the  violation  of  sections  4542b,  4543b,  and  4678b  of  the  statutes 
relating  to  illegal  voting,  bribery,  and  corruption,  and  other  laws  above  set 
forth  relating  to  elections  and  primary  elections. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

John  J.  Blaine, 

State  Senator , Sixteenth  District. 


Dated  January  26,  1909. 


6 


SENATOR  FROM  WISCONSIN. 


The  Chairman.  The  subcommittee  has  summoned  to  appear  to-day 
five  witnesses.  When  their  names  are  called  they  will  come  forward 
and  be  sworn. 

The  names  of  Isaac  Stephenson,  E.  A.  Edmonds,  J.  H.  Puelicher, 
J.  A.  Van  Cleve,  and  Rodney  Sacket  were  called. 

The  Chairman.  The  chairman  is  advised  that  Mr.  Sacket  is  not 
present,  but  he  will  be  excused  until  noon. 

Isaac  Stephenson,  E.  A.  Edmonds,  J.  H.  Puelicher,  and  J.  A.  Van 
Cleve  responded  to  their  names  and  were  duly  sworn  by  the  chair- 
man. 

STATEMENT  OF  ME.  LITTLEFIELD. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  May  it  please  the  subcommittee,  before  any  wit- 
nesses are  examined  I should  like  to  make  a few  suggestions  with 
reference  to  two  practical  propositions.  I do  not  suppose  it  is  neces- 
sary for  me  to  say  that  the  resolution  under  which  the  committee  is 
acting,  and  the  subject  matter  of  the  resolution,  present  a matter  of 
the  greatest  gravity. 

The  Chairman.  Will  counsel  desist  for  a moment,  until  Mr. 
Stephenson  is  called  as  a witness?  When  he  is  on  the  stand  it  will 
be  proper  to  raise  that  question. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Very  well. 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Stephenson  has  been  sworn  and  is  now 
before  the  committee  for  examination.  Counsel  may  now  make  his 
statement. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  As  I was  about  to  say,  it  is  hardly  necessary  for 
me  to  suggest  that  the  subject  matter  of  the  investigation  is  one  of 
the  very  first  gravity  and  of  the  very  greatest  importance,  so  far  as 
Senator  Stephenson  is  concerned. 

Senator  Stephenson  is  in  his  eighty-third  year,  and  it  is  obvious 
that  he  is  nearly  at  the  end  of  a very  long,  a very  useful,  and  a very 
successful  life.  By  virtue  of  his  extraordinary  financial  ability  he 
has  accumulated,  during  about  66  years  in  this  community,  what  is 
popularly  assumed  to  be  a very  large  private  fortune.  He  is  un- 
doubtedly a man  of  wealth.  The  result  of  the  investigation  will 
either  be  a vindication  of  Senator  Stephenson  or  will  result,  probably, 
in  proceedings  that  will  send  him  from  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States  covered  with  public  humiliation,  shame,  and  disgrace. 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  provides  that  no  man  shall 
be  deprived  of  life,  liberty,  or  property  without  due  process  of  law. 
A seat  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  Mr.  Chairman,  is  not  prop- 
erty in  the  sense  of  a corporeal  matter,  but  I should  be  very  much 
surprised  if  the  right  to  retain  a seat  in  the  United  States  Senate  is 
not  surrounded  by  the  same  legal  guaranties,  and  if  the  interests  of 
a man  therein  are  not  protected  by  the  same  legal  principles  that 
obtain  in  the  ordinary  administration  of  the  law  in  courts  of  justice. 
While  it  is  quite  true  that  in  pursuance  of  the  procedure  of  the  Sen- 
ate it  is  the  duty  of  this  committee  to  investigate  these  charges,  yet, 
ultimately,  if  an  adverse  report  were  made  by  the  committee,  the 
great  body  of  which  you  are  members  will  nass  in  a judicial  capacity 
upon  this  right  of  Senator  Stephenson  to  his  seat;  and  at  his  age  in 
life,  especially  bearing  in  mind  the  fact  that  during  all  this  long 
period  of  his  association  with  the  business  men  and  the  public  mat- 


SENATOR  FROM  WISCONSIN. 


7 


ters  of  this  Commonwealth  up  to  date  his  record  is  without  spot  or 
blemish,  it  is  a matter  of  the  first  importance  to  him  what  the  result 
here  may  be. 

This  resolution  directs  this  committee  to  investigate  whether  or 
not  in  his  election  to  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  corrupt  prac- 
tices and  corrupt  methods  were  used;  so  that,  although  the  investi- 
gation is  general  in  its  character,  it  is  without  force  or  purpose  ex- 
cept as  ultimately  it  may  affect  him  as  a member  of  the  greatest  legis- 
lative body  known  to  our  civilization. 

I assume  that  if  it  were  necessary  to  establish  the  fact  that  corrupt 
practices  were  so  used  as  to  invalidate  Senator  Stephenson’s  title  to 
his  seat  in  the  Senate,  it  would  hardly  be  expected  that  in  the  first 
instance  those  facts  could  be  established  by  interrogating  him.  For- 
tunately, Mr.  Chairman,  we  are  not  here  this  morning  in  an  atti- 
tude that  will  be  in  any  way  adverse  or  obstructive  to  the  wishes 
of  the  committee.  While  we  feel  that  if  it  were  necessary  for  the 
protection  of  the  Senator’s  rights  it  would  be  our  duty  professionally 
as  his  legal  advisers  to  instruct  him  that  he  had  a perfect  right  to 
wait  until  such  matters  as  might  be  charged  against  him  were  shown, 
in  order  that  then  he  might,  in  the  course  of  judicial  procedure, 
appear  and  answer  thereto,  yet  we  have  no  occasion  to  assume  that 
attitude  so  far  as  the  Senator  is  concerned.  Great  as  are  the  inter- 
ests involved  and  important  as  they  are  to  him,  there  is  nothing 
that  the  Senator  knows  about  this  election  that  we  are  not  willing 
and  more  than  anxious  that  the  committee  should  know. 

So  in  the  very  outset  I desire  to  say  that  we  are  not  only  quite 
willing  but  we  are  anxious  that  on  the  very  threshold  of  this  investi- 
gation, which  involves  rights  that  are  extremely  valuable  to  him, 
which  will  affect  his  name,  fame,  and  reputation  for  all  time,  the 
committee  shall  in  the  first  instance  get  from  him  everything  he 
knows  about  these  matters  that  may  be  in  controversy.  So  we  make 
no  objection  whatever  to  his  examination  as  the  first,  the  initial 
witness  in  this  investigation.  We  understand  that  the  committee 
have  an  idea  that  that  is  perhaps  the  better  way  to  facilitate  the 
progress  of  the  investigation.  I trust  that  we  may  in  the  course  of 
these  proceedings  develop  the  fact  that  we  are  here  for  the  purpose 
of  facilitating,  from  every  point  of  view,  the  action  and  progress  of 
the  committee.  With  that  suggestion  in  relation  to  the  examination 
of  the  Senator  as  a witness  in  these  proceedings,  I desire  now  to  be 
heard  upon  what  seems  to  me  to  be  an  important  and  vital  considera- 
tion in  connection  with  this  investigation,  and  that  is,  What  is  its 
scope  ? 

The  precept  under  which  this  committee  acts,  and  from  which  it 
draws  its  power,  and  under  which  only  can  it  exercise  authority,  is 
the  resolution  of  the  United  States  Senate  authorizing  you  to  come 
here  to  investigate.  Now,  I desire  to  say  that  in  my  judgment  a 
fair  legal  construction  of  this  resolution  confines  this  committee  to 
an  investigation  of  the  election  of  Senator  Stephenson  by  the  Legis- 
lature of  Wisconsin. 

In  order  that  the  committee  may  be  advised  of  the  chronology  of 
the  events  here,  so  as  to  apprehend  accurately  the  suggestion  that  I 
am  about  to  make,  and  in  order  that  I may  make  myself  intelligible, 
I ought  to  say  that  we  have  advised  Senator  Stephenson,  and  I have 
no  doubt  as  a matter  of  law,  and  I do  not  believe  any  good  lawyer 


8 


SENATOR  PROM  WISCONSIN. 


has  any  doubt  as  a matter  of  law,  that  Senator  Stephenson  was 
elected  by  the  Wisconsin  Legislature  to  be  a Senator  of  the  United 
States  on  the  26th  day  of  January,  1909,  at  which  time  the  house 
and  the  senate  of  the  Wisconsin  Legislature  were  in  legal  session. 
The  house,  by  a large  majority,  voted  for  Mr.  Stephenson  as  its  candi- 
date for  Senator,  and  the  senate,  by  a large  majority  of  the  senators 
voting,  also  voted  for  Senator  Stephenson. 

There  were  33  members  of  the  Wisconsin  senate.  They  were  all 
present  on  the  26th  of  January,  1909.  There  were  17  who  voted, 
and  12  of  those  17  voted  for  Isaac  Stephenson  for  United  States 
Senator,  being  a majority  of  5 of  a legal  quorum  voting  for  Senator. 

It  is  true  that  something  like  16  of  the  members  of  the  State 
Senate  of  Wisconsin  declared  themselves  to  be  “ present,”  which  was 
quite  true;  but  it  needed  something  more  than  a declaration  that 
they  were  present  in  order  to  enable  them  to  take  any  legal  part  in 
the  election  of  a United  States  Senator,  because  the  statutes  of  the 
United  States  expressly  require  the  house  and  the  senate  to  vote  for 
a person  for  United  States  Senator.  It  is  too  obvious  for  discussion, 
and  it  would  stultify  any  legal  intelligence  to  argue,  that  an  an- 
nouncement of  “ present,”  declaring  that  a man  was  there,  was  a 
“ vote  ” for  a “ person.”  I will  not  stop  to  elaborate  the  legal  propo- 
sition, but  I desire  the  subcommittee  to  appreciate  the  full  signifi- 
cance of  the  situation.  There  is  not  the  slightest  question,  in  my 
judgment,  that  on  that  26th  day  of  January  Senator  Stephenson 
received  his  title  to  a seat  in  the  United  States  Senate.  It  is  true 
that  he  did  not  receive  a certificate  thereof  until  after  the  4th  of 
March.  I am  going  to  call  your  attention  very  briefly  as  I go  on  to 
the  condition  that  intervened. 

When  the  legislature  met  in  joint  session  on  the  next  day,  and 
under  the  law  of  the  United  States  it  became  the  duty  of  the  presid- 
ing officer  of  that  joint  convention  when  the  records  of  the  proceed- 
ings of  those  two  separate  bodies  were  read  to  declare  the  result,  he 
declined  so  to  declare,  and  they  proceeded  to  vote. 

On  the  26th  of  J anuary,  after  the  vote  had  been  taken  electing  Mr. 
Stephenson  to  the  United  States  Senate,  Senator  J.  J.  Blaine — I beg 
the  subcommittee  not  to  confuse  him  with  a gentleman  by  the  name 
of  James  G.  Blaine,  formerly  of  my  State  of  Maine — presented  the 
charges  which  have  been  read  here  this  morning,  and  I may  say  now 
that  is  about  as  far  as  those  charges  have  ever  gotten  in  the  in- 
vestigation— that  is,  to  be  read.  I say  that  in  case  it  becomes  neces- 
sary to  go  into  that  phase  of  the  question. 

As  I have  stated,  the  presiding  officer  declined  to  declare  the  result, 
proceeding  upon  the  assumption  that  no  election  had  taken  place,  and 
an  investigation  was  begun  before  a committee  of  the  Wisconsin 
Legislature.  To  that  committee  was  submitted  what  are  known  as 
the  Blaine  charges.  That  committee  sat  in  almost  continuous  session 
until  the  4th  day  of  March,  and  then  after  that  date  a committee 
created  by  the  senate,  some  time  about  April  1,  proceeded  to  con- 
tinue the  alleged  investigation. 

It  is  quite  true  that  what  are  known  as  the  Blaine  charges  are 
alleged  to  be  the  charges  here,  but  I want  to  call  the  attention  of  the 
committee  to  the  fact  that,  in  my  judgment,  this  committee  has  noth- 
ing whatever  to  do  with  the  alleged  Blaine  charges,  so  far  as  they 
relate  to  the  primary  election  or  nomination.  Our  proposition  is 


SENATOR  FROM  WISCONSIN. 


9 


that  that  primary  nomination  has  no  legal  or  constitutional  connec- 
tion with  or  relation  to  the  election  by  the  Legislature  of  Wisconsin. 

Before  I reach  a discussion  of  that  question  I desire  the  committee 
to  hear  me 

Senator  Sutherland.  Mr.  Littlefield,  before  you  pass  to  that  sub- 
ject, let  me  ask  you  a question. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Certainly. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Was  the  certificate  which  was  presented  to 
the  Senate  of  the  United  States  on  Mr.  Stephenson’s  behalf  based 
upon  the  vote  that  you  have  detailed — that  was  taken  in  the  two 
houses  separately? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  No;  that  was  based  upon  what  was  alleged  to  be 
a subsequent  election  on  the  4th  day  of  March,  1909. 

Senator  Sutherland.  The  certificate  presented  to  the  Senate  and 
under  which  Senator  Stephenson  took  his  seat,  was  a certificate  which 
recited  his  election  subsequent  to  the  circumstances  you  have 
detailed  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes ; you  are  perfectly  right  about  that. 

Senator  Sutherland.  No  certificate  was  issued  to  him  based  upon 
the  proceedings  in  the  two  houses  separately? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  No.  All  that  was  ever  done  in  connection  with 
that  was  to  have  transmitted  to  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  a 
certified  copy  of  the  record  of  that  election,  showing  what  had  been 
done.  Of  course,  my  position  in  relation  to  that  is  simply  stated  so 
that  it  may  be  considered  if  it  becomes  necessary.  It  is  hardly  worth 
while  to  say  that  when  a man  has  been  elected  by  the  legislature  of 
a State,  in  the  constitutional  manner — the  manner  provided  by  the 
Statutes  of  the  United  States — it  is  scarcely  within  the  power  of  a 
presiding  officer,  by  a failure  to  declare  the  result,  to  deprive  the 
Senator  of  his  right  thus  acquired.  But  I am  merely  stating  the 
chronology  of  the  events. 

The  governor  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin  certified  to  the  Senate  of 
the  United  States,  under  date  of  February  25,  1909,  the  fact  of  the 
vote,  backed  up  by  a copy  of  the  record  showing  precisely  what  took 
place,  and  that  communication  became  Document  No.  753  of  the  sec- 
ond session  of  the  Sixtieth  Congress,  being  received  and  filed  March 
2,  1909. 

Senator  Sutherland.  But  the  governor  in  that  document  does  not 
certify,  does  he,  that  Mr.  Stephenson  was  elected  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  No;  he  does  not  undertake  to  make  a certificate 
that  he  was  elected.  He  simply  certifies  the  facts. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  is,  the  facts  as  you  have  stated  them  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  precisely.  There  is  no  question  about  them. 
The  facts  are  exactly  as  I have  stated  them,  and  this  Senate  document 
shows  that. 

Now,  I want  to  call  your  attention  to  a significant  fact  bearing  upon 
the  proper  construction  of  this  resolution,  because  I take  it  that  a 
resolution  of  the  United  States  Senate  must  be  construed  in  connec- 
tion with  the  circumstances  under  which  it  was  passed.  I want  the 
committee  to  bear  in  mind  the  fact  that  the  Wisconsin  Legislature, 
after  the  26th  of  January,  1909,  proceeded  upon  the  hypothesis  that 
no  election  had  taken  place.  What  did  they  do?  They  did  not  pro- 
ceed of  course  to  investigate  an  election  to  the  United  States  Senate, 
because  under  their  hypothesis  there  had  been  no  election.  They  did 


10 


SENATOR  FROM  WISCONSIN. 


proceed  to  investigate  a primary  election.  I think  a cursory  reading 
of  the  testimony  taken  in  that  investigation,  striking  only  the  high 
spots  of  that  testimony,  would  very  amply  disclose  the  fact  that  the 
main  purpose  of  the  investigating  committee  was  to  develop  a condi- 
tion of  affairs  that  would  probably  prevent  members  of  the  legislature, 
under  the  circumstances,  from  voting  for  Senator  Stephenson  as  a 
candidate  for  the  United  States  Senate;  not  altogether  with  the 
expectation  of  establishing  charges  of  great  gravity,  but  creating  a 
condition  that  would  perhaps  justify  some  members  of  the  legislature 
in  drawing  away  from  the  result  of  the  primary  and  leaving  them  in 
a position  where  they  could  prevent  an  election;  not  an  investigation 
of  the  election,  but  undoubtedly  an  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  com- 
mittee to  prevent  an  election. 

So  the  committee  want  to  bear  in  mind  distinctly  that  there  have 
been  practically  two  investigations  on  the  part  of  the  Wisconsin 
Legislature.  First,  there  was  an  investigation  by  a joint  committee 
of  the  legislature  under  a resolution  relating  altogether  to  the  pri- 
mary. I am  not  going  to  stop  to  discuss  the  question  whether  that 
was  within  their  legal  scope  or  not,  because  it  is  perfectly  immaterial 
for  my  purpose  in  this  discussion.  It  is  simply  necessary  to  say  that 
their  investigation  was  confined  to  the  matters  that  took  place  in  the 
primary,  and  a little  later  I am  going  to  discuss  the  legal  relation  or 
nonrelation  of  the  primal  to  the  election  of  a United  States  Senator 
by  the  legislature. 

I want  to  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  the  construction  of 
the  resolution  under  which  the  committee  are  acting,  bearing  in  mind 
the  distinction  that  exists  between  the  action  of  the  joint  committee  of 
the  Wisconsin  Legislature  and  the  resolution  under  which  you  are  now 
acting.  I should  go  further  and  say  that  when  the  Wisconsin  Senate 
appointed  a committee,  somewhere  about  the  1st  of  April,  1909,  that 
committee,  under  its  resolution,  undertook  to  investigate  not  only  the 
primary  but  the  election  by  the  legislature.  At  that  time  of  course 
an  election  had  taken  place. 

Now,  what  does  the  resolution  of  the  United  States  Senate  authorize 
this  committee  to  do?  It  is  true  that  the  resolution  directs  the  com- 
mittee to  investigate  certain  charges  preferred  by  the  Legislature  of 
Wisconsin.  To  what  end,  and  for  what  purpose?  It  is  specifically 
stated  in  the  resolution  : For  the  purpose  of  being  able  to  report  to  the 
Senate  “ whether  in  the  election  of  Isaac  Stephenson  ”■ — 

I beg  the  subcommittee  to  note  the  language — 

To  report  to  the  Senate  whether  in  the  election  of  said  Isaac  Stephenson  as  a 
Senator  of  the  United  States  from  the  said  State  of  Wisconsin  there  were  used 
or  employed  corrupt  methods  or  practices. 

Bear  in  mind  the  fact  that  the  Wisconsin  Legislature  had  been  in- 
vestigating the  primary  in  which  he  was  nominated,  not  elected,  and 
afterwards  undertook  to  investigate  also  the  election.  Now  a resolu- 
tion of  the  United  States  Senate  authorizes  this  committee  to  investi- 
gate and  “report  to  the  Senate  whether  in  the  election  of  said  Isaac 
Stephenson,  as  a Senator  of  the  United  States  from  the  said  State  of 
Wisconsin,  there  were  used  or  employed  corrupt  methods  or  prac- 
tices.” Will  this  committee,  when  it  makes  its  report,  find  that  cor- 
rupt practices  were  used  in  anything  other  than  the  election?  Would 
it  not  be  gratuitous  to  do  that?  What  power  has  this  committee 


SENATOR  FROM  WISCONSIN. 


11 


under  this  resolution  to  report  in  relation  to  any  corrupt  practices  or 
methods  that  do  not  relate  to  the  election  of  Senator  Stephenson? 
None.  There  can  not  be  any  doubt,  it  seems  to  me,  about  the  con- 
struction of  the  English  language  in  that  respect. 

That  being  the  case,  what  occasion  has  the  committee  to  investi- 
gate any  charges  that  relate  to  anything  other  than  the  election  of 
Senator  Stephenson?  By  whom?  By  the  Legislature  of  Wisconsin. 
To  be  sure,  certain  charges  are  referred  to;  but  I submit  that  it 
would  be  worse  than  idle  for  this  committee  to  investigate  charges 
with  reference  to  which  they  have  no  power  to  make  any  report. 
It  does  not  do  to  say  that  because  Senator  Stephenson’s  election  to 
the  United  States  Senate  by  the  Legislature  of  Wisconsin  is  ques- 
tioned, it  opens  up  all  the  antecedent  history  extending  over  any 
lengthy  period  of  time. 

I submit,  first,  that  the  committee  can  not  and  will  not  report  to 
the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  under  this  resolution,  any  alleged 
corrupt  practices  or  methods  that  do  not  relate  to  the  election. 

I take  very  great  pleasure  in  being  able  to  argue  this  question 
under  these  circumstances.  I know  this  subcommittee,  and  I know 
the  Committee  on. Privileges  and  Elections;  and  it  is  our  great  good 
fortune  that  it  is  composed  of  able  lawyers  and  distinguished  men; 
men  of  character  and  integrity,  who  will  see  that  these  proceedings, 
from  the  beginning  to  the  end,  are  conducted  not  only  in  accordance 
with  the  law  of  the  land,  where  important  rights  are  involved,  but 
will  also  see  to  it  that  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  due  propriety 
is  observed;  and  I submit  that  this  committee  will  never  report  to 
the  Senate  of  the  United  States  under  this  resolution,  any  alleged 
corrupt  practices  or  methods  that  do  not  relate  to  the  election.  The 
Senate  of  the  United  States  has  not  asked  the  committee  to  do  that. 

That  being  the  case,  I submit  there  is  no  occasion  for  the  investi- 
gation of  any  alleged  charges  that  relate  to  anything  other  than  the 
election  of  Senator  Stephenson  by  the  Legislature  of  Wisconsin. 
Now  the  history  of  this  matter 

Senator  Sutherland.  Mr.  Littlefield,  may  I ask  a question  here? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Certainly. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Is  it  your  claim  that  the  committee  ought 
not  to  inquire  into  any  proceedings  or  any  acts  which  occurred  prior 
to  the  time  of  the  election,  or  at  least  prior  to  the  time  of  the  elec- 
tion of  the  legislators  who  voted  for  Mr.  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I do  not  know  that  I could  go  quite  so  far  as 
that.  Of  course,  if  there  is  anything  here  that  can  connect  any  act 
of  Senator  Stephenson,  or  the  act  of  any  member  of  the  legislature, 
so  as  in  any  way  improperly  to  affect  his  election,  or  in  any  manner 
that  would  improperly  affect  the  vote,  it  is  very  possible  that  that 
would  open  up  a proper  subject  of  inquiry;  but  my  position  abso- 
lutely is  that  it  is  not  competent  for  this  committee,  that  this  com- 
mittee has  no  power  to  examine  into  the  conduct  of  the  primary 
election  which  resulted  only  in  a nomination,  and  has  not  the  slight- 
est legal  or  constitutional  connection  with  the  election,  which  was 
by  the  legislature. 

Senator  Sutherland.  But  suppose  for  the  sake  of  illustration  that 
it  should  appear  that  Mr.  Stephenson,  by  himself  or  through  his 
agents,  had  corruptly  expended  money  at  the  primary,  for  the  pur- 


12 


SENATOR  FROM  WISCONSIN. 


pose  of  influencing  the  election  of  legislators  who  would  ultimately 
vote  for  him.  Would  you  say  that  would  not  be  a proper  subject  of 
inquiry  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Absolutely. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  it  would  not? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I have  not  the  slightest  question  as  to  the  legal 
proposition  that  this  committee  has  not  the  power  under  the  resolu- 
tion, and  in  my  opinion  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  could  not  pass 
a resolution  that  would  enable  this  committee,  to  investigate  the  pri- 
mary nomination. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Would  you  say,  then,  to  do  away  with  the 
primary  entirely,  to  take  that  out  of  the  case?  Would  you  say  that 
a committee  investigating  the  election  of  a member  of  the  Senate 
would  not  be  empowered  to  take  cognizance  of  the  fact,  if  it  be  made 
to  appear,  that  a year,  say,  prior  to  the  actual  election  being  had,  the 
candidate  for  the  United  States  Senate  had  paid  to  some  individual 
money  with  the  understanding  that  if  he  should  become  a candidate 
before  the  State  legislature,  then  that  individual  should  vote  for  this 
particular  candidate  for  United  States  Senator? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Our  proposition  does  not  carry  me  so  far  as  that. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Would  we  not  have  the  right  to  go  back  to 
that? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes.  My  proposition  does  not  carry  me  so  far  as 
that.  Of  course  there  you  have  a case  where  the  candidate  was  bring- 
ing to  bear  upon  a man  who  later  became  a member  of  the  legislature 
corrupt  and  improper  influences.  That  is  an  entirely  different  prop- 
osition. There  you  have  a direct  connection  with  the  member  of  the 
legislature.  But  this  proposition  does  not  carry  me  anywhere  near 
that  distance.  I will  go  a little  further  and  demonstrate  what  the 
proper  construction  of  this  resolution  is,  and  then  I want  to  discuss  a 
little  more  elaborately  as  to  the  absolute  lack  of  legal  connection 
between  the  two,  and  I hope  before  I am  through  to  satisfy  this  com- 
mittee that  we  are  confronted  with  a very  important  practical 
proposition,  which  not  only  concerns  Senator  Stephenson,  but  may 
concern  the  ultimate  practice  of  the  United  States  Senate  in  matters 
of  this  sort. 

Let  me  complete  now  our  analysis  of  the  resolution.  I want  to  call 
the  attention  of  the  committee  to  the  fact  that  the  resolution  that  has 
been  read,  which  was  passed  by  the  Wisconsin  State  Legislature,  ex- 
pressly recognizes  the  legal  distinction  between  the  primary  election 
and  the  election  of  a United  States  Senator.  What  do  I mean  by 
that?  In  the  whereases  they  say : 

And  the  Senate  investigation  committee  appointed  to  investigate  the  manner, 
means,  and  methods  by  which  the  primary  campaign  and  election  of  the  year 
1908  is  claimed  to  have  been  corruptly  and  unlawfully  conducted,  and  to  fully, 
fairly,  and  thoroughly  investigate  the  campaign  and  election  of  Isaac  Stephen- 
son to  the  United  States  Senate,  and  the  campaign  of  the  primary  and  general 
election,  and  the  primary  election  and  election  of  the  members  of  the  last  legis- 
lature, so  far  as  the  same  in  any  way  pertained  to  or  affected  the  election  of 
Isaac  Stephenson  to  the  United  States  Senate,  have,  in  accordance  with  the 
resolutions  adopted  for  said  purposes,  made  and  filed  their  report  with  the 
governor  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin,  etc. 

So,  Mr.  Chairman,  it  is  so  obvious  that  it  is  unnecessary  to  discuss 
it,  that  the  very  resolution  that  presented  these  charges  distinctly 


SENATOR  FROM  WISCONSIN.  13 

recognizes  the  legal  distinction  between  the  primary  election  and  the 
election  by  the  legislature  of  a Senator  of  the  United  States. 

I could  go  further  and  say  that  after  the  report  of  this  committee 
to  the  Wisconsin  Legislature  had  been  held  off  for  two  years  after 
the  alleged  investigation  was  completed,  the  investigation  having 
been  completed  on  the  part  of  both  the  joint  and  separate  committee, 
about  the  21st  day  of  May,  1909,  apparently  they  woke  up  for  the 
purpose  of  having  this  resolution  of  inquiry  adopted  by  the  Wiscon- 
sin Legislature  some  time  in  June,  1911,  two  years  after  the  investi- 
gation had  been  concluded.  Having,  as  I say,  distinctly  recognized 
that  in  the  joint  resolution  I want  now  to  go  back  and  to  call  the 
attention  of  the  committee  to  this  very  significant  fact,  that  we  have 
this  resolution  two  years  after  every  fact  that  could  be  unearthed  by 
the  exercise  of  the  greatest  diligence  and  the  most  extraordinary  in- 
genuity had  been  made  public  property  and  the  people  of  Wisconsin 
were  fully  advised  of  the  situation.  What  did  the  legislature  do  in 
its  resolution? 

The  Chairman.  That  report  was  made  by  only  a part  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  joint  committee? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  No  ; I beg  the  chairman’s  pardon.  The  chronology 
of  events  is  this:  I think  the  senate  continued  its  committee,  on  the 
1st  of  April,  and  the  members  of  the  committee  are  confined  to  those 
who  were  on  the  joint  committee — I think  Senators  Marsh,  Morris, 
and  Husting.  The  house  declined  to  continue  the  investigation  fur- 
ther. The  senate  proceeded  independently  with  the  same  members 
who  were  theretofore  its  members  of  the  joint  committee.  That  com- 
mittee, on  the  part  of  the  senate,  made  a report  to  the  Wisconsin  Leg- 
islature ; that  is,  they  made  the  report  to  the  senate  end  of  the  legisla- 
ture, if  I may  so  term  it.  About  that  time  the  house  members  of  the 
original  joint  committee  also  made  a report  which  appears  in  the 
pamphlet,  that  the  committee  has  before  it.  That,  I think,  is  the 
exact  chronology  of  events. 

Now,  having  called  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  in  the  very  reso- 
lution submitting  this  question  to  the  United  States  Senate,  the  Wis- 
consin Legislature  distinctly  and  specifically  recognized  the  distinc- 
tion between  a primary  election  and  a general  election  and  the 
election  of  the  United  States  Senator,  I desire  now  to  call  attention 
to  what,  after  the  adoption  of  this  preamble,  the  Wisconsin  Legisla- 
ture asked  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  to  do.  I read  from  the 
resolution : 

And  the  United  States  Senate  is  hereby  requested  to  investigate  the  manner, 
means,  and  methods  by  and  through  which  Isaac  Stephenson  secured  his  elec- 
tion to  the  United  States  Senate. 

The  Senate  of  the  United  States  is  not  requested  to  investigate 
how  Senator  Stephenson  secured  his  nomination.  What  did  they 
request  the  Senate  to  do?  Although  they  had  covered  this  general 
ground  by  their  investigation,  they  were  sufficiently  good  lawyers  to 
know  that  there  was  only  one  thing  that  the  United  States  Senate 
could  investigate,  and  so  they  made  this  request — to  investigate  the 
manner,  means,  and  methods  by  and  through  which  Isaac  Stephen- 
son secured  his  election  to  the  United  States  Senate.  I submit  that 
the  Wisconsin  Legislature  confined  itself  to  the  only  legal  scope  of 
investigation  upon  the  part  of  the  United  States  Senate.  It  is 


14 


SENATOR  FROM  WISCONSIN. 


precisely  in  line  with  the  senate  committee?  the  committee  reciting 
in  its  resolution  of  investigation,  the  investigation  they  had  had  in 
connection  with  the  primary,  the  investigation  they  had  had  in  con- 
nection with  the  general  election;  and  when  they  came  to  request 
the  United  States  Senate  to  act  they  confined  themselves  to  the  con- 
stitutional scope  of  the  power  of  the  Senate  and  simply  requested  an 
investigation  of  the  election  of  Senator  Stephenson  to  the  United 
States  Senate. 

If  the  committee  please,  that  is  substantially  all  that  I have  to  say 
about  the  construction  of  the  resolution.  I desire  now  to  say  some- 
thing about  the  legal  and  constitutional  situation  that  confronts  us 
and  to  call  attention  to  what  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
provides  in  a section  that  is  quite  familiar  to  us  all,  it  having  been 
the  subject  of  considerable  legislative  discussion  both  in  the  Senate 
and  in  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Mr.  Littlefield,  will  it  interrupt  you  if  I 
ask  you  a question  at  this  point? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  No;  not  at  all. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I want  to  understand  the  position  you  take. 
Is  it  your  position  that  the  committee  would  have  no  right  to  in- 
quire into  the  expenditure  of  money  by  Senator  Stephenson  at  the 
primary  election  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Suppose  that  the  lavish  expenditure  of 
money  at  the  primary  election  was  one  of  the  means  adopted  for  the 
purpose  of  bringing  about  his  election  ultimately. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I am  going  on  now  to  discuss  and  show  the  com- 
mittee why,  in  my  judgment,  that  legal  connection  can  not  be 
made.  I hope  to  be  able  to  show  the  committee  that  it  does  not  cre- 
ate a condition  of  legal  connection  between  the  two.  It  is  necessary 
for  me  to  establish  that  in  order  for  me  to  maintain  the  position  I 
take,  and  of  course  the  Senator  has  in  a sense  anticipated  a portion 
of  the  contention  at  which  I am  about  to  arrive. 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  provides  that  Senators 
shall  be  elected  by  the  legislatures,  that  provision  being  Article  I, 
section  3.  My  first  proposition  is  that  there  is  no  action  that  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States  could  take  or  that  the  legislature  of 
a State  could  take  which  can  in  the  slightest  degree  impair,  add  to, 
or  in  any  way  affect  that  provision  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.  I take  the  ground  that  the  Congress  of  the  United  States 
could  not  pass  a primary  election  law  with  reference  to  Senators  of 
the  United  States  that  would  in  the  slightest  degree  infringe  that 
constitutional  provision ; that  would  in  any  way  control  the  exercise 
of  the  discretion  of  a member  of  a State  legislature.  If  they  could, 
if  by  enacting  a primary  law  which  could  result  in  a nomination,  a 
law  that  would  be  more  than  advisory  or  simply  persuasive,  that 
would  be  in  a sense  controlling,  we  would  now  have  what  some 
people  believe  should  exist,  viz,  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  devolving  upon  the  people  the  right  to  say 
who  should  be  elected.  I submit  that  as  my  first  proposition. 

I will  go  further  than  that,  and  I will  call  the  attention  of  the 
committee  to  the  fact  that  the  primary  law  in  the  State  of  Wis- 
consin does  not  undertake  either  by  indirection  or  in  any  other  way 


SENATOR  FROM  WISCONSIN. 


15 


to  affect  the  election  by  the  legislature  of  a Senator.  The  statutes 
of  Wisconsin  distinctly  recognize  the  differentiation  between  a nomi- 
nation and  an  election.  The  committee  will  find  by  referring  to 
the  statute  that  the  Legislature  of  Wisconsin,  in  order  to  make  its 
legislation  apply  to  the  election  and  nomination,  found  it  necessary 
to  specifically  define  and  refer  to  each  case,  for  they  say  that  no 
person  shall  directly  or  indirectly  give,  subscribe,  or  promise  or  agree 
to  pay  any  sum  or  thing  of  value  to  procure  or  aid  in  procuring 
the  nomination  or  election,  and  so  forth — proceeding,  of  course,  upon 
the  familiar  ground  that  in  order  to  make  the  penal  statute  apply 
to  the  nominating  campaign  it  was  necessary  on  account  of  the  legal 
distinction  between  the  two  to  specify  both.  I give  only  this  one 
illustration,  but  I think  wherever  the  statutes  of  Wisconsin  undertake 
to  refer  to  both  the  nomination  and  the  election  they  specify  each. 
So  that  the  legislature  distinctly  recognizes  the  legal  distinction  be- 
tween the  two  and  the  necessity  of  specifying  each  if  they  intend 
their  penal  legislation  to  apply  to  each. 

I have  said  that  Congress  can  not  add  to  or  take  from  this  con- 
stitutional provision.  I desire  to  go  further  and  call  the  attention 
of  the  committee  to  the  fact  that  one  of  the  ablest  courts  of  the 
United  States  has  elaborately  discussed  this  question  and  established 
the  legal  proposition  which  I am  now  undertaking  to  demonstrate.  I 
call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  the  One  hundred  and  forty- 
second  Wisconsin  Report,  at  page  346,  to  the  case  of  State  ex  rel.  Van 
Alstine  v.  Frear. 

Before  I quote  from  that  decision,  in  order  that  the  committee 
ma}7  fully  appreciate  the  significance  of  it,  I desire  to  state  briefly 
what  the  facts  were  concerning  which  the  decision  is  rendered.  This 
happens  to  be  the  case  of  a taxpayer,  brought  for  the  purpose  of 
testing  the  constitutionality  of  this  very  primary  election  law  that 
I am  now  discussing,  the  taxpayer  taking  the  familiar  ground  that 
it  was  unconstitutional;  that  it  involved  expense  on  the  part  of 
the  State  in  order  to  put  its  machinery  into  operation,  and  that  being 
unconstitutional  and  void  the  officers  authorized  by  the  law  to  incur 
the  expense  could  not  properly  incur  it;  and  in  discussing  it  the 
court  took  occasion  to  discuss  this  provision  that  I am  now  calling 
attention  to: 

The  Constitution  unequivocally  vests  in  the  legislatures  of  the  several  States 
the  power  to  elect  Senators.  This  can  only  mean  that  it  is  made  the  duty  of 
the  legislators  to  meet,  consult,  and  exercise  their  conscientious  judgments  in 
making  a choice,  having  in  mind  always  that  they  are  the  agents  and  repre- 
sentatives of  those  who  sent  them  and  that  the  wishes  of  the  people  are 
entitled  to  grave  consideration.  But  if  it  be  the  object  and  purpose  of  this  law 
to  shift  the  burden  of,  and  the  responsibility  for,  the  election  of  United  States 
Senators  from  the  legislature  to  the  electorate ; if  our  legislators  are  to  play 
the  parts  of  automatons  and  become  mere  passive  instruments  by  and  through 
whom  the  will  of  the  voters  is  to  be  carried  out;  if  to  them  is  left  the  perfunc- 
tory duty  of  ratifying  the  action  of  the  voters  at  the  primaries,  as  the  members 
of  our  electoral  college  confirm  the  result  of  a presidential  election ; if  the  elec- 
tors in  reality  elect  United  States  Senators,  instead  of  the  legislature,  then  the 
constitutional  scheme  has  been  superseded  and  the  spirit  of  the  Constitution  has 
been  evaded  and  disregarded.  Performing  the  empty  ceremony  of  recording  the 
wish  of  some  other  body  is  vitally  different  from  expressing  and  recording  inde- 
pendent thought  and  judgment. 

******* 

The  foregoing  excerpts  embody  all  the  requirements  found  in  the  law  that 
pertain  to  United  States  Senators.  Not  a word  is  said  in  the  act  about  requir- 


16 


SENATOR  FROM  WISCONSIN. 


ing  legislative  candidates  to  pledge  themselves  to  support  the  nominee  of  the 
party.  The  law  in  terms  imposes  no  duty  upon  any  member  of  the  legislature 
to  vote  for  any  person  who  was  a candidate  before  the  primary.  Neither  does 
it  restrict  the  choice  to  some  person  who  was  voted  for  thereat.  Should  this 
court  assume  that  the  coercive  power  of  a nomination  for  Senator  at  the  prima- 
ries is  so  great  as  to  destroy  volition  on  the  part  of  members  of  the  legislature 
and  convert  them  into  mere  voting  machines?  The  first  and  only  election  of  a 
Senator  since  the  primary  law  was  passed  would  indicate  that  very  many  mem- 
bers of  the  legislature  did  not  so  interpret  the  law,  and  we  have  little  reason  to 
suppose  that  any  of  them  did.  Certainly  the  fact  that  a majority  finally  voted 
for  the  nominee  of  the  primary  proves  nothing.  The  same  result  might  have 
followed  if  no  primary  had  been  held. 

The  law  on  its  face  does  not  convey  the  impression  that  it  contains  a sin- 
ister assault  upon  section  3 of  Article  I of  the  Federal  Constitution.  On  the 
contrary,  the  purpose  of  the  provision  relating  to  the  nomination  of  United 
States  Senators  may  not  only  be  lawful  but  may  be  entirely  praiseworthy. 
Formerly  political  conventions  met  principally  for  the  purpose  of  nominating 
candidates  and  promulgating  party  platforms.  These  functions  are  now  per- 
formed at  the  primaries  and  by  the  candidates  nominated  thereat.  While  con- 
ventions may  still  be  held,  the  necessity  for  holding  them  has  largely  been 
obviated,  and  it  was  no  doubt  thought  by  the  legislature  that  they  would  be 
of  infrequent  occurrence.  Such  conventions,  when  held,  very  often  expressed 
a choice  of  candidates  for  the  senatorship.  Senatorial  and  assembly  conven- 
tions usually  passed  resolutions  requesting  their  nominees  to  use  all  honorable 
means  to  secure  the  election  of  a favorite  candidate.  They  furnished  the  only 
available  means  by  which  a candidate  might  become  advised  of  the  wishes 
of  his  constituency  on  this  important  subject.  It  is  not  only  permissible,  but 
is  proper,  that  he  should  receive  such  advice.  That  advice  can  now  be  con- 
veyed most  effectively  through  the  vote  at  the  primary. 

It  should  always  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  people  are  the  masters  and 
that  the  members  of  the  legislature  are  their  servants,  and  that  the  agent 
should  always  give  due  consideration  to  the  voice  of  the  principal.  In  order 
to  regard  it  he  must  hear  it.  It  is  none  the  less  true  that  the  agent  by  his 
oath  of  office  swears  that  he  will  defend  the  constitutions,  State  and  Federal, 
and  perform  the  duties  of  his  office  to  the  best  of  his  ability,  and  when  vox 
populi  points  in  one  direction  and  our  organic  laws  in  the  other,  we  must  as- 
sume that  the  agent  will  courageously  obey  the  behest  of  his  oath  and  his 
conscience.  It  is  not  apparent  how  our  primary  law  can  be  held  to  be  so 
coercive  as  to  destroy  judgment  and  discretion  on  the  part  of  a member  of 
our  legislature  when  he  comes  to  perform  the  duty  of  electing  a United  States 
Senator.  Where  the  majority  for  some  candidate  is  large,  great  deference 
should  and  no  doubt  will  be  accorded  to  its  voice.  When  public  sentiment 
does  not  materially  preponderate  in  favor  of  a single  candidate,  it  may  have 
a comparatively  slight  influence  in  inducing  a legislator  to  cast  his  vote  in 
favor  of  a candidate  who  has  received  a bare  plurality  of  the  popular  vote; 
and  where  the  vote  of  the  constituency  of  the  individual  member  is  decidedly 
adverse  to  the  successful  candidate,  it  may  well  have  a tendency  to  lead  him 
to  oppose  rather  than  support  the  nominee. 

Our  constitutions,  State  and  national,  guarantee  the  right  of  petition. 
Every  citizen  of  the  State  has  the  right  to  petition  the  legislature  asking  that 
the  candidate  of  his  choice  be  elected  United  States  Senator.  Every  citizen  of 
a senatorial  or  assembly  district  has  the  right  to  petition  his  local  representa- 
tive to  the  same  effect.  The  lawmaker  is  thus  advised  of  public  sentiment,  a 
potent  factor  for  him  to  consider  in  connection  with  other  matters  in  arriving 
at  a conclusion.  Wherein  does  the  primary  nomination  for  United  States 
Senators  differ  from  the  exercise  of  the  right  of  petition?  The  legislative 
candidate  is  thereby  informed  of  something  that  he  has  the  right  to  know  and 
of  something  that  it  is  his  duty  to  heed.  He  may  not  regard  the  verdict  at  the 
polls  as  obligatory,  but  should  treat  it  as  advisory.  * Moral  suasion  may  be  a 
perfectly  legitimate  agency  to  employ  even  in  the  election  of  a United  States 
Senator.  That  the  electors  in  the  exercise  of  their  guaranteed  right  of  peti- 
tion might  do  in  substance  and  effect  what  they  now  do  at  the  primaries  hardly 
admits  of  controversy.  The  framers  of  the  Constitution  could  not  have  sup- 
posed that  there  was  any  impropriety  in  the  people  advising  their  representa- 
tives of  how  they  desired  them  to  vote  on  the  senatorship,  else  an  exception 
would  have  been  incorporated  in  the  clause  guaranteeing  the  right  of  petition, 


SENATOR  FROM  WISCONSIN.  17 

restricting  its  application  to  matters  other  than  the  election  of  United  States 
Senators. 

As  is  said  in  State  ex  rel.  McCue  v.  Blaisdell  (N.  Dak.,  118  N.  W.,  141) 
the  action  of  the  electors  in  reference  to  a candidate  for  United  States  Senator 
“ amounts  to  nothing  more  than  the  right  of  petition,  a right  which  they  can 
not  be  denied.”  The  North  Dakota  law  involved  in  this  case  contained  a pro- 
vision requiring  nominees  for  the  State  legislature  to  sign  a pledge  to  vote  for 
the  candidate  of  their  party  who  received  the  nomination  at  the  primary  for 
the  office  of  United  States  Senator.  This  provision  was  held  to  be  uncon- 
stitutional and  void,  because  it  was  an  attempt  to  coerce  the  members  of  the 
legislature  to  abdicate  their  right  to  use  their  individual  judgments  in  making 
a selection,  but  it  was  also  held  that  such  void  provision  did  not  affect  the 
remainder  of  the  act. 

Authorities  elsewhere  on  the  point  under  consideration  are  not  numerous, 
but  such  as  we  have  are  to  the  effect  that  a law  such  as  ours,  providing  for 
the  nomination  of  candidates  for  the  office  of  United  States  Senator  at  a pri- 
mary election,  is  valid.  State  ex  rel.  McCue  v.  Blaisdell,  supra,  and  State  ex 
rel.  Labauve  v.  Michel  (121  La.  374,  46  South.,  430).  We  do  not  wish  to  be 
understood  as  indorsing  all  that  is  said  in  the  opinions  in  these  cases,  but  do 
coincide  with  the  conclusions  reached  to  the  extent  here  indicated. 

The  Chairman.  What  disposition  did  I understand  the  court  to 
make  of  the  petition  for  the  writ  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  They  denied  it.  The  court  sustained  the  con- 
stitutionality of  the  law.  The  order  was  affirmed.  The  action  was 
brought  by  a taxpayer  and  the  relator  demurred  to  the  complaint. 
It  is  on  the  ground  that  the  action  was  improperly  brought  or  at 
least  ill-founded  in  la¥/,  and  the  lower  court  sustained  the  demurrer, 
and  the  upper  court  affirmed  the  order  sustaining  the  constitution- 
ality of  the  statute,  and  expressly  holding,  by  reason  of  the  fact 
that  the  primary  election  had  no  legal  or  constitutional  connection 
with  the  subsequent  election  of  a United  States  Senator,  that  portion 
of  the  statute  constitutional. 

The  Chairman.  They  held  that  the  law  was  constitutional,  but 
that  it  had  no  effect  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Precisely  so.  It  was  tantamount  to  the  exercise 
of  the  right  of  petition ; it  was  simply  advisory  or  persuasive. 

The  Chairman.  They  held  that  the  legislature  might  enact  a law 
providing  the  manner  of  exercising  the  right  of  petition  at  the  ex- 
pense of  the  public  treasury. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Surely.  That  is  all  it  did  do,  and  that  is  all 
any  primary  law  in  connection  with  the  election  of  a United  States 
Senator  can  do. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Granting  all  that  the  court  said,  and  all  that 
you  have  said  about  it,  yet  it  does  not  quite  meet  the  point  I had  in 
mind  about  the  matter.  With  regard  to  the  direct  primary,  as  a 
matter  wholly  gratuitous,  in  the  sense  that  if  every  provision  of  the 
State  law  was  violated,  I understand  you  to  claim  that  that  would  not 
be  a matter  that  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  could  take  any  cog- 
nizance of ; but  suppose  that  in  the  primary,  the  machinery  provided 
by  the  State,  whether  that  machinery  be  recognized  by  the  United 
States  or  not,  the  candidate  for  the  United  States  Senate  by  the 
lavish  and  corrupt  expenditure  of  money  brings  about  his  own  elec- 
tion finally  by  the  legislature  of  the  State  so  that  you  can  say  that 
his  election  to  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  stands  as  to  corruption 
and  bribery  at  the  primary  in  the  direct  relation  of  cause  and  effect, 
would  you  then  say  that  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  would  be 
powerless  to  inquire  into  it? 

15236°— VOL  1—11 2 


18 


SENATOR  FROM  WISCONSIN. 


Mr.  Littlefield.  Absolutely,  because  the  legal  relation  of  cause 
and  effect  does  not  exist. 

Senator  Sutherland.  But  the  practical  relation  might  exist. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  No;  the  practical  relation  does  not  exist  in  the 
sense  that  it  gives  you  any  right  to  investigate  the  connection.  I 
submit  that  a vote  that  is  cast  by  a member  of  the  senate  of  Wis- 
consin for  a Senator  of  the  United  States  is  a valid  vote  unless  it  is 
the  result  of  corrupt  influence.  If  it  becomes  simply  a question  of 
advice,  and  we  say  that  it  is  now  competent  for  the  Senate  of  the 
United  States  to  inquire  into  the  reasons  why  every  individual  who 
took  part  in  the  election  of  a Senator  of  the  United  States  at  a pri- 
mary gave  his  advice,  whether  he  gave  it  on  a proper  hypothesis  or 
otherwise,  whether  his  persuasion  was  properly  inspired  or  other- 
wise, then  we  open  up  a tremendous  area  for  investigation.  Unless 
the  relation  of  legal  cause  and  effect  exists  I say  the  Senate  has  no 
right  to  investigate  beyond  the  establishment  of  that  relation. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Let  us  take  an  extreme  case  for  illustration. 
Let  us  say  that  A is  a candidate  for  election  to  the  United  States 
Senate.  He  goes  to  B and  says  to  B,  “ If  you  are  finally  elected  to 
the  legislature,  I want  you  to  agree  to  vote  for  me  for  United  States 
Senator,”  and  let  us  say  that  he  agrees  to  it.  Then  A,  by  the  corrupt 
use  of  money  at  the  primary  election,  brings  about  the  election  of  B, 
with  the  knowledge  and  consent  of  B and  the  knowledge  and  consent 
of  A.  Would  you  say  in  those  circumstances  that  that  would  not  be 
a matter  that  we  could  inquire  into? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  does  not  happen  to  be  the  case  before  us. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I understand,  but  you  say  that  you  can  not 
inquire  into  a primary  election  at  all. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  does  not  happen  to  be  the  case  before  us. 
Just  exactly  how  far  the  State  legislature  can  go  in  providing  a 
primary  in  connection  with  a State  office  is  one  thing.  How  far  it 
can  go  in  connection  with  a primary  with  relation  to  the  office  of 
United  States  Senator  is  a different  thing.  Of  course  the  legislature 
unquestionably  has  the  entire  control  of  the  election  of  all  of  the 
State  officers  and  of  all  members  of  the  legislature,  and  unquestion- 
ably if  the  legislature  saw  fit  to  enact  a primary  law  as  to  State 
officers  it  would  have  that  power.  By  the  way,  in  the  decision  which 
I just  read  to  the  committee  a case  was  cited  by  the  court  wherein 
they  held  the  agreement  to  vote  for  a certain  candidate  was  void, 
and  it  is  generally  conceded,  I think,  that  a man  can  not  legally  make 
such  an  agreement. 

The  Chairman.  Would  it  be  an  offense,  then,  to  pay  a man  for 
agreeing  to  do  that  which  he  was  not  bound  to  do? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  would  depend,  of  course,  on  the  language 
of  the  statute  under  which  you  are  prosecuting  a man.  It  is  quite 
possible  that  the  State  legislature  might  do  so.  I do  not  know  how 
far  it  might  go  in  making  it  an  offense  to  improperly  influence  a 
man  in  a primary  election  in  connection  with  the  nomination  of  a 
United  States  Senator,  but  that  does  not  go  so  far  as  to  show  there  is 
any  legal  connection  between  the  two.  This  illustration  proceeds 
upon  the  hypothesis  that  the  corrupt  influence  is  brought  to  bear  on 
a particular  individual,  and  as  a result  of  that  influence  he  receives 
his  office. 


SENATOR,  FROM  WISCONSIN. 


19 


Senator  Sutherland.  I am  simply  giving  you  an  extreme  illus- 
tration for  the  purpose  of  trying  to  demonstrate  that  there  might 
arise  a case  in  which  it  would  be  proper  to  inquire  into  the  conduct 
of  a candidate  for  United  States  Senator  at  a primary  election. 

To  bring  the  matter  down  to  the  case  under  investigation,  it  is 
charged  that  Mr.  Stephenson,  in  the  primary  and  in  the  election  gen- 
erally— I am  not  able  to  separate  them  now  in  my  own  mind — ex- 
pended a sum  of  money  exceeding  $100,000. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  $107,000. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Suppose  that  over  $100,000  of  that  was  ex- 
pended in  influencing  the  primary  election,  with  the  understanding 
that  that  was  to  bring  about  the  election  of  certain  men  who  were 
pledged  to  vote  for  him  if  they  were  elected  to  the  legislature.  Would 
you  say,  then,  that  we  could  not  inquire  into  that  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  money  was  expended  by  him  for  the  purpose 
of  bringing  about  the  election  of  members  of  the  legislature? 

Senator  Sutherland.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I do  not  think  my  proposition  carries  me  as  far 
as  that,  because  there  you  have  the  direct  application  of  the  money 
furnished  by  the  candidate  for  the  election  of  the  man  who  later  on 
as  a member  of  the  legislature  is  to  pass  upon  his  election. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Must  we  not  inquire  into  the  expenditure 
of  this  money  before  we  can  determine  whether  it  was  innocently  or 
corruptly  expended? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  In  cases  like  the  one  which  the  Senator  has  in 
mind  the  investigation  may  be  confined  to  those.  Further  than  that, 
I do  not  think  the  investigation  can  go. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Of  course,  as  I understand  the  functions  of 
this  subcommittee,  we  have  no  power  to  determine  anything.  We  are 
simply  to  investigate  the  facts  and  report  to  the  full  committee. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I take  it  the  Senator  agrees  with  me  that  the 
authority  of  the  subcommittee  to  investigate  the  facts  is  defined  by 
the  resolution  under  which  you  are  acting. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Undoubtedly  that  is  true. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  My  proposition  there  is  that  the  resolution  ex- 
pressly confines  the  committee  to  the  election  of  the  Senator. 

Senator  Sutherland.  The  point  I had  in  mind  was  this:  It  being 
the  fact  that  we  have  not  the  power  of  judging  in  this  matter,  but 
only  of  investigating,  we  perhaps  ought  to  indulge  a little  wider 
latitude  in  taking  the  testimony  than  we  would  if  we  could  pass  upon 
the  ultimate  effect  of  the  testimony. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Well,  the  inquiry  was  directed  as  to  the  extent  of 
the  action  the  committee  may  feel  authorized  to  take. 

Senator  Sutherland.  In  excluding  testimony  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Certainly.  Of  course  while  I present  this  case  as 
I believe  it  should  be  presented,  I appreciate  that  in  the  last  analysis 
it  is  for  the  committee  to  say  how  far  the  investigation  shall  go. 

This  is  a practical  consideration.  It  is  important  for  us  and  it  is 
important  for  Senator  Stephenson.  Senator  Stephenson  has  stood 
up  in  this  community  for  two  years  with  all  of  this  testimony  a part 
of  the  public  prints,  filling  the  public  newspapers.  This  committee 
which  was  investigating  upon  the  part  of  the  Wisconsin  Legislature 
repeatedly  instructed  its  record  to  be  submitted  to  the  prosecuting 


20 


SENATOR  FROM  WISCONSIN. 


officers,  and  involved  charges  of  bribery  on  the  part  of  Senator 
Stephenson,  and  the  resolution  submitting  this  investigation  to  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States  under  the  seal  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin 
specifically  calls  the  attention  of  the  prosecuting  officers  of  the  State 
to  these  alleged  charges,  and  that  was  done  in  June,  1911.  They  were 
public  property  for  two  years  before  that ; and  while  the  prosecuting 
officers  throughout  this  State  wherever  these  alleged  offenses  have 
been  committed,  have  had  their  attention  called  to  the  alleged  crimes, 
as  yet  no  man  has  undertaken  on  his  responsibility  under  circum- 
stances where  he  was  not  immune  by  reason  of  a constitutional  pri  - 
vilege, to  charge  either  Senator  Stephenson  or  any  man  representing 
him  with  any  offense  against  the  laws  of  Wisconsin. 

I ought  to  say  further  also  that  the  only  man  who  has  seen  the 
inside  of  a prison  and  looked  out  through  its  bars  in  connection  with 
this  investigation  is  an  unfortunate  gentleman  whom  a jury  found 
had  deliberately  committed  perjury  in  undertaking  to  annex  a charge 
to  one  of  Senator  Stephenson’s  managers.  So  that  either  the  prosecut- 
ing officers  have  been  reprehensiblv  derelict  in  their  duty,  or  the 
public  sense  of  this  State  has  not  been  so  awakened  to  the  commis- 
sion of  flagrant  crimes  as  to  compel  or  impel  the  prosecuting  officers 
to  discharge  their  duty,  or  no  offenses  like  anything  charged  by  this 
complaint  have  ever  been  committed.  Unless  the  committee  feel  that 
a proper  consideration  for  their  power  authorizes  them  to  reopen  an 
investigation,  we  feel  that  Senator  Stephenson  at  his  age  should  not 
be  asked  again  to  submit  himself  to  having  the  matter  reinflame  the 
public  press  and  reagitate  the  public  mind  under  the  circumstances. 

So  firmly  convinced  am  I,  not  only  upon  the  general  constitutional 
and  legal  principles,  that  there  is  no  legal  connection  between  the 
two,  but  generally,  that  I should  not  hesitate,  did  I think  it  necessary 
and  were  the  case  sufficiently  desperate,  to  advise  every  witness  before 
this  committee  to  decline  to  answer  any  question  relating  to  the 
primary,  upon  the  ground  that  it  did  not  and  could  not  have  any  legal 
connection  with  the  election  of  Senator  Stephenson;  and  I submit, 
if  the  committee  please,  that  I should  not  assume  much  hazard  in  so 
doing.  I do  not  propose  to  pursue  that  course. 

Of  course  I appreciate  the  situation  of  the  committee.  I realize 
that  the  committee  wants  to  discharge  its  duties  in  a manner  that  the 
members  feel  is  free  and  full,  so  that  it  can  be  said  by  the  Senate 
later  on  that  the  investigation  was  full  and  free.  If  the  committee 
feels  under  all  of  these  circumstances  and  conditions  that  it  is  proper 
to  go  into  this  field  of  inquiry,  we  shall  not  only  bow  to  the  com- 
mittee’s wish,  but  Avill  facilitate  the  committee  when  it  reaches  that 
stage  of  the  inquiry. 

The  Chairman.  Of  course,  I do  not  understand  counsel  to  indicate 
that  he  would  undertake  to  circumscribe  the  scope  of  the  investi- 
gation by  the  committee. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Oh,  no.  What  I mean  by  what  I have  said  is 
simply  that,  so  far  as  we  are  concerned,  we  shall  cheerfully  accede  to 
the  ruling  of  the  committee.  It  may  be  that  in  my  haste  I used  an 
expression  not  altogether  appropriate.  We  shall  facilitate  the  action 
of  the  committee. 

Now,  if  the  Senator  from  Utah,  Mr.  Sutherland,  will  bear  with 
me,  I desire  to  call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  one  very  im- 


SENATOR  FROM  WISCONSIN. 


21 


portant  practical  consideration  bearing  perhaps  upon  his  suggestion. 
I appreciate,  of  course,  the  difficulty  that  arises  in  a man’s  mind  in 
connection  with  the  charge  of  the  corrupt  use  of  money  in  a primary 
election  which  ultimately  results  in  an  election  to  the  United  States 
Senate;  but  I submit  that  when  the  courts  have  held  that  that  is 
simply  advisory  and  persuasive,  no  condition  is  created  that  legally 
connects  it  with  a vote  for  a Senator  of  the  United  States. 

What  is  the  equation  that  results  in  an  improper  vote  for  a Senator 
of  the  United  States?  It  involves  two  factors,  and  I submit  with 
great  confidence  that  without  the  presence  of  the  two  factors  you  do 
not  get  a corrupt  vote  of  which  this  subcommittee,  or  of  which  the 
Senate  either,  can  take  cognizance.  What  are  they?  First,  a cor- 
rupt influence — for  the  purpose  of  illustration — moving  from  the 
candidate  or  from  someone  in  his  behalf;  second,  a concurrence  of 
the  man  casting  the  vote  with  that  corrupt  influence,  showing  that 
his  vote  when  cast  was  influenced  by  the  corrupt  motive  and  the 
corrupt  purpose.  Without  the  concurrence  of  the  moving  influence 
and  the  submission  thereto  on  the  part  of  the  man  casting  the  vote 
you  do  not  get  any  corrupt  vote.  It  is  inconceivable  that  an  honest, 
innocent,  well-intentioned  man  can  cast  a corrupt  vote,  so  that  the 
vote  will  be  void. 

So  I submit  that,  in  order  to  get  an  equation  upon  which  the  Sen- 
ate must  finally  pass,  you  must  have  the  existence  of  those  two  factors. 
The  primary  is  simply  advisory  and  persuasive.  If  it  be  true  that 
it  is  corrupt  in  its  character,  and  so  corrupt  as  to  impregnate  the 
vote  cast  thereby,  then  the  man  who  cast  the  vote  is  also  corrupt 
when  he  casts  it ; and  the  absurdity  of  that  conclusion  simply  demon- 
strates that  there  is  no  foundation  for  the  proposition.  If  advisory 
and  persuasive,  you  do  not  get  the  legal  connection  that  ultimately 
results  in  corruption  in  casting  the  vote.  I submit  it  is  fundamental 
that  there  can  not  be  a corrupt  vote  honestly  and  sincerely  cast.  In 
order  to  be  corrupt  in  its  result  and  in  its  effect  upon  the  result,  the 
man  who  casts  it  must  participate  in  the  corrupt  purpose ; otherwise, 
there  is  an  entire  absence  of  legal  connection. 

It  is  preposterous,  may  it  please  the  subcommittee,  to  assume  for  a 
moment  that  any  member  of  the  Wisconsin  Legislature  was  thus 
actuated  by  any  corrupt  or  improper  purpose  as  the  result  of  the 
action  of  the  primaries;  and,  in  my  judgment,  that  absolutely  dis- 
poses of  the  legal  connection  between  the  two. 

Now  I have  in  mind  a rather  important  practical  consideration, 
which  I wish  to  submit,  and  then  I shall  conclude  upon  this  proposi- 
tion, and  I think,  may  it  please  the  subcommittee,  this  is  the  first  time 
this  question  has  ever  been  presented  to  a committee  of  the  United 
States  Senate : Primary  elections  are  rather  a new  feature  of  our  body 
politic.  There  are  a great  many  people  who  believe  there  is  great 
virtue  in  a primary  election  for  all  offices.  It  is  perfectly  compe- 
tent— whether  it  is  useful  or  valuable  I do  not  propose  to  stop  and 
discuss,  because  I presume  that  is  a proposition  as  to  which  many  of 
us  may  intelligently  and  honestly  differ — for  a State,  in  connection 
with  every  State  office,  to  provide  for  a primary  election  and,  so  far 
as  they  can,  to  make  the  primary  election  controlling.  It  amounts 
practically  only  to  this:  That  a man  gets  his  name  upon  the  ticket 
in  the  party  column.  It  does  not  prevent  anybody  from  voting  for 
somebody  else  who  has  not  been  suggested  in  the  primary. 


22 


SENATOR  FROM  WISCONSIN. 


Now  the  question  is  presented  to  the  United  States  Senate  whether 
or  not  a primary  election  or  a primary  nomination  is  a legal  subject 
for  investigation  in  connection  with  the  question  of  the  election  of  a 
Senator  of  the  United  States  by  the  legislature.  How  can  it  be,  un- 
less it  have  some  controlling  influence  on  the  result?  But  if  it  be, 
the  election  of  every  Senator  hereafter  from  every  State  that  has  a 
primary  election  law  will  open  up  for  investigation  this  vast  area  of 
the  conduct  of  the  parties  in  connection  with  the  primary  election. 
Every  Senator  of  the  United  States,  while  he  will  not  receive  any 
legal  advantage  from  a primary,  if  it  be  true  that  the  Senate  has  the 
power  to  investigate  as  to  what  was  done  in  the  primary,  is  from  now 
on  to  be  embarrassed,  annoyed,  harassed,  and  perhaps  be  deprived  of 
his  rights  by  reason  of  an  investigation  of  the  primary.  In  other 
words,  you  have  all  the  disadvantages  of  the  election  of  a Senator 
by  the  people,  and  you  have  none  of  the  advantages.  Of  course, 
everybody  concedes  that  you  can  not  elect,  but  if  every  time  a con- 
troversy like  this  arises  it  is  open  to  everybody  to  investigate  the 
primary  by  the  people,  irrespective  of  what  the  legislature  has  done, 
then  every  Senator  later  can  be  embarrassed  by  all  of  those  disad- 
vantages. 

And  this  is  an  important  practical  consideration.  It  involves  the 
inauguration  of  a new  policy  on  the  part  of  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States;  and  if  it  be  true  that  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  from 
now  on,  in  all  of  these  cases  where  a primary  law  exists,  give  notice 
to  the  public  that  it  proposes  to  open  up  for  investigation  and  exami- 
nation the  results  in  the  primary  nomination,  while  it  has  no  con- 
nection whatever  with  the  election  by  the  legislature  from  a legal 
standpoint,  then  I submit  that  the  election  of  United  States  Senators 
by  the  people,  so  far  as  disadvantages,  so  far  as  embarrassments,  so 
far  as  hazards  and  dangers  are  concerned,  is  now  here.  We  have  it — 
if  we  are  tied  to  it.  Do  we  believe  in  it?  Without  an  amendment 
of  the  Constitution  can  it  be  that  the  States  in  this  Union  have  created 
an  intermediary  through  which  every  Senator  must  pass,  from  which 
he  can  receive  no  legal  result  or  no  legal  advantage,  that  does  not 
land  him  anywhere,  that  the  Constitution  does  not  recognize,  that 
it  knows  nothing  about?  And  yet  it  exists.  For  what?  To  im- 
peach and  invalidate  his  title.  It  may  be  that  we  have,  to  that  un- 
fortunate and  disagreeable  extent,  the  election  of  Senators  of  the 
United  States  by  the  people ; or,  perhaps,  to  put  it  in  the  other  way, 
in  the  inverse  order,  we  have  a condition  created  by  the  State  that 
will  destroy  the  election  of  a Senator  by  the  legislature,  under  circum- 
stances where  he  gets  no  legal  title  or  legal  right  therefrom. 

Of  course,  this  concerns  a great  many  people  other  than  Senator 
Stephenson.  I have  submitted  these  various  considerations,  if  the 
subcommittee  please,  quite  fully  and  perhaps  somewhat  emphatically. 
We  feel  very  strongly  upon  this  proposition.  We  submit  the  whole 
matter,  of  course,  and  will  very  cheerfully  abide  by  any  conclusion 
that  the  subcommittee  may  reach. 

I wish  to  say  this : We  shall  feel — and  I have  no  doubt  the  subcom- 
mittee will  agree  with  us — that  during  the  progress  of  this  investiga- 
tion, while  I do  not  expect  that  we  can  proceed  with  the  technical  ac- 
curacy with  which  we  proceed  in  courts  of  law  (the  members  of  the 
committee  are  all  lawyers) , we  have  a professional  duty  to  discharge 


ISAAC  STEPHENSON.  23 

to  our  clients,  and  we,  of  course,  expect  to  proceed  fairly,  within  well- 
established  legal  lines,  because  we  have  vast  rights  at  stake. 

I thank  the  subcommittee  for  its  careful  attention. 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Stephenson,  will  you  take  the  witness 
stand  ? 


TESTIMONY  OF  ISAAC  STEPHENSON. 

Isaac  Stephenson,  having  been  previously  sworn,  was  examined 
and  testified  as  follows: 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Stephenson,  when  were  you  first  elected 
to  the  United  States  Senate  from  the  State  of  Wisconsin? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Upon  the  26th  of  January. 

The  Chairman.  What  year? 

Senator  Stephenson.  1909. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  first  become  a candidate  for  such 
election  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  About  the  last  of  June,  1908. 

The  Chairman.  You  were  at  that  time  a Senator  of  the  United 
States  by  appointment,  were  you  not? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Duly  qualified  and  acting? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Elected. 

The  Chairman.  You  were  elected  to  fill  an  unexpired  term? 

Senator  Stephenson.  I was  elected  on  the  17th  of  May,  1907. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  expend  any  money  in  connection  with 
your  nomination  or  election  as  a Senator — during  the  primary — be- 
tween the  time  that  you  announced  your  candidacy  and  the  date  when 
the  primary  was  held? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes;  I spent  a hundred  and  seven  thousand 
seven  hundred  and  something. 

The  Chairman.  Tell  the  subcommittee  how  you  spent  the  amount 
that  you  have  named — a hundred  and  eleven  thousand  and  odd 
dollars  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Will  the  chairman  excuse  us?  We  have  a memo- 
randum that  he  will  have  to  use  for  the  purpose  of  giving  some 
details. 

The  Chairman.  I would  like  to  take  his  memory  first,  and  then,  of 
course,  he  is  entitled  to  use  his  memorandum. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Very  well. 

Senator  Stephenson.  I appointed  Mr.  E.  A.  Edmonds  an  agent 
to  spend  the  money. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  the  witness  who  was  sworn  this  morn- 
ing with  you  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  authority  did  you  give  Mr.  Edmonds  in 
regard  to  expending  money  on  your  behalf? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Only  to  keep  within  the  law,  and 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose  did  you  authorize  him  to  ex- 
pend money  on  your  behalf? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Well,  we  had  no  organization  when  we 
started,  and  we  had  to  get  that — advertise,  newspapers,  and  have  men. 
We  have  got  71  counties  in  our  State.  We  had  to  get  somebody  in 
every  county  to  work. 


24 


ISAAC  STEPHENSON 


The  Chairman.  How  did  you  proceed  to  place  money  in  Mr. 
Edmonds’s  hands?  How  did  you  do  it — hand  it  to  him  yourself? 

Senator  Stephenson.  I appointed  Mr.  J.  H.  Puelicher,  cashier  of 
the  Marshall  & Illsley  Bank,  and  Mr.  J.  A.  Van  Cleve,  as  treasurers, 
and  they  were  to  pay  Mr.  Edmonds  the  money  when  he  called  for  it. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  place  a limit  upon  the  amount  of  money 
which  they  were  to  furnish  Mr.  Edmonds? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No.  No;  it  came  along  from  time  to  time, 
exceeding  far  beyond  what  I expected  that  it  would. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Mr.  Chairman,  I would  like  to  inquire,  just 
simply  as  a matter  of  procedure,  as  we  go  along;  there  may  matters 
occur  to  us  that  we  may  want  to  make  suggestions  with  relation  to: 
Would  you  prefer  us  to  wait  until  you  finish  the  examination  or  make 
the  suggestions  as  you  go  along? 

The  Chairman.  I think  the  subcommittee  prefer  to  have  you  make 
3rour  suggestions  as  you  go  along  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Then  once  in  a while  we  may  have  occasion  to 
make  a suggestion  by  way  of  explanation  or 

The  Chairman.  Make  the  suggestions  to  the  subcommittee. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  first  give  money  to  Mr.  Edmonds 
for  the  purpose  of  conducting  your  campaign  ? 

Senator  Stephenson  (producing  memorandum).  June  28,  check 
to  J.  A.  Van  Cleve,  Stephenson  National  Bank,  $2,000. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  1908? 

Senator  Stephenson.  That  was  1908.  Shall  I read  what  I 

The  Chairman.  If  you  have  a memorandum  of  the  sums  of  money 
that  you  paid  into  Mr.  Edmonds’s  hands,  you  may  read  it. 

Senator  Stephenson.  As  a rule  the  money  went — I paid  to  Mr. 
Puelicher  and  Mr.  Van  Cleve  and  they  paid  to  Mr.  Edmonds,  except- 
ing $5,000  that  I gave  to  Mr.  Edmonds  at  one  time  and  also  $5,000 
that  I gave  to  Mr.  Sacket. 

The  Chairman.  Proceed,  and  give  the  dates  and  the  items  of  money 
which  you  furnished. 

Senator  Stephenson.  I will  read  them.  July,  6,  check  to  J.  A. 
Van  Cleve,  on  the  Marshall  & Illsley  Bank,  $10,000;  July  18,  check 
to  E.  A.  Edmonds,  Stephenson  National  Bank,  $5,000;  check,  Eagle 
Printing  Co. — that  is  my  own  city  daily  paper 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  that,  the  $5,000  just  referred  to,  the  only 
money  that  was  paid  direct  to  Mr.  Edmonds  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  That  is  as  my  memory  is,  yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  mean  by  the  witness? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  that  is  what  I mean — by  Senator  Ste- 
phenson. 

Senator  Stephenson.  July  18,  check,  the  Eagle  Printing  Co.,  $16; 
July  30,  check  to  J.  H.  Puelicher,  Marshall  & Illsley  Bank  cashier, 
$10,000;  August  7,  check  to  J.  H.  Puelicher,  Marshall  & Illsley  Bank, 
$30,000;  August  8,  check  to  J.  A.  McLean,  Corn  Exchange  Bank, 
$20;  August  17,  check  to  H.  L.  Peterson,  Stephenson  National  Bank, 
$150 — that  was  for  getting  primary  votes  for  the  nomination. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  the  amount? 

Senator  Stephenson.  $150.  That  was  for  getting — we  had  to 
have  so  many  votes  to  get  the  nomination  for  the  primary.  That  was 
what  he  got. 


ISAAC  STEPHENSON. 


25 


Senator  Sutherland.  I do  not  understand  you. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Mr.  Chairman,  if  you  will  excuse  me,  perhaps  I 
may  explain  it  a little  bit  better  than  the  Senator.  I understand  the 
primary  law  here  requires,  in  order  for  a man  to  be  a candidate 
in  the  primary,  that  he  must  have  a certain  percentage  of  the  voters 
upon  the  nomination  papers,  and  that  when  those  are  procured  and 
filed  he  is  voted  for  in  the  primary.  He  has  to  have  not  less  than  2 
per  cent — is  it  not — and  I think  not  more  than  10. 

Senator  Pomerene.  In  order  to  have  his  name  placed  on  the  ticket? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  in  the  primary.  So  that  the  first  thing 
a man  has  to  do  when  he  goes  into  a primary  campaign,  or  did  at 
that  time,  is  to  circulate  his  papers  and  get  them  signed  by  the 
requisite  number  of  voters,  which  are  called  the  nomination  papers; 
then  they  are  filed ; then  he  is  a candidate  of  the  primary. 

The  Chairman.  I think  we  will  go  into  these  items  separately  after 
the  witness  has  given  us  the  memoranda.  Senator  Sutherland  sug- 
gests that  the  witness  is  not  speaking  with  sufficient  distinctness  to 
be  heard. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Speak  a little  louder,  Senator  Stephenson. 

Senator  Stephenson.  August  20,  check  to  J.  A.  Van  Cleve,  Corn 
Exchange  Bank — that  is  Chicago — $15,000;  August  24,  check  to 
J.  A.  Van  Cleve,  Corn  Exchange  Bank,  Chicago,  $10,000;  August  27, 
check  to  Rodney  Sacket,  Corn  Exchange  Bank,  $5,000;  August  31, 
check  to  J.  A.  Van  Cleve,  Corn  Exchange  Bank,  Chicago,  $2,000; 
September  3,  check  to  J.  A.  Van  Cleve,  Corn  Exchange  Bank,  $13,500 ; 
September  3,  check  to  H.  Stronach,  Stephenson  National  Bank,  $26 — 
that  was  for  getting  names  in  my  own  city — I paid  him  that  much ; 
September  14,  check  to  A.  J.  Settersten — I gave  him  5 cents  a name  in 
my  own  city  to  get  those  names — $26.10;  September  26,  check  to  the 
Eagle  Printing  Co.,  Stephenson  National  Bank,  $13.50 — that  is  our 
daily  paper.  October  10,  check  to  J.  H.  Puelicher,  Stephenson  Na- 
tional Bank,  $3,700;  October  29,  check  to  Walter  Alexander,  Corn  Ex- 
change Bank,  Chicago,  $588.30;  November  7,  check  to  J.  W.  Howey, 
Corn  Exchange  Bank,  Chicago,  $100;  November  7,  check  to  J.  Earl 
Morgan,  Stephenson  National  Bank,  $2,550;  November  20,  check  to 
J.  H.  Puelicher,  Stephenson  National  Bank,  $200;  November  21, 
check  to  L.  S.  Patrick,  Stephenson  National  Bank,  $190.99 — Patrick 
is  my  secretary.  November  28,  check  to  J.  A.  Van  Cleve,  Stephenson 
National  Bank,  $71.35;  cash,  J.  A.  Van  Cleve,  paid  by  H.  J.  Brown, 
$792.75;  paid  by  the  N.  Ludington  Co.,  which  is  one  of  my  companies, 
$25;  cash,  D.  J.  McAllister — my  foreman  in  my  lumber  mill,  one  of 
my  foremen — D.  J.  McAllister,  paid  by  the  N.  Ludington  Co.,  which 
is  one  of  my  companies,  $110.50  and  charged  to  the  I.  S.  account — 
that  is  my  account;  cash  to  Reynolds,  $180;  cash  to  Alfred  Green- 
Avood,  $125 ; making  in  all,  $111,385.49 ; amount  reported  as  expended, 
$107,793.05.  That  is  all. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  there  a statement  of  election  expenses 
filed,  as  you  filed  it  under  the  law  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  We  have  a certified  copy  here  that  we  will  pro- 
duce. 

The  Chairman.  I will  ask  you  the  question,  Senator,  Did  you  file 
a statement  as  a candidate  for  nomination,  as  provided  by  the  laws 
of  Wisconsin,  of  the  expenses  of  your  primary  election  ? 


26 


ISAAC  STEPHENSON. 


Senator  Stephenson.  I could  not  say  as  to  that.  You  mean  for 

the  number  of  votes  I would  get  as  a nomination 

The  Chairman.  No.  I have  a copy  of  the  statement;  I think 
your  counsel  have  it  there.  I merely  desire  at  this  time  that  it  go  in. 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes;  this  hundred  and  seven  thousand;  I 
filed  that. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  a copy  of  it  there  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  we  have  it  here. 

Senator  Pomerene.  When  did  you  file  that,  Senator  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Let  me  see.  When  did  I file 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Filed  February  11,  1909.  Does  the  chairman 
want  that  marked  as  an  exhibit  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  I want  it  made  a part  of  the  witness’s  state- 
ment at  this  time. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  February  11,  1909. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  the  paper  you  have  there?  State  what 
it  is. 

Senator  Stephenson.  Do  you  want  me  to  read  the  items  ? 

The  Chairman.  No;  you  may  state  what  it  is,  and  then  we  will 
receive  it  in  evidence. 

Senator  Stephenson.  The  gross  amount  is  $107,793.05. 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  your  statement? 

Senator  Stephenson.  That  is  my  statement  that  I filed. 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  the  statement  that  you  filed  pursuant  to 
the  law,  as  your  expenses  in  the  primary  elections  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  It  may  be  marked. 

Senator  Stephenson.  That  was  for  the  primary. 

(The  document  referred  to  was  marked  “ Exhibit  Stephenson  1,” 
and  is  in  words  and  figures  as  follows:) 

United  States  of  America, 

The  State  of  Wisconsin, 

Department  of  State. 

To  all  to  whom  these  presents  shall  come: 

I,  J.  A.  Frear.  secretary  of  state  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin  and  keeper  of  the 
great  seal  thereof,  do  hereby  certify  that  the  annexed  copy  of  statement  of 
election  expenses  of  Isaac  Stephenson,  candidate  for  the  office  of  United  States 
Senator,  has  been  compared  by  me  with  the  statement  on  file  in  this  depart- 
ment and  that  the  same  is  a true  copy  thereof  and  of  the  whole  of  such  state- 
ment. 

In  testimony  whereof  I have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  affixed  the  great 
seal  of  the  State  at  the  capitol  in  the  city  of  Madison,  this  28th  day  of  Sep- 
tember. A.  D.  1911. 

[seal.]  J.  A.  Frear,  Secretary  of  State. 

STATEMENT  OF  ELECTION  EXPENSES. 

Statement  of  Isaac  Stephenson,  a candidate  for  the  nomination  for  the  office  of 
United  States  Senator  from  Wisconsin  at  the  primary  election  held  on  the  1st 
day  of  September,  1908. 

1.  Total  amount  placed  in  the  hands  of  E.  A.  Edmonds,  J.  H.  Pue- 

licher.  J.  A.  Van  Cleve,  Rodney  Sackett,  H.  J.  Brown,  and 

others $111,385.49 

2.  Of  the  above  amount,  the  following  have  been  reported  to  me  as 

expended : 

To  L.  Briethaupt  Printing  Co.,  Mandel  Engraving  Co.,  Whitehead  & 

Hoag,  Keystone  Printing  Co.,  Vandecamp  & Larberter,  and  others, 
for  printing  sample  ballots,  lithographs,  circulars,  and  other  sta- 
tionery, etc 


7, 347.  69 


ISAAC  STEPHENSON.  27 

To  paid  for  postage  stamps $11,  339. 00 

To  C.  M.  Hambright,  John  C.  Miller,  E.  H.  McMahon,  E.  J.  Rogers, 

U.  C.  Keller,  and  others,  for  services  tendered  in  organizing  out- 
side Milwaukee  County- 53,  729.  56 

To  traveling  expenses,  contributions  to  associations,  cigars,  etc 1,  420.  63 

To  paid  Koch  Advertising  Agency  and  others  for  newspaper  adver- 
tising   16,  485.  24 

To  W.  R.  Knell,  expenses  incurred  in  organizing  Milwaukee  County, 
exclusive  of  items  not  otherwise  accounted  for,  but  including 

organization  on  primary  day 8,  417.  36 

Getting  signatures  to  nomination  papers 225.  06 

For  office  rent,  expenses,  including  employees’  wages 4,  070.  76 

Posting  and  distributing  lithographs 834.  00 

Telephone,  telegraph,  and  express  charges 735. 10 

Advertising,  printing,  etc.,  covering  bills  received  after  Sept.  15 3, 188.  65 


Total 107,793.05 


State  of  Wisconsin,  Milwaukee  County,  ss: 

Isaac  Stephenson,  being  first  duly  sworn,  on  oath  says  that  the  amount  placed 
in  the  hands  of  E.  A.  Edmonds,  J.  H.  Puelicher,  J.  A.  Van  Cleve,  Rodney 
Sackett,  H.  J.  Brown,  and  others  as  set  forth  in  paragraph  1 of  the  foregoing 
statement,  is  true  and  correct,  to  the  best  of  affiant’s  knowledge  and  belief. 

That  of  said  amount  there  have  been  reported  to  affiant  expenditures  as  set 
forth  in  paragraph  2 of  the  foregoing  statement. 

Isaac  Stephenson. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me  this  8th  day  of  February,  1909. 

[seal.]  Wm.  Kaumheimer, 

'Notary  Public  for  Wisconsin . 

My  commission  expires  March  7,  1909. 

State  of  Wisconsin,  Department  of  State,  ss: 

Received  and  filed  this  11th  day  of  February,  A.  D.  1909. 

A.  T.  Torge, 

Assistant  Secretary  of  State. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  It  turns  out  that  this  document  was  filed  at  the 
time  it  was  under  the  advice  of  the  attorney  general.  Perhaps  it 
would  be  as  well  to  put  in  his  letter  at  this  place. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  take  that  up  later.  We  merely  want  the 
items  of  the  expense  now. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  committee  have  the  other  matter  in  mind. 

The  Chairman.  This  will  go  in  as  a part  of  Senator  Stephenson’s 
testimony,  and  will  appear  in  the  record.  It  will  also  be  an  exhibit. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Very  well. 

The  Chairman.  Senator,  what  was  the  sum  of  $2,000  expended 
for,  which  you  paid  to  J.  A.  Van  Cleve  on  June  28  by  a check  on  the 
Stephenson  National  Bank? 

Senator  Stephenson.  He  and  Mr.  Puelicher  were  my  treasurers. 
I appointed  them,  and  they  wished  to  give  to  Mr.  Edmonds,  the 
manager,  such  sums  as  he  required. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  what  that  was  expended  for  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No;  I do  not. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  what  the  item  of  $10,000  was  ex- 
pended for,  which  you  paid  by  check  on  July  6 to  J.  A.  Van  Cleve? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No;  I do  not  know  about  that. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  what  any  of  the  items  that  you  have 
returned  here,  amounting  to  $111,385.49,  were  expended  for? 


28 


ISAAC  STEPHENSON. 


Senator  Stephenson.  A few. 

The  Chairman.  Then  we  will  go  through  the  statement  and  see 
which  ones  you  know  about  personally.  Do  you  know  what  the 
amount  of  $5,000  was  expended  for,  which  is  represented  by  the  check 
of  July  18  to  E.  A.  Edmonds? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No;  I do  not.  He  might  have  stated  to  me 
what  he  expended  it  for. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  and  can  you  state  to  the  committee 
what  it  was  expended  for? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  no  knowledge  whatever  on  the  subject? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  what  the  $16  was  expended  for 
which  was  represented  by  the  check  of  July  18  to  the  Eagle  Print- 
ing Co.? 

Senator  Stephenson.  For  some  advertising  in  the  paper.  I do  not 
know  what  it  was. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  pay  that  personally? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No. 

The  Charman.  Did  you  see  the  voucher  for  it? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No. 

The  Charman.  Can  you  state  what  service  was  performed  for 
that  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No,  Mr.  Chairman;  I have  so  much  business 
that  those  things  are  done  through  my  clerks  or  secretaries. 

The  Charman.  The  fact  that  we  desire  to  adduce  at  this  time  is 
whether  you  know  or  not. 

Senator  Stephenson.  No;  I do  not. 

The  Chairman.  Now,  taking  the  check  to  Puelicher,  given  July  30, 
for  $10,000,  have  you  any  knowledge  how  that  money  was  expended  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  He  was  to  pay  it  over  as  Mr.  Edmonds  called 
for  it.  He  was  one  of  my  treasurers,  if  you  please,  and  Mr.  Van 
Cleve  was  the  other.  I paid  them  the  money,  and  Mr.  Edmonds 
would  call  on  them  for  the  money. 

The  Chairman.  As  to  the  check  for  $30,000  on  August  7 to  Mr. 
Puelicher? 

Senator  Stephenson.  That  was  all  the  same. 

The  Chairman.  Now  we  come  to  the  check  of  August  8 to  J.  A. 
McLean  for  $20.  What  was  that  for? 

Senator  Stephenson.  For  getting  names. 

The  Chairman.  Where  did  he  procure  the  names? 

Senator  Stephenson.  I think  in  Brown  County. 

The  Chairman.  Who  was  Mr.  McLean? 

Senator  Stephenson.  A man  I never  saw. 

The  Chairman.  To  whom  did  you  pay  the  money  or  hand  the 
check  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  I do  not  know.  I could  not  tell  you  that. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  no  recollection  of  it? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No;  perhaps  my  secretary  handed  him  that 
money. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  personally  know  the  basis  of  that  trans- 
action ? 


ISAAC  STEPHENSON. 


29 


Senator  Stephenson.  Yes;  I knew  that  he  got  names  for  me,  and 
that  is  what  he  asked  for,  for  getting  the  names. 

The  Chairman.  For  getting  names  signed  to  your  petition? 

Senator  Stephenson.  For  the  nomination. 

The  Chairman.  Your  petition  for  nomination? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  no  knowledge  of  how  many  names  he 
procured  for  you? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No;  I have  not. 

The  Chairman.  Nor  how  long  he  was  engaged  in  doing  it? 

Senator  Stephenson.  We  got  a sufficient  number,  and  more,  I 
think.  I do  not  remember  how  many  we  got.  We  more  than  complied 
with  the  law. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  how  long  he  was  engaged  in  procur- 
ing names? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No;  I do  not. 

The  Chairman.  You  acted  on  the  statement  of  your  secretary,  you 
say? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No;  not  particularly.  But  my  secretary  or 
somebody  else  may  have  paid  him  that  $20.  I can  not  remember  that, 
because  I am  paying  out  different  things  in  our  business.  You  know 
there  are  a great  many  of  them. 

The  Chairman.  You  signed  the  check? 

Senator  Stephenson.  I presume  I did  if  it  was  paid  by  check.  I 
sign  my  checks. 

The  Chairman.  A check  on  the  Corn  Exchange  Bank? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  The  $150  paid  by  check  on  August  17  to  H.  L. 
Peterson,  for  what  was  that  paid? 

Senator  Stephenson.  That  was  for  getting  names  for  the  nomina- 
tion papers. 

The  Chairman.  Who  was  Mr.  Peterson? 

Senator  Stephenson.  He  comes  from  Door  County,  at  Sturgeon 
Bay. 

The  Chairman.  Who  was  H.  L.  Peterson  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  He  is  a reputable  citizen  there  who  has  held 
office  in  the  county.  He  wanted  to  be  postmaster  there  this  year. 

The  Chairman.  What  offices  had  he  held? 

Senator  Stephenson.  I think  he  was  chairman  of  the  board  of 
supervisors  of  the  county.  I am  not  sure  about  that,  because  it  is  not 
my  county. 

The  Chairman.  Was  he  a candidate  for  any  office  at  the  primary? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Or  at  the  election? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No,  sir;  not  to  my  knowledge. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  the  $150  was  paid  to  him  for  securing 
names  to  your  petition  for  the  nomination  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  How  long  was  he  engaged  in  procuring  them? 

Senator  Stephenson.  That,  of  course,  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  no  knowledge  as  to  how  many  names  he 
procured  ? 


30 


ISAAC  STEPHENSON. 


Senator  Stephenson.  No. 

The  Chairman.  Or  how  long  he  was  in  procuring  them  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No;  I got  a good  many  more  names  prob- 
ably than  were  necessary.  Whether  I returned  them  all  to  Madison 
or  not  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Now,  you  say  you  do  not  know  what  disposition 
was  made  of  the  larger  items  paid  to  Van  Cleve  and  Sacket.  There 
is  on  August  20  an  item  of  $15,000 ; on  August  20  an  item  of  $10,000; 
on  August  31,  $2,000;  and  on  September  3,  $13,500,  paid  to  Van 
Cleve.  You  do  not  know  what  he  did  with  that  money? 

Senator  Stephenson.  All  of  that  money  that  was  given  to  Mr. 
Puelicher  and  Mr.  Van  Cleve  was  to  be  given  to  Mr.  Edmonds,  my 
manager,  as  he  might  need  it.  That  is  all  they  had  to  do  with  it. 

The  Chairman.  What  were  they  to  do  with  this  money? 

Senator  Stephenson.  They  were  to  give  it  to  Mr.  Edmunds  as  he 
needed  it  in  the  canvass. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  Edmonds  to  do  with  it? 

Senator  Stephenson.  He  was  to  carry  on  the  campaign. 

The  Chairman.  What  do  you  mean  by  carrying  on  the  campaign? 

Senator  Stephenson.  I might  say  that  you  know.  You  have  got  to 
advertise.  You  have  got  to  get  men  to  work. 

The  Chairman.  What  do  you  mean  by  “ work,”  when  you  say  you 
have  to  get  men  to  work  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  To  get  up  sentiment  and  influence  people, 
if  you  please,  to  vote  for  you. 

The  Chairman.  How  did  they  influence  people  to  vote  for  you? 

Senator  Stephenson.  To  tell  them  that  you  are  a good  fellow,  and 
so  forth,  and  then  to  get  them  out.  At  the  time  of  our  primaries 
here  on  the  first  Tuesday  of  September  the  people  are  very  busy.  The 
farmers  are  very  busy,  and  you  have  got  to  induce  them  to  get  out. 
Maybe  you  have  to  hire  a team  or  something ; I do  not  know  what. 

The  Chairman.  Was  that  the  extent  of  the  expenditure — for  hir- 
ing teams? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Oh,  no;  there  was  advertising,  and 

The  Chairman.  Stop  at  the  advertising  now. 

Senator  Stephenson.  There  were  buttons  with  my  photograph  on 
them;  that  cost  a thousand  or  two  thousand  dollars.  They  were 
sent  all  over,  and  my  photograph  was  sent,  and  the  newspapers.  It 
will  show  there  in  the  summary  what  it  was  for. 

The  Chairman.  You  speak  of  advertising. 

Senator  Stephenson.  I am  only  telling  you  what  I think  it  was 
for. 

The  Chairman.  You  speak  of  advertising.  Let  us  get  a little 
closer  to  that  item.  What  do  you  include  in  the  term  “ advertising  ”? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Setting  forth  my  qualifications. 

The  Chairman.  In  the  newspapers? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  In  what  papers  were  your  qualifications  adver- 
tised ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  They  got  them  into  every  paper  in  the  State 
that  they  could.  I do  not  know  how  many. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  have  a scale  of  prices  for  that  class  of 
service  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  I had  nothing  to  do  with  that. 


ISAAC  STEPHENSON. 


31 


The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  how  much  was  paid  to  newspapers 
for  advertising  in  your  canvass  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No;  only  in  the  general  statement.  I guess 
I had  better  state  how  much  part  I took  in  it.  Let  me  state  this  to  you, 
Mr.  Chairman:  We  have  71  counties  in  our  State.  I was  only  in 
7 counties,  a part  of  the  last  five  days.  That  is  all  I had  to  do 
with  the  canvass.  I did  not  see  Mr.  Edmonds,  my  manager,  to  exceed 
four  times  during  the  canvass.  It  only  lasted  about  two  months.  I 
only  ran  two  months.  If  you  will  let  me  make  a statement  right 
there,  Mr.  Hatton  announced  himself  a candidate  for  the  next 
primary  on  the  17th  of  May,  1907.  Our  primary  law  had  not  taken 
effect  then,  and  did  not  take  effect  until  1908.  He  announced  him- 
self on  May  17,  1907,  so  that  he  ran  fifteen  and  a half  months.  Mr. 
Cook  was  running  a year.  Another  one  of  my  opponents,  Mr.  Mc- 
Govern— 

The  Chairman.  I do  not  think  we  will  at  this  time  go  into  the 
candidacy  of  other  persons. 

Senator  Stephenson.  I am  only  telling  you  what  little  I had  to 
do  with  my  canvass.  That  is  what  I want  to  explain. 

The  Chairman.  We  do  not  desire  at  this  time  to  go  into  the 
canvass  of  other  men.  You  have  spoken  of  advertising  and  sending 
out  your  pictures  as  explaining  a part  of  the  Expenditure  of  this 
money.  I notice  in  your  official  statement — meaning  the  one  filed  in 
pursuance  to  the  statute — that  these  items  amount  to  $7,347,69.  That 
includes  all  of  your  lithographic  work  and  advertising  in  connection 
with  sending  out  your  pictures,  does  it  not? 

Senator  Stephenson.  I will  say  right  there  that  I know  nothing 
about  it  only  as  that  return  was  made  to  me.  I had  practically 
nothing  to  do  with  the  canvass,  and  knew  nothing  about  it  only  as 
he  made  that  return  to  me. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  mean  Mr.  Edmonds? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes ; Mr.  Edmonds.  I had  practically  noth- 
ing to  do  with  the  canvass.  If  I had  visited  the  71  counties  I would 
have  had  75,000  or  80,000  plurality. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  quite  as  important  that  this  testimony  show 
that  you  do  not  know  as  it  is  that  it  show  that  you  do  know,  in  case 
you  do.  That  is  the  reason  I am  asking  these  questions.  It  might 
be  presumed  that  you  knew  if  you  were  not  given  an  opportunity 
to  say  whether  or  not  you  knew.  Now,  I will  ask  you  as  to  the  item 
of  postage,  which  I think  you  mentioned.  You  state  that  you  paid 
for  postage  and  stamps  $11,339.  Have  you  any  personal  knowledge 
in  regard  to  that? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No  more  than  you  have.  That  is  the  return 
Mr.  Edmonds  made.  I have  no  personal  knowledge  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  Is  the  item  of  traveling  expenses,  contributions  to 
associations,  cigars,  etc.,  $1,420.63,  intended  to  indicate  your  personal 
expenditures  or  those  of  some  other  person? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No;  that  is  what  Mr.  Edmonds  spent.  Dur- 
ing the  five  days  that  I traveled  I paid  my  own  expenses. 

The  Chairman.  Are  those  expenses  included  in  any  statements  of 
your  expenses? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No;  they  did  not  exceed  $100. 

The  Chairman.  Is  what  you  have  said  in  reference  to  those  items, 
that  you  had  no  personal  knowledge  in  regard  to  them,  true  of  every 
item  in  the  statement  that  you  filed? 


32 


ISAAC  STEPHENSON. 


Senator  Stephenson.  So  far  as  I know  and  believe. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  no  personal  knowledge  on  the  subject? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Will  you  please  ask  that  question  again  ? 

The  Chairman.  Is  it  true  as  to  every  item  in  the  expense  account 
which  you  filed,  that  you  have  no  personal  knowledge  as  to  the 
manner  of  the  expenditures? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No;  excepting  a few  of  the  small  items 
there,  not  to  exceed,  I guess,  $1,000  in  the  primaries  around  home, 
or  something  like  that,  which  I paid  out  of  my  pocket;  sums  of  $20 
each,  or  whatever  they  were,  for  getting  names.  That  is  all  that  I 
had  to  do  with,  in  my  own  town  or  county. 

The  Chairman.  The  item  of  getting  signatures  to  primary  peti- 
tions outside  of  Milwaukee,  do  you  know  anything  about  that  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  I do  not  know  anything  about  that.  You 
say  Milwaukee.  I live  in  Marinette,  you  know. 

The  Chairman.  I refer  to  the  item  of  C.  M.  Hambright,  John  C. 
Miller,  E.  H.  McMahon,  E.  J.  Rogers,  U.  C.  Keller,  and  others  for 
services  rendered  in  organizing  outside  Milwaukee  County,  $53,729. 

Senator  Stephenson.  I know  nothing  about  that  only  as  you  see 
it  there  returned  by  Mr.  Hambright. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  your  expense  account  there  before  you. 
What  item  in  it  have  you  personal  knowledge  about  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  I have  not  before  me  the  statement  that  I 
filed — the  money  I paid  out  to  Mr.  Puelicher  and  Mr.  Van  Cleve. 

The  Chairman.  I have  a copy.  State  as  to  which  of  these  items, 
if  any,  you  have  personal  knowledge. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  the  Senator  is  inquiring  about  now  is  the 
return. 

The  Chairman.  The  expense  account. 
f Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  not  this.  This  detailed  statement  has 
been  testified  to,  but  the  return  is  another  paper.  Of  course  I assume 
from  the  course  of  the  examination  that  the  committee  overruled  my 
proposition  that  they  ought  not  to  go  into  the  question  of  the  pri- 
maries. 

The  Chairman.  The  committee  had  anticipated  that  when  the  first 
question  was  asked,  counsel  would  raise  the  objection,  and  that  would 
have  afforded  an  opportunity  to  pass  upon  this  question,  and  probably 
to  give  the  reasons  for  the  conclusion  of  the  committee,  and  to  state 
it  so  that  it  would  appear  in  the  record.  Counsel  did  not  interpose  the 
objection. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  true.  I rather  assumed  that  the  com- 
mittee had  overruled  my  proposition.  I will  interpose  the  objection 
now,  and  ask  the  committee  to  indicate  its  ruling. 

The  Chairman.  The  purpose  of  the  first  question  asked  was  to 
afford  counsel  an  opportunity  to  interpose  an  objection  on  the  ground 
that  it  related  to  expenses  during  the  primary.  Counsel  interposed  no 
objection  and  the  committee  proceeded  to  the  detail. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I will  interpose  the  objection  now,  so  as  to  raise 
the  question  on  the  record,  as  to  any  further  continuance  of  that  line 
of  examination. 

The  Chairman.  Perhaps  a motion  to  strike  out  would  be  better. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  In  order  to  raise  the  question  I will  move  that  the 
testimony  so  far  taken  in  relation  to  the  primaries  be  stricken  out,  for 
the  reasons  heretofore  stated,  and  that  the  investigation  from  now  on 


ISAAC  STEPHENSON. 


33 


be  confined  to  matters  relating  purely  to  the  election  by  the  legisla- 
ture. It  was  an  inadvertence  that  I did  not  raise  the  objection  before. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  near  the  hour  when  the  committee  intended  to 
take  a recess,  and  we  will  take  a recess  until  2 o’clock. 

(At  12  o’clock  and  20  minutes  p.  m.  the  subcommittee  took  a recess 
until  2 o’clock  p.  m.)' 


AFTER  RECESS. 

At  the  expiration  of  the  recess  the  subcommittee  reassembled. 

The  Chairman.  The  objection  of  counsel  to  interrogating  the  wit- 
ness, Senator  Stephenson,  in  regard  to  the  transactions  during  the 
primary  contest  seems  to  be  based  principally  upon  the  form  of  the 
Senate  resolution  authorizing  this  investigation.  That  portion  of  the 
resolution  to  which  counsel  has  called  attention  must  be  read  in  con- 
nection with  the  recital  that  precedes  it.  The  resolution  reads  “ that 
the  Senate  Committee  on  Privileges  and  Elections  or  any  sub- 
committee thereof  be  authorized  and  directed  to  investigate  certain 
charges  preferred  by  the  Legislature  of  Wisconsin  against  Isaac 
Stephenson.”  That  refers  us  to  the  charges  that  were  preferred  to 
the  United  States  Senate  for  the  determination  of  the  scope  of  the  in- 
vestigation. It  is  true  that  the  Senate  resolution  afterwards  uses  the 
words : “And  to  report  to  the  Senate  whether  in  the  election  of  said 
Isaac  Stephenson  as  a Senator,”  etc.  We  must  read  the  word  “elec- 
tion ” in  connection  with  the  recital  preceding  it,  because  we  are  in- 
structed by  the  Senate  to  gather  information  as  to  whether  or  not 
the  election  was  procured  by  corrupt  methods  or  practices,  and  in 
doing  so  we  go  to  the  charges  upon  which  the  legislature  acted,  and 
as  the  charges  have  already  been  read  at  length  and  are  in  the  record, 
it  will  be  only  necessary  to  refer  to  them;  they  are  specific.  The 
document  that  was  certified  by  the  governor  in  connection  with  the 
resolution  contains  specific  charges  set  out  in  detail,  specifying  and 
distinguishing  between  those  that  pertain  to  the  primary  election  and 
those  that  pertain  to  the  election  by  the  legislature. 

In  view  of  that  fact,  the  committee  are  of  the  opinion  that  any 
transactions  relating  to  the  dealings  between  Senator  Stephenson  and 
the  people  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin  during  the  primary  election, 
from  which  transactions  it  might  be  gathered  that  wrong  methods, 
corrupt  practices,  were  indulged  in  by  Senator  Stephenson  or  by  those 
authorized  by  him  to  represent  him,  may  be  taken  into  considera- 
tion. The  committee  does  not  desire  to  go  further  than  that  at  this 
time. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  I understand  from  the  suggestions  made  by 
the  chairman  that  it  is  the  understanding  of  the  committee  that  the 
investigation  be  limited  to  what  are  known  as  the  Blaine  charges,  and 
that  that  is  its  scope?  I do  not  know  that  the  suggestion  involved 
that,  but  I thought  that  was  possibly  the  view  of  the  committee. 

The  Chairman.  The  committee  does  not  desire  at  this  time  to  ex- 
press its  opinion  on  that. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is,  you  do  not  cross  that  bridge  until  you 
get  to  it. 

I should  like  to  have  the  record  show  that  my  objection  goes  deeper 
than  the  suggestion  of  the  chairman.  Of  course  I do  lay  stress,  as  the 
chairman  has  very  properly  suggested,  upon  the  language  and  the 
I52350— vol  1—11 3 


34 


ISAAC  STEPHENSON. 


scope  of  the  resolution,  but  I go  further  than  that  in  order  to  state 
my  legal  and  constitutional  proposition,  and  simply  for  the  purpose 
of  having  the  record  show  that  I go  further  than  that  I say,  even  if 
the  Senate  in  terms  had  instructed  the  committee  to  investigate  the 
primary  election  or  the  primary  nomination,  the  Senate  would  be 
transcending  its  constitutional  powers  and  would  be  investigating  a 
phase  of  the  election  that  it  had  no  power  to  investigate. 

The  Chairman.  I think  the  committee  would  prefer  to  reserve  an 
expression  of  opinion  on  that  until  it  makes  a final  report. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Of  course  the  committee  will  appreciate  that  I 
would  not  expect  a subcommittee  to  undertake  to  rule  down  the  reso- 
lution under  which  it  is  acting,  but  I desire  to  have  before  the  com- 
mittee the  full  scope  and  the  breadth  of  the  constitutional  and  legal 
proposition  on  which  we  rely. 

We  are  very  greatly  obliged  to  the  committee  for  the  suggestions 
made  in  the  ruling  of  the  chairman. 

Senator  Sutherland.  The  view  that  I take  of  this  matter  is  this : 
This  is  a subcommittee  of  a full  committee,  and  we  are  directed  to 
make  an  investigation  of  these  charges,  with  a view  to  determining 
whether  there  have  been  any  corrupt  methods  or  practices  affecting 
the  election  of  Senator  Stephenson.  I think  the  duty  of  such  a com- 
mittee is  inquisitorial.  We  have  no  power  to  determine  anything. 
We  are  to  gather  the  facts  and  report  them  to  the  full  committee, 
finally  for  the  use  of  the  Senate,  and  in  doing  that,  speaking  for 
myself,  I think  it  is  the  duty  of  the  subcommittee,  if  there  is  a fair 
doubt  as  to  the  admissibility  of  any  testimony,  to  resolve  the  doubt  in 
favor  of  admitting  it,  because  if  the  testimony  is  here  there  is  no 
difficulty  in  disregarding  it  if  in  the  end  it  ought  to  have  no  weight ; 
but  if  we  do  not  take  the  testimony  we  can  not  do  that.  So  that, 
speaking  only  for  myself  again,  in  taking  this  testimony  I am  not 
undertaking  to  say  what  should  be  the  ultimate  effect  of  it  at  all. 
It  may  be  that  when  we  get  through  it  ought  to  be  disregarded. 

Another  thought  about  it  is  this.  While  I think  you  are  entirely 
correct,  Mr.  Littlefield,  in  saying  in  effect  that  these  direct  primaries, 
which  are  provided  for  by  the  State  law,  are  entirely  voluntary  so 
far  as  the  United  States  Congress  is  concerned,  in  so  far  that  if  the 
laws  of  the  State  holding  the  primary  were  torn  to  shreds  and  tatters 
it  would  be  no  concern  whatever  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States, 
unless  the  sitting  Member  whose  right  to  the  seat  is  being  investi- 
gated had  had  some  corrupt  connection  with  the  administration  of 
that  law,  yet  in  investigating  what  occurs  at  the  primaries,  as  I view 
it  now,  we  have  the  right  to  inquire  as  to  the  action  of  Senator 
Stephenson  and  his  authorized  agents ; to  ascertain  what  money  was 
spent  in  the  primaries,  because  the  primaries,  whether  regarded  as 
entirely  voluntary  or  not,  might  have  a very  important  relation  to 
the  election  which  followed,  and  therefore  we  should  inquire  as  to 
what  money  was  expended  in  influencing  these  elections. 

It  may  be  that  when  we  get  all  the  facts  it  would  be  ascertained 
that  the  expenditure  of  the  money  was  perfectly  innocent  and  proper. 
It  may  be  that  the  use  of  the  money  was  corrupt.  We  can  not  tell 
about  that  in  advance.  We  have  simply  to  take  the  testimony,  and 
after  it  is  all  in  determine  the  effect  of  it.  So  I think  that  in  this 
investigation  we  ought  to  indulge  in  the  widest  reasonable  latitude. 


ISAAC  STEPHENSON. 


35 


Mr.  Littlefield.  I presume  we  all  agree  that  while  the  duties  of 
the  committee  are,  of  course,  inquisitorial,  there  is  a limit  to  the 
exercise  of  that  duty,  and  I would  like  to  have  the  committee  feel 
that  I have  not  the  slightest  disposition  to  even  indirectly  criticize 
the  duty  suggested  by  the  Senator  as  the  reason  for  the  ruling. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I have  suggested  there  was  a limit  by  saying 
that  if  there  be  a fair  doubt  as  to  the  admissibility  of  any  testimony, 
that  doubt  should  be  resolved  in  favor  of  admitting  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I am  not  disposed  to  complain  of  that  ruling. 
I think  that  is  a perfectly  proper  attitude  for  the  committee  to 
assume,  for  the  reason  stated,  that  if  you  do  exclude  it  and  it  turns 
out  to  be  important,  you  have  done  an  irreparable  wrong;  but  if  it  is 
admitted,  and  it  is  an  error,  that  testimony  can  be  disregarded. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Just  one  word.  I felt  this  morning  during  the 
very  able  argument  that  was  presented  to  us  that  the  scope  which 
counsel  was  disposed  to  give  to  the  committee  under  this  resolution 
was  too  limited.  The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  provides 
that  the  Senate  shall  be  th'e  judge  of  the  election  and  qualifications 
of  its  members.  The  resolution  which  was  adopted  provides,  in 
effect,  that  because  certain  charges  of  corruption  have  been  made  this 
committee  is  instructed  to  inquire  into  the  election  of  the  Senator 
from  Wisconsin.  It  seems  to  me  we  ought  to  construe  that  in  con- 
nection with  the  provision  of  the  Constitution  rather  than  in  con- 
nection with  the  resolution  that  was  passed  by  the  General  Assembly 
of  the  State  of  Wisconsin.  The  investigation,  it  seems  to  me,  must 
apply  to  those  means  which  were  adopted  in  securing  the  title  to  the 
Senatorship  from  this  State,  and  for  that  reason  it  seems  to  me  that 
this  committee  would  subject  itself  to  the  grossest  kind  of  criticism 
if  it  were  to  attempt  to  limit  its  inquiry  to  things  which  may  have 
occurred  after  the  legislature  was  elected. 

When  I make  this  statement  I do  not  mean  to  be  understood,  of 
course,  as  prejudging  in  any  sense  the  weight  which  is  to  be  attached 
to  these  evidentiary  facts.  The  charge,  in  effect,  is  corruption  and 
fraud.  As  lawyers  we  know  that  many  things  may  be  badges  of 
fraud  or  may  not  be  and  may  be  entirely  innocent.  We  must  reach 
our  conclusion  after  all  of  the  evidence  is  in.  We  decide  now  simply 
that  certain  testimony  is  admissible.  We  determine  later  the  weight 
that  is  to  be  attached  to  that  testimony. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I think  the  Senator  states  the  situation  very  accu- 
rately and  clearly.  Perhaps  I ought  to  make  this  further  suggestion 
in  connection  with  the  general  proposition — and  I hope  the  discus- 
sion will  prove  at  least  instructive  and  perhaps  valuable — to  enable 
the  committee  to  more  accurately  appreciate  the  weight  of  evidence 
on  these  various  propositions. 

As  to  the  effect  of  the  primary  itself,  our  contention  is  that  every 
dollar  of  the  one  hundred  and  seven  thousand  and  odd  dollars  ex- 
pended was  expended  solely  and  only  for  the  nomination  of  Senator 
Stephenson  in  the  primary,  and  that  not  a dollar  of  it  can  be  said  in 
any  proper  sense  to  have  been  contributed  either  to  the  nomination 
or  election  of  any  member  of  the  legislature.  Of  course,  if  that  is 
established,  that  is  a significant  fact.  That  is  our  contention. 

To  be  frank  about  it,  I ought  to  say  that  there  is  something  in 
the  record  that  tends  to  indicate  that  there  might  be  a claim  that 
some  money  that  was  furnished  to  a Mr.  Reynolds,  a Candidate  for  the 


ISAAC  STEPHENSON. 


36  . 

legislature,  a Mr.  Wellensgard,  and  a Mr.  Bancroft  may  not  be  within 
the  statement  which  I have  made.  That  is,  there  may  be  a contention 
respecting  it.  There  is  something  in  the  record  that  shows  that  in 
connection  with  some  other  candidates  who  were  not  elected  there 
was  some  money  distributed  and  used  by  them.  Of  course,  our  con- 
tention is  that  all  of  this  was  used  for  and  to  promote  the  interests 
of  Senator  Stephenson,  and  as  to  those  who  were  not  elected  the 
matter  is  not  of  any  consequence,  because  their  votes  would  not  be 
counted,  as  they  would  not  be  cast.  I would  like  to  have  the  com- 
mittee have  this  particular  phase  of  the  matter  in  their  minds  as  we 
go  along.  I think  that  covers  the  whole  ground. 

I understand,  then,  the  objection  is  overruled  and  the  motion  is 
denied. 

The  Chairman.  In  connection  with  the  ruling  that  has  been  made 
and  the  comments  of  the  committee,  I desire  to  call  attention  to  a 
part  of  the  official  record,  upon  which  we  are  called  upon  to  act,  in 
order  that  there  may  be  no  mistake  about  the  scope  of  the  committee’s 
ruling.  On  page  26  and  page  27,  in  this  paper  certified  to  the  Senate 
by  the  governor  of  Wisconsin 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  that  the  Senate  document? 

The  Chairman.  It  was  printed  as  a Senate  document,  but  it  is  a 
part  of  the  official  record  in  this  case,  made  so  by  a reference.  To 
resume,  on  pages  26  and  27  of  this  document,  it  appears  that  certain 
members  at  the  time  they  voted  in  the  legislature  for  Senator  Stephen- 
son stated  that  they  did  so  under  protest,  claiming  to  do  so  only  be- 
cause he  had  been  nominated  at  the  primary. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Then  I understand  that  the  formal  record  will 
show  that  my  objection  is  overruled  and  the  motion  denied. 

The  Chairman.  The  record  will  show  what  has  occurred. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Of  course,  the  chairman  will  see  that  all  I desire 
to  do  is  to  have  the  record  consistent  all  the  way  through  so  that  these 
questions  may  be  presented  to  whomsoever  may  hereafter  have  occa- 
sion to  examine  the  record. 

The  Chairman.  Tlie  ordinary  procedure  in  regard  to  exceptions 
would  not  apply  to  a hearing  before  a committee.  It  is  only  necessary 
to  note  the  objection  and  the  ruling. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Precisely,  and  that  is  the  way  I understood  it. 

The  Chairman.  The  Chair  will  ask  Senator  Stephenson  to  resume 
the  stand. 

TESTIMONY  OF  ISAAC  STEPHENSON— Resumed. 

The  Chairman.  The  Chair  will  ask  the  reporter  to  repeat  the  last 
question  which  was  put  to  Senator  Stephenson  before  the  recess. 

The  reporter  read  as  follows: 

State  as  to  which  of  these  items,  if  any,  you  have  personal  knowledge. 

The  Chairman.  I was  referring,  Senator  Stephenson,  to  the  items 
in  the  account  which  you  had  filed.  You  stated  that  you  had  personal 
knowledge  only  as  to  a part  of  them.  State  as  to  which  of  these 
items.  Have  you  a copy  of  them  before  you  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I think  the  Chair  will  have  to  hand  them  to  the 
witness.  You  refer  now  to  the  return  per  se?  My  impression  is  that 
they  are  grouped  in  such  a way  that  he  can  not  tell  much  about  it. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  what  I want  to  know.  State  as  to  which 
of  these  items  you  have  any  personal  knowledge. 


ISAAC  STEPHENSOK.  37 

Senator  Pomerene.  Let  the  record  show  that  the  witness  is  re- 
ferring now  to  Exhibit  1. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  To  what  appears  in  Exhibit  1,  if  I may  be  per- 
mitted to  add  that  to  the  question. 

Senator  Stephenson.  I have  not  any  knowledge  of 

The  Chairman.  Of  any  item  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No,  sir;  only  as  far  as  getting  the  names  are 
concerned  for  my  nomination  papers. 

The  Chairman.  You  referred  to  the  item  of  $225.06  for  getting  sig- 
natures to  nomination  papers. 

Senator  Stephenson.  Well,  that  I know  something  about. 

The  Chairman.  To  whom  was  that  paid,  that  item  of  $225.06,  for 
getting  signatures  to  nomination  papers? 

Senator  Stephenson.  To  Mr.  Peterson  and  Mr.  Reynolds. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Give  their  full  names,  if  you  please. 

Senator  Stephenson.  Thomas  Reynolds  and  Mr.  Peterson.  I do 
not  know  his  initials.  Then  there  was  a Frenchman.  What  is  the 
name  of  the  Frenchman? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  your  memorandum.  That  shows  the  de- 
tails as  far  as  you  can  give  them.  Of  course,  the  committee  will  notice 
that  I am  assisting  the  witness  somewhat,  but  if  that  is  not  agreeable 
to  the  committee  all  it  has  to  do  is  to  indicate  it. 

Senator  Stephenson.  A.  H.  Settersten,  $26.10;  Stronach,  $26;  Fred 
Hutchinson,  $25;  McAllister,  $110.50;  cash  to  Reynolds,  $180;  cash, 
Alfred  Greenwood,  $125. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Just  one  moment,  please.  It  is  very  obvious  that 
Senator  Stephenson,  in  making  the  detailed  answer  that  he  has,  has 
lost  the  purport  of  the  question,  because  some  of  the  items  that  he  has 
given  have  no  relation  whatever  to  obtaining  signatures. 

The  Chairman.  I think  his  answer  is  germane  to  the  question. 
The  question  was  to  whom  was  the  $225.06  paid.  He  has  stated  that 
it  was  paid  to  E.  J.  McAllister,  T.  Reynolds,  Alfred  Greenwood,  and 
Fred  Hutchinson. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  As  a matter  of  fact,  the  Greenwood  payment  was 
not  for  that  purpose  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  The  Chair  would  suggest  to  counsel  that  the  mat- 
ter of  fact  ought  to  be  developed  by  the  testimony  of  the  witness. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Very  well. 

The  Chairman.  The  items  that  you  have  given  amount  to  more 
than  the  sum  of  $225.06.  In  your  statement  made  before  the  legisla- 
tive committee,  in  regard  to  the  checks  and  sums  paid,  you  say  that 
you  paid  Fred  Hutchinson,  through  Ludington  Co.,  $25.  That,  you 
say,  was  for  obtaining  signatures  to  the  nomination  papers. 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes;  as  far  as  I recollect. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  you  paid  E.  J.  McAllister  $110.50,  and 
that  that  was  also  for  obtaining  signatures  to  your  nomination  papers. 

Senator  Stephenson.  I think  there  is  a little  question  about  that. 
I think  he  went  over  into  Oconto  County  and  saw  some  of  his  friends — 
to  vote  for  me,  I guess.  That  is  what  I think. 

The  Chairman.  Then  you  would  eliminate  that  item  of  $110? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  “ Cash  to  T.  Reynolds,  $180.”  Do  you 
charge  that  to  obtaining  signatures  to  your  nomination  papers? 


38 


ISAAC  STEPHENSON. 


Senator  Stephenson.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  All  of  it  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes ; because  he  got  some  others.  He  did  not 
make  any  charge,  but  I gave  him  that  money. 

The  Chairman.  When  you  gave  him  that  money  was  he  a candi- 
date for  the  legislature  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes;  that  is,  I did  not  know  that  he  was  at 
the  time.  I did  not,  but  he  was  a candidate  and  was  elected. 

The  Chairman.  Shortly  after  you  gave  him  the  $80  of  that  money 
you  knew  that  he  was  a candidate  for  the  legislature  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No  ; I was  not  sure  at  the  time  I gave  him  the 
first  $80.  I gave  him  that  in  currency,  out  of  my  pocket.  I asked  him 
to  get  me  some  names  and  to  employ  others,  and  I afterwards  sent 
him  $100  because  he  was  a poor  man  and  employed  others,  and  he  was 
an  honorable  man  and  he  would  not  have  made  any  charges,  and  I 
gave  it  to  him  because  he  is  a high-minded,  splendid  man. 

The  Chairman.  At  the  time  you  gave  him  $100  you  did  know  that 
he  was  a candidate  for  the  legislature,  did  you  not  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes;  that  was  given  not  by  me  directly,  but 
by  my  secretary;  sent  to  him  in  currency. 

The  Chairman.  By  j^our  instructions? 

Senator  Stephenson.  I am  not  so  sure  about  that.  I would  not 
say  whether  I instructed  him  or  not. 

The  Chairman.  I think  you  testified  on  a former  occasion  that  you 
knew  shortly  after  you  gave  him  the  $80  that  he  was  a candidate,  did 
you  not? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  that  you  instructed  that  the  $100  be  sent  him 
subsequently  and  that  at  the  time  you  gave  that  instruction  you 
knew  that  he  was  an  active  candidate  for  the  legislature;  is  that  true? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes;  but  I gave  it  to  him  for  names  which 
he  labored  to  get  and  employed  several  others  to  get  them,  and  for 
nothing  else,  because  I knew  it  was  against  the  law  to  give  a man 
running  for  the  legislature  any  money.  I knew  that  was  against  the 
law,  but  I gave  it  to  him  for  getting  those  names  originally. 

The  Chairman.  How  many  names  did  he  get? 

Senator  Stephenson.  That  I could  not  tell  you.  I got  a lot  of 
names,  more  than  was  necessary,  perhaps. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  do  other  work  for  you  or  in  your  behalf 
in  regard  to  your  nomination  than  to  procure  the  names  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  I do  not  know.  I can  not  say  that.  He  is  a 
friend  of  mine — good,  true  man.  I suppose  he  wanted  to  see  me  win ; 
I presume  so,  but  I do  not  know  that. 

The  Chairman.  In  the  case  of  Alfred  Greenwood,  you  gave  him 
$125,  according  to  your  statement? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  was  that  sum  given? 

Senator  Stephenson.  He  went  into  Kewaunee  County  and  others. 
He  is  a poor  cripple  and  had  been  in  our  town  for  years,  a French- 
man— dead  now — and  I sent  him  twice  to  Mount  Clemens,  years 
before  that,  for  his  rheumatism- 

The  Chairman.  Let  us,  in  the  interest  of  time,  confine  ourselves  to 
the  payment  of  this  sum  of  money,  Senator. 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes. 


ISAAC  STEPHENSON. 


39 


The  Chaibman.  What  did  he  do  for  the  $125  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  He  went  to  Kewaunee  and  got  names. 

The  Chaibman.  How  many  names  did  he  get? 

Senator  Stephenson.  I could  not  tell  you  that. 

The  Chaibman.  What  was  the  basis  upon  which  you  fixed  the  sum 
of  $125? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Not  any.  I gave  him  that  partly  out  of 
charity,  as  well  as  for  getting  names,  because  I had  been  giving  him 
money  right  along  for  a good  many  years. 

The  Chaibman.  Was  he  a candidate  for  any  office? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Who  is  this?  Greenwood? 

The  Chaibman.  Greenwood. 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes — poor  fellow. 

The  Chaibman.  You  gave  $250  to  H.  L.  Bancroft,  too;  for  what 
was  that  given? 

Senator  Stephenson.  As  far  as  I know,  it  was  for  names,  and 
nothing  else. 

The  Chaibman.  Do  you  remember  when  you  gave  Mr.  Bancroft 
that  money  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No;  I can  not  tell  now. 

The  Chaibman.  Was  it  before  the  primary  election? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Before  or  during;  I can  not  tell. 

The  Chaibman.  It  would  probably  be  u during  ” if  it  was  “ be- 
fore.” Mr.  Bancroft  was  a member  of  the  assembly,  was  he  not? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Afterwards  elected ; yes. 

The  Chaibman.  At  that  same  election  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes;  became  speaker,  too. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Elected  speaker? 

Senator  Stephenson.  He  was  elected  speaker. 

The  Chaibman.  Did  you  know  at  the  time  you  gave  him  the  $250 
that  he  was  a candidate  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No;  I did  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  I understand  the  record  shows  Senator  Ste- 
phenson gave  him  $500? 

The  Chaibman.  The  $250.  You  will  find  that  at  page  721  of  the 
proceedings  of  the  joint  committee. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What?  That  Mr.  Stephenson  gave  it  to  Ban- 
croft ? 

The  Chaibman.  I would  prefer  that  the  counsel  would  just  turn 
to  the  page. 

Senator  Stephenson.  No;  I did  not  give  him  the — — 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I knew  you  did  not. 

Mr.  Black.  I understand  that  the  chairman  is  inquiring  as  to 
personal  expenditures  by  Mr.  Stephenson.  The  $250  was  paid  to^Mr. 
Bancroft  by  Mr.  Puelicher,  the  record  shows,  not  by  Mr.  Stephenson. 

The  Chaibman.  I think  we  had  better  just  let  the  facts  be  de- 
veloped and  use  them  afterwards. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes.  What  page  does  the  chairman  have? 

The  Chaibman.  Page  721,  joint  committee;  that  is,  the  senate. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes. 

The  Chaibman.  The  reference  is  to  the  four  volumes.  That  is  the 
joint  committee;  the  other  is  the  senate.  I think,  unless  it  is  bound 
differently,  counsel  has  the  senate  investigation. 


40 


ISAAC  STEPHENSON. 


Mr.  Littlefield.  No;  I have  the  joint  committee. 

The  Chairman.  All  right.  The  committee’s  copies  are  bound  in 
a different  form.  Do  you  find  it? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  that  is  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Bancroft. 

The  Chairman.  The  testimony  of  Mr.  Bancroft,  who  was  the 
speaker  of  the  house  and  a member,  of  course,  of  the  legislature. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  certainly. 

The  Chairman.  I am  asking  the  witness  for  what  he  paid  Mr. 
Bancroft  $250. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I beg  the  chairman’s  pardon,  but  I think  the 
chairman  is  perhaps  laboring  under  a little  misapprehension.  The 
question  rather  assumes  it  was  paid  to  Mr.  Bancroft  by  Mr.  Ste- 
phenson. That  was  not  the  fact. 

The  Chairman.  I was  not  assuming  anything.  I was  asking  as 
to  the  fact,  for  what  this  money  was  paid. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I think  inadvertently  that  was  contained  in  your 
question. 

Senator  Stephenson.  No;  I did  not  myself  pay  Bancroft  any- 
thing, and  I do  not  know  anything  about  that. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  of  him  being  paid  $250  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Only  as  Mr.  Edmonds  reported  did  I un- 
derstand it.  I do  not  know  whether  he — he  does  not  report  it  [re- 
ferring to  paper].  Is  Bancroft’s  name  contained  in  your  copy  of  it, 
Mr.  Littlefield  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  No ; it  does  not  appear  in  the  list. 

Senator  Stephenson.  That  is  a matter  as  to  which  Mr.  Edmonds 
must  answer.  I know  nothing  about  it. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  first  know  that  Mr.  Reynolds  was 
a candidate  for  election  or  nomination,  as  the 

Senator  Stephenson.  Some  time  during  the  primary;  I do  not 
know  when.  I was  away  on  my  fishing  trip  10  days  during  the  first 
part  of  August,  and  I did  not  have  much  to  do  with  the  election  at 
all.  I took  very  little  part  in  it,  only  to  furnish  the  money.  They 
called  on  that  pretty  strong. 

The  Chairman.  On  page  21  of  the  testimony  before  the  joint 
committee  you  testified  that  you  “ understood  that  Reynolds  would 
be  a candidate  for  the  legislature”  when  you  gave  him  the  $80;  is 
that  correct  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Well,  I might;  I am  not  sure  on  that.  1 
met  him  over  at  Fish  Creek,  and  I gave  him  in  currency  out  of  my 
pocket  $80,  and  requested  him  to  get  some  names  and  to  employ 
others,  and  he  objected  to  taking  the  money  first;  but  he  is  a poor 
man,  and  I gave  it  to  him.  I afterwards — we  sent  him  a hundred 
dollars  afterwards. 

The  Chairman.  In  August? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes;  a hundred  dollars  afterwards.  Rey- 
nolds would  not  charge  me  a cent  for  anything,  now  nor  then. 

The  Chairman.  Now  the  case  of  C.  C.  Wollensgard? 

Senator  Stephenson.  I know  nothing  about  him  at  all;  that  is, 
about  any  money  question. 

The  Chairman.  He  testifies,  on  page  2093,  before  the  joint  com- 
mittee that  he  received  in  connection  with  the  Stephenson  campaign 
$250  in  the  latter  part  of  the  primary  campaign.  Do  you  know 
anything  about  that? 


ISAAC  STEPHENSON. 


41 


Senator  Stephenson.  Nothing  about  it,  nothing. 

The  Chairman.  He  testifies,  on  page  2116,  that  he  was  to  go  to 
work  and  organize  the  county  and  get  nomination  papers  circulated 
and  get  men  out  to  the  polls  to  work;  do  you  know  anything  about 
that  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Nothing,  nothing. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  no  personal  knowledge  of  any  of  the 
other  items  then  than  those  that  have  already  been  brought  to  your 
attention  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No. 

The  Chairman.  Items  that  were  paid  on  your  account  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No,  sir.  No;  not  as  far  as  I can  think  now. 

The  Chairman.  I would  like  to  inquire  a little  more  particularly 
as  to  your  understanding  of  the  duties  to  be  performed  by  your  as- 
sistant, Mr.  Edmonds.  What  did  you  expect  him  to  do  when  you 
gave  him  these  sums  of  money  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  To  make  the  canvass;  that  was  all. 

The  Chairman.  What  do  you  understand  by  the  expression  “ mak- 
ing the  canvass  ”? 

Senator  Stephenson.  To  make  the  canvass  within  the  law. 

The  Chairman.  What  do  you  mean  ? What  do  you  understand  by 
“ making  a canvass  within  the  law  ”? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Well,  not  to  furnish  any  money  to  anyone 
that  was  running  for  the  legislature  that  might  vote  for  me.  That 
was  one  thing. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  he  to  spend  the  money  for? 

Senator  Stephenson.  To  get  the  vote  out,  and  circulate  petitions 
and  newspapers  and  get  names.  We  had  no  names.  It  cost  a great 
deal  of  money  to  get  names,  where  we  could  send  letters,  send  out 

The  Chairman.  I have  understood  you  to  say  that  you  already  had 
more  names  than  you  needed  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes.  Now  I am  speaking  about  the  canvass, 
after  the  names. 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Senator  Stephenson.  We  had  to  circulate  letters  and  posters  and 
everything  and  find  out  who  to  send  them  to  by  mail.  You  see  they 
spent  about  $11,000  for  mail,  and  that  was  to  write  letters  and  things 
to  the  people  in  the  different  parts  of  the  State;  that  is  where  the 
postage  came  in ; about  $11,000  of  postage  business. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  have  a talk  with  Edmonds  as  to  what  he 
was  to  spend  this  money  for? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Which? 

The  Chairman.  The  money  that  you  gave  him  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  To  make  a canvass  and  keep  within  the  law. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  very  general,  Senator  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Well,  that  is  as  far  as  I went;  to  keep  within 
the  law ; and  I charged  them  several  times  to  keep  within  the  law. 

The  Chairman.  But  you  left  it  to  their  own  judgment  as  to  what 
would  constitute  a compliance  with  the  law? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes.  That  I had  to  do,  because  I had  no — I 
was  not  personally  in  the  canvass.  I did  not  do  any — practically  no 
work. 

The  Chairman.  When  you  gave  the  $30,000  on  August  7,  which 
was  less  than  a month  before  the  election,  by  a check  to  J.  H.  Pue- 


42 


ISAAC  STEPHENSON. 


licher,  did  he  tell  you  that  he  needed  that  money  for  the  expenses  of 
your  campaign  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Who? 

The  Chairman.  Puelicher.  You  gave  a check  to  him. 

Senator  Stephenson.  I presume  he  did. 

The  Chairman.  Check  No.  6. 

Senator  Stephenson.  I presume  he  did.  Mr.  Edmonds  was  call- 
ing on  him.  Mr.  Puelicher  and  Mr.  Van  Cleve  were  my  bankers,  if 
you  please,  or  treasurers. 

The  Chairman.  Did  it  not  occur  to  you  that  a call  for  $30,000  at 
that  time  was  rather  an  unusual  demand  in  election  expenses? 

Senator  Stephenson.  He  probably  did  not  pay  it  all  to  Mr.  Ed- 
monds at  one  time.  Mr.  Edmonds  called  at  different  times  for  it,  I 
presume. 

The  Chairman.  Eight  days  before  he  had  received  $10,000  and  a 
few  days  afterwards  he  received  $15,000  more.  Were  you  not  put 
upon  inquiry  as  to  the  character  of  the  expenditure  that  was  being 
made  in  your  behalf  by  the  call  for  such  large  sums  of  money  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  I thought  it  was  spending  a good  deal  of 
money.  They  thought  I had  it,  and  they  wanted  it,  I guess;  some 
of  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I do  not  hear  what  you  say,  Senator.  A little 
louder. 

Senator  Stephenson.  I thought  it  was  calling  for  a good  deal  of 
money,  but,  of  course,  I did  not  know  what  he  wanted  it  for,  and  I 
had  confidence  in  him  and  in  my  treasurers,  two  treasurers;  I had 
absolute  confidence  then  and  now,  and  I did  not  know  anything 
about  the  detail  or  how  they  were  using  it,  and  did  not  know  any  of 
the  time  until  they  made  their  report. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  ask  them  how  they  were  using  these 
sums  of  money? 

Senator  Stephenson.  My  cashier  talked  with  them  how  much  it 
was  costing,  but  not  to  any  particular  item. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  remember  the  date  of  the  primary  elec- 
tion ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  The  first  Tuesday  in  September. 

The  Chairman.  What  day  of  the  month  was  that  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  I am  sorry  I can  not  answer  you,  because  I 
pride  myself  on  day  and  date,  time  and  place. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Does  counsel  know  the  date? 

Mr.  Black.  The  1st  of  September,  I think. 

Senator  Stephenson.  The  1st  of  September,  was  it  not,  this  year? 

Mr.  Black.  The  2d  day  of  September. 

Senator  Stephenson.  It  was  the  first  Tuesday  in  September. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  not  put  upon  inquiry  upon  September 
3,  the  day  after  the  primaries,  when  you  were  called  upon  for  a check 
for  $13,500? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No. 

The  Chairman.  That  did  not  seem  out  of  the  ordinary  to  you? 

Senator  Stephenson.  They  called  for  it,  and  I gave  it  to  them.  I 
had  confidence  in  them ; I could  not  ask  them  what  it  was  for.  It 
is  for  Mr.  Edmonds  to  show,  perhaps,  what  he  did  with  it  now. 


ISAAC  STEPHENSON. 


43 


The  Chairman.  On  October  10,  more  than  a month  after  the  pri- 
maries, and  after  you  had  been  nominated  by  a plurality  vote,  you 
gave  Puelicher  $3,700  after  the  legislative  ticket  had  been  nomi- 
nated ; what  did  you  give  him  that  sum  for  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  I can  not  tell  you  that  now. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  not  inquire  what  he  wanted  such  a 
sum  for? 

Senator  Stephenson.  He  may  have  said  what  he  wanted  it  for, 
but  I do  not  know.  He  did  not  put  it  in  writing  to  me.  I had  abso- 
lute confidence  in  him,  as  I say,  now  and  then.  He  wanted  it  for 
something — I do  not  now  know  what ; I could  not  say. 

The  Chairman.  On  November  7 you  gave  a check  to  J.  Earl  Mor- 
gan for  $2,550  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  that  for? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Well,  in  the  campaign  he — Winnebago 
County,  and  I think  maybe  did  some  work  in  Waupaca  County. 

The  Chairman.  What  do  you  mean  by  “ work  ” ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  To  get  out  the  voters  and  circulate  docu- 
ments. 

The  Chairman.  That  is,  at  the  general  election  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes;  that  is,  the  general  election,  and  the 
primaries,  too,  I guess;  both  included;  both  included,  the  primary 
and  the — I mean  the  primary  election;  yes. 

The  Chairman.  This  is  two  months  after  the  primary. 

Senator  Stephenson.  He  did  not  make  his  bill.  He  got  his  money. 
He  is  my  son-in-law,  and  he  has  got  money  enough  of  his  own,  and  I 
suppose  he  did  not  send  his  bill  to  me  until  he  got  ready. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  were  they?  Was  that  relating  to  the  pri- 
mary election? 

Senator  Stephenson.  I think  he  did  some  work  during  the  pri- 
mary and  during  the  general  election.  That  is,  that  would  be  my 
impression  now.  In  other  words,  I do  not  know  much  about  the 
general  election  or  the  general  primary;  I left  it  to  others. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  at  the  State  capitol  during  the  legis- 
lative session  at  the  time  of  your  election  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  At  the  capitol? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Senator  Stephenson.  I was  only  in  Madison  on  the  16th  of  Feb- 
ruary and  gave  my  evidence  there  in  the  forenoon  and  afternoon; 
the  16th  dajr  of  February,  1909;  that  is  all. 

The  Chairman.  You  were  not  there  again  during  the  session? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No;  at  no  time. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  pay  any  person  any  money  in  connection 
with  your  campaign  between  the  2d  day  of  September  and  the  day 
of  the  general  election  for  the  purpose  of  influencing  or  working 
for  you  with  the  members  of  the  legislature? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No,  sir;  not  to  my  knowledge;  not  a cent. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  pay  or  authorize  to  be  paid  anv  money 
to  any  member  of  the  legislature  for  voting  for  you  for  United 
States  Senator? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No,  sir;  I never  did  that. 


44 


ISAAC  STEPHENSON. 


The  Chairman.  Did  you  pay  or  authorize  the  payment  of  any 
money  to  any  member  of  the  legislature  for  absenting  himself  or  re- 
fraining from  participating  in  the  ballot? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No,  sir;  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  of  three  members  having  absented 
themselves — three  members  who,  had  they  been  present,  would  have 
voted  against  you ; do  you  know  of  that  fact  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  One  moment,  may  it  please  the  subcommittee. 
I wish  to  interpose  a formal  objection  here. 

The  Chairman.  I do  not  think  any  objection  will  lie  to  a question 
by  any  member  of  the  committee. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  It  is  not  formal.  It  is  simply  so  that  the  record 
may  show  that  our  attitude  is  consistent.  Of  course,  the  chairman 
will  bear  with  me,  I trust,  a moment 

The  Chairman.  Certainly. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  It  is  to  show  that  our  record  is  consistent  with 
reference  to  the  legal  situation.  I would  like  to  have  the  record  show 
that  we  object  to  the  introduction  of  any  testimony  in  relation  to  the 
election  of  a United  States  Senator  subsequent  to  the  26th  of  January, 
1909,  when  we  contend  the  Senator  was  elected.  And  in  connection 
with  that,  perhaps,  I ought  to  say  that  the  journal  of  the  house  shows, 
and  we  will  introduce  that  before  we  get  through,  that  on  the  27th, 
when  they  first  met  in  joint  convention,  a specific  protest  was  made 
by  a senator  against  any  further  proceedings,  upon  the  ground  that 
an  election  had  already  taken  place;  and  on  every  day  thereafter 
when  the  joint  convention  occurred,  for  the  purpose  of  the  election  of 
a United  States  Senator,  the  same  protest  was  made.  Now,  of  course, 
the  subcommittee  understands  that  I am  not  insisting  on  circumscrib- 
ing the  scope  of  the  inquiry,  but  I would  like  to  have  the  record  show 
that  we  interposed  the  objections  at  the  proper  time,  for  the  purpose 
of  maintaining  our  consistency  upon  the  legal  propositions. 

The  Chairman.  The  legal  proposition  will  not  be  affected  by  the 
question,  having  been  already  passed  upon  and  its  status  established. 
I think  there  will  be  no  difference  of  opinion  in  regard  to  my  state- 
ment that  an  objection  does  not  lie  to  a question  asked  by  a member 
of  the  committee. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Oh.  I do  not  intimate  that  it  does,  but  I desired  to 
have  the  record  show  that  when  this  part  of  the  examination  was 
reached  we  simply  asserted  our  legal  position  and  would  not  be  under- 
stood in  any  way  as  waiving  it. 

Senator  Stephenson.  I will  answer  that  question,  Mr.  Chairman, 
if  you  will 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  I desire  the  question  to  be  answered.  Eead 
the  question. 

(The  reporter  read  as  follows:) 

Do  you  know  of  three  members  having  absented  themselves,  three  members 
who,  had  they  been  present,  would  have  voted  against  you;  do  you  know  of 
that  fact? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Only  through  the  newspapers. 

The  Chairman.  You  were  not  there  at  the  time  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  The  men  I never  saw,  had  nothing  to  do  with 
in  any  shape,  name,  or  nature  at  all. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Senator  Stephenson,  I want  to  ask  you  one 
or  two  questions.  How  long  have  you  known  Mr.  Edmonds? 


ISAAC  STEPHENSON. 


45 


Senator  Stephenson.  Oh,  perhaps  15  or  20  years. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Has  he  been  in  your  emplo}^  in  any  way? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No. 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  is  his  business;  what  does  he  do? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Paper  business. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Has  he  been  active  in  politics? 

Senator  Stephenson.  He  was  once  in  the  legislature,  from  Oconto 
County.  He  afterwards  was  at  conventions — in  1904. 

Senator  Sutherland.  How  did  it  come  about  that  you  employed 
him  as  your  manager? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Well,  in  an  earlier  day,  probably  25  years 
ago,  or  30,  we  started  a paper  mill  in  our  place,  and  his  brother  had 
charge  of  it,  and  also  his  brother-in-law,  Mr.  Brokaw,  now  dead,  and 
1 used  to  meet  Mr.  Edmonds,  and  I think  he  got  a horse  from  me, 
where  I raise  horses,  and  I met  him  several  times.  He  was  interested 
with  Mr.  Merriman  and  Mr.  Gram.  Mr.  Gram  was  my  engineer  50 
years  in  one  of  our  mills,  and  they  were  in  with  him  at  Oconto  Falls, 
and  I used  to  meet  him  occasionally.  Then  on  my  yacht,  when  we 
were 

Senator  Sutherland.  I do  not  care  about  the  detail.  Did  you 
seek  him  out  or  did  he  seek  you  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  What? 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  he  come  to  you  and  ask  employment  or 
did  you  seek  him  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No;  I met  him  about  that  time,  just  after  I 
announced  myself  as  a candidate,  and  talked  with  him,  and  then  I 
asked  him  if  he  could  take  charge  of  it,  and  he  came  to  Milwaukee 
and  met  Mr.  Van  Cleve  and  Mr.  Peulicher,  and  they  talked  the 
matter  over,  and  they  thought  he  would  be  a good  man,  and  he  took 
charge  of  the  campaign. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  I.  understand,  then,  that  you  suggested 
to  him  that  he  should  become  your  manager? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes ; I think  that  is  true. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  made  the  first  suggestion  with  reference 
to  that? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes.  He  did  not  offer  his  services  to  me.  I 
think,  in  talking  the  matter  over,  I thought  that  he  would  be  a good 
man,  as  his  reputation  was  good,  and  he  is  connected  with  some  of 
our  best  men  in  business. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  make  any  suggestion  to  him  about 
compensating  him  for  his  services? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Or  he  to  you? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Was  there  ever  any  suggestion  of  that  kind 
as  you  went  along? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No  ; never. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Was  he  compensated? 

Senator  Stephenson.  I do  not  know  wdiether  he  was  or  not.  I 
think — I do  not  know  whether  I paid  him  anything  or  not,  or 
whether  he  paid  himself,  or  otherwise;  I do  not  know  that. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  pay  him  any  money  for  the  pur- 
pose of  compensating  him  ? 


46 


ISAAC  STEPHENSON. 


Senator  Stephenson.  I gave  him  $5,000  for  his  own,  for  to  do 
what  he  pleased  with,  and  he  spent  it  in  the  canvass,  as  I understand, 
and  he  put  some  back  to  me  now.  I can’t  tell  what 

Senator  Sutherland.  How  long  was  he  working  for  you — several 
months  altogether? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Well,  might  say  August  and  September,  and 
I guess  that  is  all  that  he  worked,  maybe. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Two  months,  you  mean? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes;  or  more.  He  probably — and  when  the 
legislature  was  in  session  I do  not  know  whether  he  was  there  or  not. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Was  he  devoting  his  entire  time  to  it? 

Senator  Stephenson.  I think  most  of  his  time;  yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  gave  him  the  first  check  of  $5,000  in 
July;  was  that  the  time  you  made  the  employment? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Well,  the  Senator  will  excuse  me.  That  is  the 
only  check. 

Senator  Stephenson.  That  is  the  only  check  I gave  him  direct. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  he  gave  Edmonds. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Well,  you  gave  him  the  check? 

Senator  Stephenson.  I did  not  give  him  that  for  service,  but  he 
wanted  it  so  that  he  could  get  it  if  he  needed  it  in  the  absence  of 
Puelicher.  Mr.  Puelicher  was  cashier  of  the  Marshall  & Ilsley 
Bank,  and  he  travels  a good  deal  and  was  not  always  in  the  bank. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Yow,  I do  not  remember  whether  you  an- 
swered my  question.  Was  he  devoting  his  entire  time  to  your 
interests  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  I think  most  of  it ; yes ; I think  most  of  his 
time. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  do  not  know  whether  he  was  com- 
pensated for  it  or  not  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No;  I do  not.  I do  not.  I do  not  think  he 
was,  to  any — I do  not  know  that  he  was  to  any  extent. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Why  was  he  doing  it? 

Senator  Stephenson.  What? 

Senator  Sutherland.  Why  was  he  rendering  this  service  to  you? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Oh,  I have  a good  many  friends  in  this 
State  that  would  do  almost  anything,  as  far  as  service  is  concerned. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Was  he  sufficiently  close  to  you  that  he 
would  put  in  two  or  three  months  of  his  time  without  any  compensa- 
tion? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Well,  that  I could  not  say.  I do  not  know 
whether  he  paid  himself  anything  or  not. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Is  he  a wealthy  man  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No;  not — well,  to  a certain  extent;  yes. 
He  was  in  a good  deal  of  business  then.  I do  not  know  what  his 
wealth  is. 

Senator  Sutherland.  He  was  in*  business  at  the  time  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes.  To  a certain  extent;  yes;  had  been  in 
more,  but  he  was  relieved,  I guess;  his  brother  and  others  relieved 
him  at  that  time. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  he  make  you  any  statement  as  to  what 
he  had  done  with  the  $5,000? 


ISAAC  STEPHENSON.  47 

Senator  Stephenson.  Only  verbally.  I won’t  be  clear  on  that. 
He  can  probably  tell.  I won’t  be  clear  on  that. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Who  was  Mr.  Van  Cleve,  your  other  agent? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Mr.  Van  Cleve  is  engaged  with  me  in  several 
things,  now  and  then. 

Senator  Sutherland.  In  business  together? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No;  only  as  our  companies — he  was  presi- 
dent of  a company  that  I am  interested  in  and  he  is  president  of  the 
Stephenson  National  Bank,  and  he  is  on  the  committee  that  is 
building  our  capitol  at  Madison. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  were  connected  with  him  in  business 
in  that  way? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  were  extensively  interested  in  these 
companies  you  mention? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Oh,  yes;  yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  he  was  treasurer  of  one,  you  say  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No;  he  was  president  of  the  Stephenson 
National  Bank,  and  he  is  also  president  of  the  chemical  works  that  I 
am  interested  in — chemical  works  up  near  Escanaba. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I thought  you  said  he  was  treasurer — per- 
haps I misunderstood  you. 

Senator  Stephenson.  No.  Well,  he  was  treasurer — he  and  Mr. 
Puelicher — for  this  money  that  I turned  over  to  be  paid  to  Mr. 
Edmonds  in  the  campaign ; you  might  call  him  treasurer  or  custodian 
of  the  money  that  I paid  them  to  use  in  the  campaign. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Who  was  the  other?  You  mentioned  some- 
body else  that  had  handled  some  money.  I have  forgotten  the  name 
now. 

Senator  Stephenson.  Mr.  Puelicher,  cashier  of  the  Marshall  & 
Ilsley  Bank,  then  and  now. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Who  is  he;  what  relation  does  he  bear  to 
you  in  business  or  otherwise? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Not  any  in  particular.  I have  some  stock 
and  we  do  a great  deal  of  business  in  that  bank,  and  I have  known 
him  a good  while,  and  when  I was  elected  in  1907  he  was  with  me. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  he  managing  your  campaign  in  1907? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Before  the  legislature? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Before  the  legislature;  yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is,  your  first  election? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Had  four  candidates  against  me,  and  we 
finally  won  out  after  9 or  10  weeks. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I notice  among  these  items  of  expenditure 
one  of  something  over  $11,000  for  postage. 

Senator  Stephenson.  That  I know  nothing  about. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  know  that  item  is  in  the 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes.  Mr.  Edmonds 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  know  what  things  were  being  sent 
through  the  mail  that  required  postage? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No;  I do  not;  I did  not.  I knew  very  little, 
as  I say,  about  the  campaign.  I was  only  in  seven  counties  a piece 
of  the  5 days,  and  in  the  2 months  that  I ran  I was  on  my  fishing 
trip  10  days. 


48 


ISAAC  STEPHENSON. 


Senator  Sutherland.  $11,000  would  send  a good  many  letters  or 
good  many  documents? 

Senator  Stephenson.  I think  they  had  15  or  20  persons  in  the 
Wells  Building  here  sending  out  letters. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  you  know  about  that? 

Senator  Stephenson.  I have  heard  that;  yes.  I was  in  there  and 
I saw  a good  many  there ; I was  in  there,  I guess,  in  the  Wells  Build- 
ing, as  Mr.  Edmonds’s  headquarters,  I presume,  about  an  hour  and 
a half.  I was  in  there  twice,  and  that  is  all. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Was  that  pending  the  primaries? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes;  during  the  primaries. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  have  some  headquarters  or  office 
here  where  clerks  were  employed? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No  ; I had  no  headquarters,  only  as  I am  con- 
nected with  the  several  companies,  and  Cary,  Upham,  and  Black. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  question  was,  did  they  have  a headquarters 
where  these  people  were  at  work,  and  from  which  they  were  sending 
out  literature  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes;  in  the  Wells  Building. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  that  under  the  direction  of  Mr.  Edmonds? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes;  solely.  I was  only  in  there  twice,  and 
I think  I stayed  only  an  hour  and  a half. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  did  go  in  on  one  occasion? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  were  there,  and  did  see  the  men  at  work? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes ; I went  in  and  saw  them,  in  a casual  way. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  know  anything  about  what  they 
were  doing? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Sending  letters,  as  I understood. 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  kind  of  letters? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Well,  I do  not  know. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Letters  advocating  your  nomination? 

Senator  Stephenson.  I presume  that  was  what  they  w^ere  there 
for.  I would  state,  Senator,  that  I have  10  or  12  very  active  com- 
panies, and  the  details  I know  very  little  about.  I think  I am 
president  of  10  or  12  very  active  companies  besides  some  others, 
and  I can  not  look  after  them  all.  I have  between  two  and  three 
thousand  men  at  work  for  me,  in  our  different  businesses,  and  I do 
not  know  anything  about  the  details.  I have  some  men  that  have 
been  with  me  for  50  years,  m whom  I have  confidence,  and  our  busi- 
ness runs  in  that  way,  so  that  I can  not  look  after  details. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I think  that  is  all. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Senator,  you  determined  to  be  a candidate  in 
June,  1908.  I believe  you  said? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes;  in  the  latter  part  of  June,  1908. 

Senator  Pomerene.  When  did  you  first  talk  with  Mr.  Edmonds 
with  reference  to  this  matter? 

Senator  Stephenson.  About  the  first  part  of  July  some  time. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  where  did  you  meet  him  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  I met  him  first  at  Marinette. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  was  said  between  you  on  that  subject? 

Senator  Stephenson.  We  talked  in  a general  way,  and  I asked  him, 
perhaps — I can  not  tell  just  exactly — if  he  would  take  charge  of  the 


ISAAC  STEPHENSON. 


49 


campaign.  Then  I asked  him  to  go  to  Milwaukee  and  meet  Mr. 
Puelicher  and  Mr.  Van  Cleve;  said  that  I would  give  the  money  to 
them,  and  they  would 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  else  was  said  during  that  conversation? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Nothing  in  particular,  only  to  take  charge  of 
the  campaign. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  he  say  then  that  he  would  take  charge  of 
the  campaign? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  you  said  you  would  furnish  him  the 
money  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  I said  I would  furnish  the  money  to  Mr. 
Puelicher  and  Mr.  Van  Cleve,  and  he  could  call  on  them. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  say  how  much  money  you  would 
furnish  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Was  there  anything  said  in  that  conversation 
as  to  what  it  would  probably  cost  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  discuss  the  method  of  the  campaign? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Not  particularly;  no. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  asked  him  to  go  and  see  Mr.  Puelicher  and 
somebody  else? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Mr.  Van  Cleve,  and  they  would  meet  him  in 
Milwaukee. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  meet  with  them? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  When  did  you  have  the  next  conversation  with 
Mr.  Edmonds  on  this  subject  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  I can  not  state  that.  I think  I was  in  Mil- 
waukee twice,  and  I went  into  the  office  both  times,  but  not  to  exceed 
an  hour  and  a half. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Tell  us  what  was  said  between  you  at  that 
time. 

Senator  Stephenson.  Pie  told  me  how  he  was  progressing,  and  so 
forth. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  did  he  tell  you  he  was  doing? 

Senator  Stephenson.  He  was  sending  out  literature,  and  getting 
buttons,  and  he  was  sending  my  photographs  all  over  the  State.  He 
was  getting  names  that  he  could  write  letters  to. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  gave  him  $5,000.  Was  that  before  or 
after  this  meeting? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Afterwards. 

Senator  Pomerene.  How  long  afterwards? 

Senator  Stephenson.  To  guess  at  it,  a couple  or  three  weeks. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  he  tell  you  at  the  time  of  this  second  con- 
ference that  he  would  need  some  money  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  He  wanted  me  to  give  him  some  money,  so 
that  he  could  have  it.  He  would  put  it  in  the  bank  himself. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Tell  us  what  was  said  on  that  subject. 

Senator  Stephenson.  He  wanted  I should  give  him  some  money, 
if  he  wanted  it,  for  current  expenses;  and  I gave  him  my  check  for 
$5,000,  and  I think  he  put  it  in  the  National  Exchange  Bank. 

15235°— vol  1—11 4 


50 


ISAAC  STEPHENSON. 


Senator  Pomerene.  Was  anything  said  as  to  how  that  was  to  be 
expended  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  say  anything  to  him  as  to  the  method 
of  expending  it? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Or  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  to  be  ex- 
pended ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No,  sir;  nothing. 

Senator  Pomerene.  When  was  it  you  said  to  him  that  you  wanted 
him  to  keep  within  the  law  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  At  different  times — to  keep  within  the  law. 

Senator  Pomerene.  When  was  the  first  time? 

Senator  Stephenson.  I think  when  I first  talked,  that  it  must  be 
in  accordance  with  the  law. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  did  you  mean  by  that? 

Senator  Stephenson.  In  our  primary  election,  if  a man  was  run- 
ning for  the  legislature  in  the  primary  election,  you  understand, 
that  he  should  not  help  him  for  his  nomination. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  have  anything  else  in  mind  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No;  nothing  in  particular. 

Senator  Pomerene.  At  that  time  I believe  your  law  provided  that 
an  account  should  be  kept  of  the  amount  expended,  the  persons  to 
whom  it  was  paid,  and  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  paid.  You  had 
that  in  mind,  did  you  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Oh,  yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  speak  to  him  on  that  subject? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Oh,  yes;  1 told  him  to  keep  a correct  account 
of  everything. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  tell  him  that  he  must  be  specific  as  to 
the  amount  that  was  paid  to  each  person? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  the  persons  to  whom  paid  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  I charged  him  with  that  several  times,  be- 
cause I thought  maybe  he  would  be  pretty  liberal  with  my  money. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  tell  him  how  he  should  keep  his 
account  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Whether  he  should  keep  it  in  the  form  of  a 
book  account? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Or  on  slips,  or  cards,  or  something  of  that 
kind? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No.  He  is  a business  man,  a man  of  edu- 
cation, and  I felt  that  it  was  not  necessary. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Had  he  had  any  experience  in  the  conduct  of 
campaigns  of  this  character  before  this? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Not  as  far  as  I know,  only  he  was  elected 
once  to  the  legislature.  I was  not  very  dose  to  him  then. 

Senator  Pomerene.  From  time  to  time  after  that  you  knew  he 
was  getting  money  from  Mr.  Puelicher,  did  you  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  you  kept  in  touch  with  the  amount  that 
he  was  receiving  from  time  to  time. 


ISAAC  STEPHENSON. 


51 


Senator  Stephenson.  No;  not  very  close.  Mr.  Puelicher  would 
call  on  me  for  money,  and  I would  give  him  that  money.  I would 
give  it  to  him  and  Mr.  Van  Cleve,  and  Mr.  Van  Cleve  and  Mr. 
Puelicher  would  pay  it  to  Mr.  Edmonds  as  he  called  for  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  yourself  keep  any  account,  showing 
the  persons  to  whom  you  paid  this  money  from  time  to  time  and 
the  purposes  for  which  it  was  paid  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  knew  that  would  be  required,  did  you  not? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Well,  in  a way.  He  was  to  keep  it  straight, 
and  I had  confidence  in  him  that  he  would. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  keep  any  account? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  said  that  from  time  to  time  you  would 
give  Mr.  Puelicher  a check. 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  gave  one  check  to  Mr.  Edmonds  and  you 
gave  some  checks  to  some  other  persons.  Now,  did  you  keep  any 
account  yourself,  showing  the  persons  to  whom  you  paid  the  amounts 
or  the  purposes  for  which  they  were  paid  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Nothing;  only  my  check  book. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Only  your  check  book? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Mr.  Puelicher  was  acting  as  your  treasurer 
from  time  to  time? 

Senator  Stephenson.  And  Mr.  Van  Cleve. 

Senator  Pomerene.  When  did  you  first  give  money  to  Mr.  Pue- 
licher ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  That  I can  not  say. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  was  the  amount  you  gave  him  first  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  It  appears  here — $10,000. 

Senator  Pomerene.  When  was  that  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  That  was  given  to  him  on  the  30th  of  July. 

Senator  Pomerene.  How  did  you  give  that  to  him,  by  check  or  in 
cash,  or  how? 

Senator  Stephenson.  By  check.  In  the  first  place,  I had  $50,000 
in  their  bank. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Just  state  what  bank  that  was,  because  “ their 
bank  ” is  a little  uncertain. 

Senator  Stephenson.  The  Marshall  & Ilsley  Bank. 

Senator  Pomerene.  In  what  form  was  that  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  It  was  on  deposit. 

Senator  Pomerene.  A certificate  of  deposit? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No;  I do  not  know  that  this  will  cut  any 
figure,  but  it  was  a loan  that  was  made. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Perhaps  my  question  was  not  clear.  Did  you 
have  a pass  book  of  the  bank  or  a certificate  of  deposit,  or  what,  to 
evidence  the  fact  that  you  had  a credit? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No  ; an  open-account  deposit  there. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  the  Senator  wants  to  know  is  whether  it 
was  a deposit  subject  to  check. 

Senator  Stephenson.  Oh,  yes.  It  was  just  lying  there.  The  way 
that  $50,000  was  lying  there  was  that  it  was  loaned  to  a flour  man  at 


52 


ISAAC  STEPHENSON. 


Minneapolis  and  he  paid  it.  It  was  a loan,  and  they  paid  the  loan 
to  the  Marshall  & Ilsley  Bank,  and  that  $50,000  was  lying  there. 

Senator  Pomerene.  When  was  it  you  first  made  your  arrangement 
with  Puelicher  tc  act  as  your  treasurer? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Right  after  Mr.  Van  Cleve  came  down  to 
Milwaukee  and  met  Mr.  Puelicher  and  Mr.  Edmonds  and  they  made 
their  arrangements — that  they  would  keep  the  money  and  Mr.  Ed- 
monds would  go  on  with  the  campaign  and  they  were  to  furnish  the 
money  as  he  called  for  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  Senator  wants  the  date,  as  nearly  as  you  can 
fix  it,  is  not  that  it? 

Senator  Pomerene.  Yes;  I would  like  that. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Give  as  near  as  you  can  the  date  when  you  made 
your  first  arrangement  with  Mr.  Puelicher. 

Senator  Stephenson.  I think  about  the  28th,  or  along  there,  of 
June. 

Senator  Pomerene.  The  28th  of  June? 

Senator  Stephenson.  To  guess  at  it;  yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  was  said  between  you  at  that  time? 

Senator  Stephenson.  As  to  what? 

Senator  Pomerene.  Between  you  and  Mr.  Puelicher  as  to  what 
he  was  to  do. 

Senator  Stephenson.  I did  not  see  Mr.  Puelicher.  Mr.  Van  Cleve 
came  down.  I was  not  here.  Mr.  Van  Cleve  came  down,  and  I pre- 
sume I wrote  to  Mr.  Puelicher  to  meet  Mr.  Van  Cleve  to  talk  over 
with  Mr.  Edmonds  and  arrange  about  the  campaign. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  were  not  there  at  that  time? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  have  any  talk  with  Mr.  Puelicher  as 
to  what  his  duties  were  in  connection  with  that  fund? 

Senator  Stephenson.  To  pay  to  Mr.  Edmonds,  as  he  needed  the 
money. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  was  said  as  to  how  this  was  to  be  paid 
or  what  account  was  to  be  kept  of  it? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Nothing  about  that,  because  I had  perfect 
confidence  in  him. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  say  to  him  that  he  should  keep 
account  of  the  several  amounts  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No;  because  my  checks  were  here  that  1 
drew. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  Senator’s  question  is  whether  you  suggested 
to  Mr.  Puelicher  that  Puelicher  himself  keep  accounts  of  the  sums 
that  Puelicher  disbursed.  Is  that  right  ? 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  is  the  substance  of  it.  What  talk  did 
you  have  with  him  on  that  subject? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  If  any? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Really  not  anything;  only  that  he  was  to 
give  Mr.  Edmonds  money  when  he  called  on  him  for  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  not  say  to  Mr.  Puelicher  that  you 
wanted  him  to  keep  within  the  law? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Oh,  yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  that  it  was  necessary  to  keep  an  account? 

Senator  Stephenson.  I told  him  to  keep  within  the  law. 


ISAAC  STEPHENSON. 


53 


Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  say  to  him,  in  effect,  that  the  iaw 
required  him  to  keep  an  account  of  the  persons  to  whom  this  money 
was  paid? 

Senator  Stephenson.  I would  not  say  that  it  went  as  far  as  that, 
but  I told  him  to  keep  within  the  law. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  knew  you  would  have  to  file  an  account 
of  your  expenses  afterwards,  did  you  not? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  say  anything  to  Mr.  Puelicher  on 
that  subject? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Not  particularly.  He  knew  and  I knew  that 
I would  have  to  file  an  account. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  say  he  knew  that. 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  From  what  did  you  draw  that  conclusion? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Because  he  knew  what  our  primary  law  was. 
I assumed  that  he  did. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  was  a matter  of  common  knowledge  here 
among  your  people? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Were  you  advising  with  anybody  during  this 
primary  campaign  as  to  the  legal  features  of  it? 

Senator  Stephenson.  It  was  not  necessary.  I knew  what  the  law 
was ; had  a general  idea. 

Senator  Pomerene.  In  other  words,  you  knew  that  the  law  re- 
quired, among  other  things,  that  he  should  not  pay  any  money  to 
candidates  for  the  legislature. 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes,  sir;  and  I charged  and  cautioned  all  of 
them  that  were  doing  anything  for  me  to  be  careful  about  that  and 
to  keep  within  the  law. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  knew  also  that  the  law  required  you  to 
make  an  account  showing  the  amounts  you  paid  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  The  persons  to  whom  it  was  paid  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  the  purposes  for  which  it  was  paid  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  ever  consult  anybody  as  to  the  details 
of  that  law? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No. 

Senator  Pomerene.  As  to  what  it  required  him  to  do  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No. 

Senator  Pomerene.  But  you  did  tell  these  gentlemen,  Mr.  Pue- 
licher and  Mr.  Edmonds,  that  the  law  did  thus  require? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes,  and  to  keep  within  the  law. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Your  primary,  I believe,  was  in  September? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes;  the  2d  of  September. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  you  filed  your  account  when  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  In  February,  I think.  It  shows  when  I 
filed  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Some  time  in  February. 

Mr.  Black.  February  11  was  the  date. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  reason  did  you  have  for  not  filing  your 
account  within  the  30  days  subsequent  to  the  primary? 


54 


ISAAC  STEPHENSON. 


Senator  Stephenson.  Not  until  after  I was  elected,  not  until  after 
the  legislature  elected  me. 

Senator  Pomerene.  The  other  candidates  filed  their  accounts,  did 
they,  within  the  30  days  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  I do  not  know  that;  but  a United  States 
Senator  is  not  elected  until  after  the  legislature  meets.  They  do  not 
vote  for  him  until  after  they  meet,  and  I believe  I understood  the  law, 
that  it  was  within  the  law  that  it  could  go.  until  the  time  when  I did 
file  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  consult  anybody  about  that? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Only  in  a general  way. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  have  knowledge  of  the  fact  that  the 
other  candidates  had  filed  their  accounts  within  30  days  subsequent 
to  the  primary  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  In  a general  way ; yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  it  not  occur  to  you  then  that  perhaps 
there  would  not  be  one  law  in  refrence  to  your  filing  your  account 
and  another  with  reference  to  the  other  candidates  filing  their 
accounts  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  I heard  from  lawyers  in  a general  way  that 
I need  not  file  until  I filed  within  the  law. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  amount  have  you  expended 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Will  it  be  proper  for  me  to  suggest  that  the 
Senator  had  the  written  opinion  of  the  attorney  general,  advising 
him  when  to  file  his  account.  I suggest  that,  so  that  it  will  go  right 
along  with  this  subject. 

Senator  Pomerene.  The  questions  have  been  broad  enough  to  call 
forth  that  information. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  fact  is  that  he  did  have  such  a letter,  and  I 
suggest  it  because  it  is  upon  this  subject  matter. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I have  no  objection  to  it  being  filed. 

Mr.  Black.  It  is  at  the  office. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Then  we  will  put  it  in  later.  I have  not  seen  the 
letter,  but  I am  advised  that  that  is  the  fact. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Up  to  the  September  primary  what  amount 
had  you  expended  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  By  Mr.  Edmonds’s  statement  here,  $107,000. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  the  fact  that  you  had  expended  this  large 
sum  of  money  in  your  effort  to  secure  the  indorsement  at  the  primary 
have  anything  to  do  with  your  withholding  your  account? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  had  no  influence  with  you  at  all  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  The  attorney  general  said  I need  not  file  it 
until  the  time  when  I did  file  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  felt,  did  you  not,  that  if  it  were  generally 
known  throughout  the  State  that  you  had  expended  over  $100,000  in 
securing  the  indorsement  at  the  primary  it  would  have  some  infiuerite 
with  the  legislators? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No;  I did  not  have  anything  like  that,  be- 
cause the  man  who  ran  for  governor  this  year,  who  was  not  elected, 
returned  $77,000,  and  Mr.  Cook,  who  ran  against  me,  came  on  the 
stand  and  showed  that  a man  can  spend  $500,000  legally  in  one  of 
these  primaries  here. 


ISAAC  STEPHENSON. 


55 


Senator  Pomerene.  You  felt  that  the  expenditure  of  this  money 
did  have  some  influence  when  it  came  to  the  matter  of  the  primaries, 
did  it  not? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Inasmuch  as  I carried  the  primary  by  some 
10,000,  that  showed  that  I was  nominated  and  that  I was  the  legal 
candidate  under  the  primary,  and  that  might  have  had  some  influence 
afterwards,  probably. 

Senator  Pomerene.  When  you  were  expending  this  money  you  did 
it  for  the  purpose  of  aiding  you  in  securing  the  nomination  did  you 
not? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  you  felt  that  it  would  influence  the  result, 
did  you  not  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Oh,  I do  not  know.  I would  say  now,  per- 
haps, that  it  would  have  some  influence,  of  course,  because  a majority 
of  our  people  enacted  the  primary  laAv;  and  I suppose  I had  more  to 
do  with  it,  as  I furnished  most  of  the  money  to  get  that  law. 

Senator  Pomerene.  If  you  expected  the  expenditure  of  this  money 
to  have  some  influence  in  securing  the  indorsement  at  the  primary, 
did  it  not  occur  to  you  that  the  knowledge  that  you  had  expended  that 
amount  might  have  had  some  weight  with  the  legislators,  in  making 
public  opinion,  as  to  whether  or  not  they  should  vote  for  you  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Of  course,  the  fact  that  under  the  primary 
election  law  I had  won  out  by  some  10,000  or  more  plurality  would 
have  some  influence,  if  they  believed  in  the  primary  law,  and  of  course 
they  would  stand  by  my  nomination.  It  would  fee  natural  for  me  to 
think  that. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Senator,  you  have  said  here,  in  answer  to  some 
questions  which  were  put  to  you,  that  as  these  demands  were  being 
made  on  you  from  time  to  time  it  occurred  to  you  that  it  was  requir- 
ing a good  deal  of  money  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  say  anything  to  Mr.  Edmonds  on  that 
subject? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes;  I cautioned  him  to  get  along  as  cheap 
as  he  could.  I did  not  want  to  throw  my  money  away  any  more  than 
was  necessary. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  ask  him  what  he  was  expending  this 
money  for? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Oh,  well,  he  told  me  in  a general  way  in  some 
cases. 

Senator  Pomerene.  No;  but  did  you  first  ask  him? 

Senator  Stephenson.  I can  not  say  that  I did,  in  particular. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  any  information  he 
gave  you  on  that  subject  was  given  voluntarily  and  without  being 
elicited  by  a question  from  you  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Oh,  I asked  him  why  he  was  spending  so 
much  money  ? 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  did  he  say  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  He  told  me  he  had  to  do  it  to  get  the  vote  out, 
and  so  forth,  and  to  get  the  literature  before  them;  and  they  had 
to  get  the  names,  and  it  cost  a good  deal  to  get  the  names,  and  the 
postage,  which  the  $11,000  paid  lor  postage  shows. 


56 


ISAAC  STEPHENSON. 


Senator  Pomerene.  In  answer,  I think,  to  the  chairman  of  this 
committee,  you  said  you  had  confidence  in  them — meaning  Mr.  Ed- 
monds and  Mr.  Puelicher  and  others  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  then  you  added,  “ I could  not  ask  them 
what  for,”  referring  to  the  expenditures  of  the  money. 

Senator  Stephenson.  Not  all  the  details,  no;  but  in  a general  way 
I would  say  to  them,  “ Well,  you  are  spending  a good  deal  of  money, 
and  I would  get  along  with  less,”  or  some  remark  of  that  kind. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Then  you  never  asked  them  for  the  details,  or 
any  of  them  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  I did,  for  this  account. 

Senator  Pomerene.  For  the  account  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  But  before  the  filing  of  that  account? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No. 

Senator  Pomerene.  In  order  that  you  might  be  the  better  advised 
as  to  how  the  campaign  was  being  conducted  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  It  took  them  some  time  to  get  it  up,  after- 
wards. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  question  of  the  Senator  is  whether  you  asked 
him  for  details  pending  the  expenditure  of  the  money. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Yes,  and  prior  to  the  time  of  filing  the  account. 

Senator  Stephenson.  No,  I do  not  do  business  in  that  way.  I am 
doing  too  much  business.  If  I asked  my  men  who  work  for  me,  and 
all  my  foremen  and  these  other  men,  what  they  are  doing,  I would 
not  sleep  any  at  night,  because  they  would  not  have  time  to  answer  me. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  it  not  occur  to  you  that  this  was  a little 
bit  different  from  your  ordinary  business  transactions — that  this 
was  a matter  in  which  the  public  was  interested? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes,  it  was  politics,  and  my  other  business 
was  not  politics,  as  far  as  that  is  concerned. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  it  not  occur  to  you  that  the  State  was  in- 
terested in  knowing  whether  or  not  there  had  been  any  expenditures, 
and  if  so  in  what  amounts,  and  the  purposes  for  which  the  expendi- 
tures were  made? 

Senator  Stephenson.  I covered  that  in  this  way,  that  I told  them 
to  keep  within  the  law,  and  to  spend  as  little  as  they  could.  I made 
that  remark  several  times.  That  was  about  as  far  as  I could  go.  I 
could  not  question  them  on  details,  because  I did  not  know  them. 
I told  them  to  keep  within  the  law. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  at  no  time  asked  them  to  keep  a book 
account  showing  in  detail  what  they  expended  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Or  to  whom  it  was  given  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Or  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  given  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  said  you  gave  Mr.  Edmonds  a check  for 
$5,000. 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  you  also  stated  that  he  paid  back  a part 
of  it? 


ISAAC  STEPHENSON. 


57 


Senator  Stephenson.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  amount  did  he  pay  back? 

Senator  Stephenson.  I can  not  tell  you  that  now.  I can  not  give 
that  because  I do  not  know. 

Senator  Pomerene.  He  had  received  large  amounts  of  money,  as  I 
understand  from  Mr.  Puelicher? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  When  he  paid  you  back  a given  sum,  whatever 
it  was,  are  you  able  to  say  now  that  it  was  a part  of  that  $5,000,  or 
that  it  was  the  balance  after  his  expenditures  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  I think  maybe  both.  The  reason  that  Mr. 
Edmonds  wanted  the  $5,000  to  put  into  the  National  Exchange  Bank 
was  that  if  he  wanted  some  money  that  he  could  call  his  own,  if  you 
please,  for  different  small  amounts,  he  could  draw  against  it ; so  that 
he  could  draw  his  own  check  on  the  bank. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  have  stated  that  you  paid  money  in  con- 
siderable sums  to  Mr.  Edmonds  and  to  Mr.  Puelicher,  and  perhaps  to 
Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Did  you  pay  any  substantial  amounts  to  any  other 
persons  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  anybody  else  expend  any  money  for  you 
to  your  knowledge  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No,  only  around  home;  a small  amount. 

Senator  Pomerene.  No  substantial  amount  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No;  not  any. 

The  Chairman.  Senator,  on  your  examination  before  the  legis- 
lative committee  you  were  asked  whether  or  not  you  kept  letterpress 
copies,  and  you  said  at  that  time  that  you  had  not  examined  your 
files  to  see  whether  or  not  you  had  written  any  political  letters  dur- 
ing the  campaign,  or  letters  relating  to  the  campaign.  Have  you 
since  made  an  examination  of  your  letter  books  and  files? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No;  but  I would  say  that  I have  not  written 
any  political  campaign  letters.  I might  write  to  a friend  somewhere 
asking  him  to  do  what  he  could  for  me,  but  not  in  relation  to  any 
expenditure. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  you  wrote  nothing  in  regard  to  any  ex- 
penditure ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No;  not  any,  as  far  as  I can  recollect  or 
know ; not  any. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Just  another  question  or  two,  please,  Senator 
Stephenson.  You  say  that  Mr.  Edmonds  furnished  you  the  informa- 
tion from  which  you  filed  your  account. 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes,  sir.  He  made  up  the  account  and  gave 
me  this  list  [indicating]. 

Senator  Pomerene.  In  what  form  did  he  give  that  to  you? 

Senator  Stephenson.  In  about  the  same  form  as  it  is  here;  the 
same  as  I filed  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  is,  it  was  a typewritten  copy,  was  it  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes;  I will  not  be  clear  on  that. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Very  well,  I will  get  at  wThat  I want  in  another 
way. 

Did  he  bring  you  any  book  showing  this  account? 


58 


ISAAC  STEPHENSON. 


Senator  Stephenson.  No. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Or  any  cards  or  slips  of  paper  or  memoranda 
showing  it? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  do  not  know  then,  do  you,  whether  the 
account  that  he  furnished  you  was  the  original  account  that  he  had 
kept? 

Senator  Stephenson.  No. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Or  whether  it  was  simply  a copy 

Senator  Stephenson.  No. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Of  something  that  he  may  have  kept? 

Senator  Stephenson.  I will  say  to  you,  Senator,  that  in  my  busi- 
ness I have  what  I think  are  good  men,  and  I have  confidence  in 
them.  I do  not  examine  them.  There  is  so  much  that  I could  not 
do  it  if  I wanted  to,  and  I have  never  had  anybody  rob  me  yet,  only 
I might  say  politically. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I think  that  is  all  I desire  to  ask. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Of  course,  if  we  have  occasion,  we  will  examine 
Senator  Stephenson  later  in  the  course  of  the  proceeding. 

Senator  Pomerene.  We  may  want  to  ask  him  some  questions. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  desire  to  interrogate  Senator  Stephenson, 
Mr.  Littlefield  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Not  at  the  present  time.  If  we  have  occasion 
later,  we  will  ask  permission  of  the  committee. 

That  is  all,  Mr.  Stephenson,  now. 

The  Chairman.  Call  Mr.  E.  A.  Edmonds. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  original  letter  from  the  attorney  general, 
I think,  is  at  Mr.  Stephenson’s  home  at  Marinette.  We  have  a copy. 
Of  course,  if  the  subcommitte  would  like  to  see  the  original,  I will 
have  it  brought  here.  Otherwise  I will  simply  put  the  copy  in  and 
use  it  as  the  original,  but  I wish  to  consult  your  preference,  and  I 
will  have  it  inserted  in  the  record  at  that  place. 

Senator  Pomerene.  If  we  should  decide  we  want  to  see  the  original 
letter,  you  may  put  it  in. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Very  well.  I will  put  the  copy  in  the  record  at 
that  place,  and  if  you  want  the  original  letter  I will  see  that  it  is 
produced. 

The  Chairman.  The  copy  is  offered  now  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  So  it  will  be  in  direct  connection  with  Senator 
Stephenson’s  examination? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  It  is  at  Mr.  Black’s  office.  We  will  hand  it  to 
the  reporter.  We  will  have  it  so  that  it  will  be  a part  of  the  record. 
Just  mark  it  “ Exhibit  2.” 

Senator  Pomerene.  I would  ask  whether  you  could  send  for  it 
now? 

Mr.  Black.  I do  not  know  whether  there  is  anyone  there  now  who 
would  know  where  to  find  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Very  well. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  We  will  see  that  it  is  furnished  to  the  reporter 
so  he  can  have  it  transcribed,  and  we  will  have  it  in  the  minutes  in 
the  morning. 

We  will  call  it  Exhibit  2. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


59 


TESTIMONY  OF  E.  A.  EDMONDS. 

E.  A.  Edmonds,  having  been  previously  sworn,  was  examined  and 
testified  as  follows: 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Edmonds,  where  is  your  place  of  residence? 
Mr.  Edmonds.  Appleton,  Wis. 

The  Chairman.  How  long  have  you  resided  there  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Four  years. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  your  business  or  occupation? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Paper  manufacturer. 

The  Chairman.  What  kind  of  paper  manufacturer?  • 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Print  and  wrapping. 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  chairman  of  the  Republican  State  cen- 
tral committee? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  When? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  From  1908  to  1910. 

The  Chairman.  What  time  in  1908  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  the  22d  of  September,  if  I remember  cor- 
rectly. 

The  Chairman.  How  were  you  selected? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  According  to  the  law  of  the  State,  which  provides 
that  the  nominees  of  the  Republican  Party  for  members  of  the  as- 
sembly and  senate  shall  meet  in  Madison  and  select  a chairman. 

The  Chairman.  Had  you  held  an  office  prior  to  that  time  under  the 
State? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  office? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Elective  office? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I was  a member  of  the  assembly  at  one  time. 

The  Chairman.  At  what  time? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  1892  I was  elected  to  serve  two  years. 

The  Chairman.  In  1892? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes ; to  serve  two  years — one  term. 

The  Chairman.  Had  you  held  an  appointive  office? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  What  office? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Member  of  the  board  of  regents  of  the  university. 
The  Chairman.  At  what  time? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  1900;  for  three  years. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  associated  in  business  or  in  any  way 
with  Senator  Stephenson  prior  to  your  undertaking  the  manage- 
ment of  his  campaign  in  1908? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think  so. 

The  Chairman.  Had  you  had  business  relations  with  him  or  with 
the  institutions  with  which  he  is  connected  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Possibly. 

The  Chairman.  You  mean  by  that  not  directly? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  is  possible  that  the  paper  company  of  which  I 
was  manager  might  have  bought  wood  from  some  concern  in  which 
he  was  interested. 


60 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


The  Chairman.  Or  sold  paper  to  some  company 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Something  of  that  kind. 

The  Chairman.  But  only  the  ordinary  casual  business  transac- 
tions ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  is  all. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  know  Senator  Stephenson  personally 
prior  to  June,  1908? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  How  intimate  was  your  acquaintance?  Was  it 
ordinary  business  acquaintance  or  was  it  especially  close? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  say — I do  not  knowT  how  the  Senator  re- 
garded it.  I hope  it  was  closer  than  a business  relation. 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  related  either  by  blood  or  connection  of 
any  kind  with  Senator  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Not  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  How  long  a time  had  elapsed  since  you  had  seen 
Senator  Stephenson  prior  to  the  telephone  communication  which  you 
had  with  him  vffiich  resulted  in  your  accepting  the  management  of 
his  campaign? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  less  than  48  hours. 

The  Chairman.  You  had  seen  him  48  hours  prior  to  that  time? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  I saw  him  Friday  night. 

The  Chairman.  Where  did  you  see  him? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  At  his  home. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  have  a conversation  with  him  about  his 
campaign  at  that  time  when  you  saw  him  at  his  home  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I might  say — no,  sir.  A reference  was  made  as  I 
was  about  to  leave  to  the  fact  that  I was  living  in  Appleton  and  if  I 
could  be  of  any  service  to  him  I should  be  glad  to  have  him  call  on 
me. 

The  Chairman.  Was  the  occasion  of  your  visit  to  him  at  that  time 
political  or  business  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Political. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  the  occasion  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I wanted  him  to  take  no  hand  in  the  congressional 
fight  for  the  nomination  of  Congressman  from  that  district.  Apple- 
ton  is  in  the  same  district  with  Marinette.  Senator  Stephenson  had 
been  very  instrumental  in  helping  to  secure  the  nomination  two  years 
before  of  Congress  Kiistermann. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Of  whom  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Congressman  Kiistermann. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  that  Minor’s  district  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Minor’s. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Minor’s  old  district  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir.  This  year  Minor  was  to  run  against  him. 
I went  up  to  see  Senator  Stephenson  on  my  own  initiative  in  the  effort 
to  get  him  to  agree  to  take  no  hand  in  this  campaign.  I was  in  favor 
of  Minor.  I believed  that  if  Senator  Stephenson  would  take  no  hand 
in  the  campaign  that  Minor  would  be  nominated. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  agree  to  take  no  hand  in  the  campaign? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  said  that  was  his  intention. 

The  Chairman.  At  that  time  did  he  mention  his  candidacy  for 
election  to  the  United  States  Senate  ? 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


61 


Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  except  in  the  way  I have  mentioned.  I 
think  he  thanked  me  at  the  time  I made  that  suggestion. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  representing  any  other  person  as  candi- 
date for  nomination  at  the  time  you  were  at  Senator  Stephenson's 
house  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No  one. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  you  were  politically  free  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  About  48  hours  later  you  had  a communication 
from  Senator  Stephenson  by  telephone,  did  you,  asking  you  to  come  to 
Milwaukee  for  the  purpose  of  considering  the  question  of  your  taking 
the  management  of  his  campaign? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  is  it,  exactly. 

The  Chairman.  You  came  to  Milwaukee? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  a business  place  in  Milwaukee  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  To  what  place  in  Milwaukee  did  you  come? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall.  I presume  the  Pfister  Hotel.  I have 
stopped  there  for  several  years. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  send  for  others  to  meet  you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  come  in  contact  with  your  asso- 
ciates? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  I was  asked  to  meet  them  Monday  morning. 
I know  the  telephone  communication  from  Senator  Stephenson  was 
on  Sunday.  I think  it  was  the  next  day. 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Stephenson  telephoned  you  after  you  ar- 
rived in  Milwaukee? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  he  telephoned  me  on  Sunday.  I think  it 
was  the  next  day  I was  to  meet  those  gentlemen.  I am  not  positive 
about  that,  but  I met  them  here. 

The  Chairman.  Whom  did  you  meet? 

Mr.  Edmonds  Mr.  Puelicher  and  Mr.  Van  Cleve. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Peulicher  resides  in  Milwaukee,  does  he  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I believe  he  does. 

The  Chairman.  And  is  connected  with  a bank  here  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  his  connection  with  the  bank  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Cashier. 

The  Chairman.  What  bank? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  The  Marshall  & Ilsley  Bank. 

The  Chairman.  Had  you  known  him  personally  before? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Had  you  been  associated  with  him  in  business  or 
political  matters? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I had  some  stock  in  the  bank. 

The  Chairman.  Now,  as  to  Mr.  Van  Cleve;  where  does  he  reside? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Marinette. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  meet  you  here  in  Milwaukee? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  By  appointment? 


62 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir;  I suppose  so. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  who  asked  him  to  meet  you  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No;  I presume  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  Now,  the  three  of  you  are  together  in  Milwaukee. 
This  I think  you  have  said  was  about  the  22d  or  the  23d  of  June, 
was  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I could  not  recall  that  date. 

The  Chairman.  You  became  interested  in  the  campaign  actively 
about  the  4th  of  July,  1908,  did  you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  I think  it  was  very  close  to  that  date,  either 
before  or  a little  after.  I am  not  positive. 

The  Chairman.  You  said  here  [referring  to  previous  testimony] 
from  the  4th  to  the  15th.  Is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  is  still  my  recollection. 

The  Chairman.  The  telephone  communication  was  about  a week 
before  that  time.  In  other  words,  about  a week  elapsed  after  that 
time. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  About  two  weeks,  I think. 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  two  weeks. 

What  was  the  first  act  which  you  did  as  manager  for  Senator 
Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  no  recollection? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No  ; I could  not  tell  what  the  first  act  was. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  this  was  an  unusual  employment,  was  it 
not  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  And  yet  your  mind  does  not  go  back  to  it  with 
sufficient  distinctness  to  enable  you  to  say  what  was  the  first  act  that 
you  performed  in  connection  with  your  duties  as  the  manager  for 
Senator  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  My  mind  certainly  does  not  go  back  to  the  first  act, 
and  I do  not  know  what  I did  the  first  thing ; no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  receive  the  $5,000  about  the  first  thing? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  absolutely  not. 

The  Chairman.  Had  you  entered  actively  upon  the  management  of 
his  campaign  before  you  received  that  $5,000? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I had. 

The  Chairman.  What  had  you  done? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  What  had  I done? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I had  gone  over  to  headquarters  in  the  Wells  Build- 
ing, which  had  already  been  opened,  and  had  taken  charge  of  an 
office  and  desk  there,  and  started  in  to  work. 

The  Chairman.  Who  opened  that  headquarters? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know.  It  was  opened  and  in  the  charge 

The  Chairman.  You  found  headquarters  established  when  you 
came  here? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  When  you  came  here  you  went  to  the  headquar- 
ters ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  When  you  received  the  check  on  July  18  for  $5,000, 
was  that  after  you  had  moved  into  the  headquarters  and  taken  pos- 
session? 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


63 


Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  it  was  about  10  days  after.  I am  not  sure. 

The  Chairman.  You  did,  then,  take  charge  of  or  move  into  the 
headquarters  as  early  as  the  8th  of  July? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Possibly. 

The  Chairman.  What  were  you  engaged  at  between  the  8th  and 
the  18th  of  July  in  connection  with  the  Stephenson  campaign? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Why,  I was  trying  to  learn  where  I was  at.  This 
was  a new  business  to  me  entirely.  I was  trying  to  learn  something 
about  the  methods  and  trying  to  formulate  a policy  in  conducting  the 
campaign. 

The  Chairman.  Yes.  You  really  commenced  work  as  his  manager 
as  early  as  July  6,  did  you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall  that.  I said  I thought  it  was  after 
the  4th. 

The  Chairman.  In  the  account  filed  in  connection  with  your  testi- 
mony at  page  588  of  the  proceedings  of  the  joint  committee  I find 
that  on  July  6 you  charged  the  account  with  the  payment  of  $50  to 
E.  H.  McMahon,  organizing.  Do  you  remember  that  item  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  remember  making  that  payment? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  no  recollection  whatever  of  the  first  act 
that  you  performed? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir.  I do  not  presume  that  that  was  an  amount 
that  I paid,  though  I am  not  sure.  Mr.  McMahon  was  there  before  I 
came. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Mr.  who? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  McMahon.  Was  that  the  name? 

The  Chairman.  McMahon.  I find  on  the  same  day  you  charge 
the  Stephenson  fund  with  a payment  of  $50  to  J.  C.  Miller,  or- 
ganizing. Do  you  recollect  anything  about  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  who  these  men  are — either  of  them? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Certainly. 

The  Chairman.  On  the  same  day  I see  you  have  an  item,  general 
expense,  organizing,  $100.  Can  you  throw  any  light  on  that  item? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Who  made  these  entries? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Were  they  made  under  your  direction? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No;  I do  not  know  whether  those  men  were  paid — ■ 
whether  that  $100  was  paid  before  I took  charge  or  not. 

The  Chairman.  On  that  same  day  we  find  the  fund  charged  with 
$50  to  C.  M.  Hambright  for  organizing. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  The  same  reply. 

The  Chairman.  All  on  July  6,  1908.  Have  you  no  recollection  of 
any  of  those  items,  as  to  the  character  of  work  for  which  the  pay- 
ment was  made  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Now,  that  is  a different  question. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  answer  it  as  a different  question. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  What  I know  as  to  the  payment  of  those  items — I 
do  not  know  anything  about  it.  I do  not  remember  whether  they 
were  paid  before  I took  charge  or  paid  after  I took  charge.  Those 
gentlemen  were  all  employed,  or  those  three  men  were  all  employed 


64 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


before  I went  to  Milwaukee  and  took  charge  of  the  campaign.  Now, 
this  may  have  been  paid  for  their  services,  for  work  done  before  I 
got  there  or  after  I got  there;  I am  not  sure.  I remember  all  three 
of  these  gentlemen  and  what  they  were  doing  at  different  times 
during  the  campaign. 

The  Chairman.  I was  reading  from  Exhibit  49,  on  page  588  of 
the  proceedings  before  the  joint  legislative  committee.  The  items 
are  contained  in  the  account  with  which  you  charged  yourself 
against  the  moneys  received  by  you  for  the  conduct  of  the  Stephen- 
son campaign.  I should  like  you  to  be  as  definite  as  it  is  possible 
for  you  to  be  in  regard  to  the  purpose  for  which  those  sums  of 
money  were  paid.  What  did  McMahon  do  that  you  term  organizing  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Mr.  McMahon  was  employed  before  I came  there. 
I do  not  know  what  his  duties  were  and  when  he  was  employed,  but 
he  had  various  duties  afterwards.  He  went  around  in  different  parts 
of  the  State. 

The  Chairman.  But  you  credit  yourself  with  paying  him  the 
money. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  Senator,  I want  to  correct  that  statement,  if 
you  please.  That  is  not  my  statement.  I did  not  make  that  state- 
ment out.  I never  made  it. 

The  Chairman.  Who  made  it  out? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  It  was  made  out  from  your  testimony,  was  it 
not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No. 

The  Chairman.  Is  this  statement  correct  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  So  far  as  I know.  I believe  it  to  be  correct;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  This  is  a correct  statement  of  your  expenses 
chargeable  against  the  moneys  received  by  you  for  the  conduct  of 
the  Stephenson  campaign? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  absolutely  not. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  not  correct? 

Mr.  Edmunds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  a statement  which  is  correct? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir.  I received  but  $5,000  in  money.  That  I 
accounted  for. 

The  Chairman.  Were  any  of  these  items  paid  out  of  the  $5,000? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Why,  certainly.  I assume  that  they  were.  I as- 
sume they  were  all  in  it. 

The  Chairman.  Were  these  four  items  paid  out  of  the  $5,000,  the 
items  I have  read  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  They  could  not  have  been,  because  I did  not  re- 
ceive the  check  until  later. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  advance  any  money  of  your  own  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  what  services  J.  C.  Miller  per- 
formed for  which  he  was  paid  $50? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Not  at  that  time,  and  the  same  as  to  the  other  men. 
But  I know  he  was  out  in  different  parts  of  the  State. 

The  Chairman.  The  same  answer,  I suppose,  applies  to  each  of 
those  four  items? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  As  to  that  particular  expenditure;  yes,  sir. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


65 


The  Chairman.  Now  we  come  to  July  20.  On  July  20,  the  day 
after  you  received  the  check  for  $5,000,  I find  an  item,  u T.  J.  Sexton, 
organizing,  C.  D.  No.  93,677,  $50.”  Do  you  know  Sexton? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  he  do? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  was  helping  organize  in  Dane  County. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  an  item  that  was  paid  out  under  your 
administration,  is  it,  after  you  had  received  the  $5,000  and  had  full 
control  and  management  of  the  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  But  not  necessarily  from  that  $5,000. 

The  Chairman.  I am  not  inquiring  as  to  the  fund  from  which  it 
was  paid.  I am  inquiring  as  to  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  paid. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  do  you  mean  by  “ organizing,”  as  it  is  used 
in  this  statement  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  My  recollection  is  that  he  was  a railroad  man, 
though  I am  not  certain,  and  that  he  was  sent  out  and  given  $50  to 
see  if  he  could  not  line  up  the  railroad  men  for  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  What  do  you  mean  by  lining  them  up  for  Senator 
Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Getting  them  interested  in  his  election. 

The  Chairman.  Discussing  his  election  with  them? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Paying  any  money  to  them  for  any  purpose? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  was  up  to  the  man’s  judgment  as  to  whether 
that  was  necessary  or  advisable  in  the  conduct  of  the  campaign  for 
Senator  Stephenson’s  election. 

The  Chairman.  Was  that  money  given  to  him  to  expend  among  the 
railroad  men  for  cigars  or  treats  of  any  kind  if  he  saw  fit  to  so 
expend  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  So  far  as  I know  he  might  have  expended  it  in  that 
way. 

The  Chairman.  There  was  no  restriction  placed  upon  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  not ; not  in  that  manner. 

The  Chairman.  You  gave  Sexton  the  money,  did  you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall.  I do  not  presume  that  I did.  I 
gave  very  little  of  the  money  that  was  expended  in  that  campaign 
in  money  or  checks  or  otherwise. 

The  Chairman.  On  the  next  day  I find  the  fund  charged  with 
general,  organizing,  $250.  Who  expended  that  money? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I have  not  the  slightest  idea. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  any  vouchers  or  memoranda  that  would 
explain  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  have? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Not  for  that  particular  item ; no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Plow  do  you  recollect  and  distinguish  that  item? 
Is  there  anything  peculiar  about  it  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No.  sir.  I do  not  know  to  what  it  refers  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  What  enables  you  to  say  that  for  this  one  par- 
ticular item  $250  was  expended  if  you  never  had  any  memoranda  or 
voucher  or  evidence  to  indicate  for  what  the  expenditure  was  made? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I did  not  keep  the  record. 

15235°— ' vol  1—11 5 


66 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


The  Chairman.  Who  did? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Mr.  Sachet,  the  office  manager. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Saxton? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Mr.  Sacket. 

The  Chairman.  Was  he  keeping  your  books  during  the  time  of  the 
expenditure  of  these  sums  of  money  that  you  received  from  Mr. 
Stephenson  directly  or  indirectly? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Senator,  I want  to  repeat  that  I did  not  receive 
any  money  but  $5,000  for  expenses.  I received  $100  and  $200  at  dif- 
ferent times  in  money  or  by  check  from  Mr.  Puelicher  for  expenses. 
I was  stopping  at  the  hotel.  Out  of  the  general  fund  were  paid  my 
expenses  and  nothing  else.  With  the  exception  of  those  amounts 
received  and  expended  by  me  I spent  but  the  part  of  the  $5,000  that 
I did  not  return  to  Senator  Stephenson  later. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  expend  or  pay  out  any  of  the  sums  of 
money  that  are  charged  against  Mr.  Puelicher  or  Mr.  Van  Cleve — the 
large  sums  of  money  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  say,  in  explanation,  that  I did  not  expend 
them.  I contracted  the  liability;  but  so  far  as  the  payments  are 
concerned,  I did  not  make  them. 

The  Chairman.  How  was  it  paid? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  By  cashier’s  check  or  otherwise  from  the  bank. 

The  Chairman.  Each  item? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Van  Cleve  received  certain  checks  from  Mr. 
Stephenson,  which  he  indorsed  over  to  Mr.  Puelicher.  Is  that  true? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  indorse  any  over  to  your  credit? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  None  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  When  you  say  you  paid  by  cashier’s  checks,  against 
what  fund  were  they  drawn? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I did  not  pay  by  cashier’s  check,  Senator.  I con- 
tracted the  bills,  and  made  an  agreement  with  the  man,  and  he  went 
to  the  bank  and  collected  the  money. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  you  handled  no  money  during  the 
Stephenson  campaign  except  the  $5,000.  Is  that  true? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  and  the  $100  and  the  $200  at  a time  that  I 
might  draw  for  my  personal  expenses  and  nothing  else,  and  out  of 
that,  in  several  instances,  there  were  expenditures  of  $25  or  $50.  I 
remember  two  or  three  times  when  men  were  sent  out,  and  whom  I 
gave  cash  out  of  my  pocket.  That  is  all. 

The  Chairman.  Then,  is  it  true  that  all  of  these  items  which  are 
found  from  page  588  to  page  612  in  the  proceedings  of  the  joint 
committee  were  merely  items  contracted  by  you  but  not  paid  by  you  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  None  were  paid  by  me. 

The  Chairman.  None  of  them,  except 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Of  course  I have  not  gone  over  that  item  by  item, 
so  that  I do  not  know  positively,  but  I should  say  that  statement  is 
true,  unless  the  $5,000  is  in  there. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  it  appears  here  that  up  to  the  18th  of  Au- 
gust you  had  contracted,  whoever  may  have  paid  them,  for  $22,969.99. 
That  includes  items  running  up  to  $2,500.  For  instance,  in  the  case 
of  J.  W.  Stone.  What  was  the  nature  of  that  contract?  What  did 
you  contract  with  Mr.  J.  W.  Stone  to  do  ? 


E.  A.  EDMONDS.  67 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I did  not  contract  with  Mr.  J.  W.  Stone.  I acted 
on  instructions  to  see  that  he  received 

The  Chairman.  What  were  the  instructions,  and  what  was  the 
transaction  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  Senator  Stephenson  telephoned  me  or  sent 
word  through  Mr.  Stone  to  give  him  $2,500. 

The  Chairman.  To  give  you  $2,500? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  To  give  him  $2,500. 

The  Chairman.  To  give  Stone  $2,500  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  F or  what  did  you  give  it  to  him  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I did  not  give  it  to  him. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No. 

The  Chairman.  Where  did  Mr.  Stone  get  the  $2,500? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I assume  from  the  bank — a cashier’s  check. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  give  him  an  order? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  is  my  recollection,  though  I am  not  positive. 

The  Chairman.  That  you  gave  him  an  order  on  the  bank  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  so.  That  may  have  been  one  of  the  $5,000 
items.  I have  not  seen  my  checkbook  for  two  years. 

The  Chairman.  Where  is  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  is  in  the  hands  of  that  committee  that  took  what 
they  could  get  their  hands  on  and  kept. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  inquire  why  you  should  give  J.  W.  Stone 
$2,500? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I did  that  on  instructions  from  Senator  Stephenson. 
I do  not  know  what  arrangement  he  made  with  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  As  manager  for  Senator  Stephenson,  what  were 
your  duties? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  To  conduct  the  campaign  and  to  see  if  we  could  get 
votes  enough  to  nominate  him. 

The  Chairman.  What  do  you  mean  by  conducting  the  campaign? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Why,  I do  not  know*  that  I can  give  you  any  par- 
ticular items,  except  to  say  that  it  was  necessary  in  order  to  get  votes 
for  Senator  Stephenson’s  nomination  to  interest  a plurality  of  the 
people  of  the  State  in  his  election  and  get  them  out  to  the  polls. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  what  you  were  doing  in  calling  it  the  con- 
ducting of  the  campaign? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  How  did  you  interest  them? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  My  idea  at  first,  without  very  much  knowledge  of 
conducting  campaigns,  was  that  advertising  was  the  best  means  of 
placing  before  the  voters  of  the  State  the  qualifications  of  our  can- 
didate. 

The  Chairman.  How  did  you  advertise? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  every  conceivable  way  I could  think  of. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  any  copies  of  any  papers,  documents, 
or  circulars  that  you  issued  in  advertising? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No  ; I do  not  think  so. 

The  Chairman.  Is  there  any  trace  of  them  to  be  found  now  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  imagine  that  if  the  State  were  examined 
thoroughly  there  are  on  telephone  poles  probably  five  or  ten  thousand 
of  his  lithographs  even  to-day,  and  on  barns. 


68 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


The  Chairman.  Advertisements? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  and  pictures. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  draw  up  the  matter  for  the  advertise- 
ments ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Some  of  them.  What  I did  not  draw  myself  I had 
somebody  else  draw. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  say  on  those  that  you  drew  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Oh,  heavens,  I do  not  remember. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  say? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  He  says  he  does  not  remember. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  any  recollection  of  anything  you  said 
in  any  one  of  those  advertisements  right  now  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I can  not  recall  any  particular  one.  We  tried  to 
bring  out  the  good  points  of  the  Senator. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  money  did  you  expend  in  that  way? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Roughly  I should  say  something  in  excess  of 
$40,000,  including  the  bills  for  express  and  printing,  and  bills  for 
putting  up  these  posters,  and  so  forth,  and  advertising  in  the  news- 
papers. 

The  Chairman.  About  $40,000? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  is  my  recollection. 

The  Chairman.  What  papers  did  you  advertise  in? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Every  one  in  the  State  that  did  not  refuse  to  take 
the  advertisement. 

The  Chairman.  I find  in  the  account  here  attributed  to  you  that 
the  newspaper  advertising  cost  $12,696.76.  What  other  items  or 
class  of  items  would  bring  that  sum  up  to  about  $40,000? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall  what  items  are  included  in  that,  or 
what  the  other  large  items  of  expenditure  in  making  up  that  total 
are.  For  instance,  I should  say  one 

The  Chairman.  For  instance,  the  Koch  Advertising  Agency, 
voucher  No.  34027,  $3,304.17.  What  was  the  nature  of  that  adver- 
tising ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall  definitely,  but  I think  that  was  the 
advertising — I think  the  Koch  Agency  was  employed  by  us  through 
a representative  of  mine,  to,  in  the  cheapest  manner  possible,  get 
that  advertising  into  the  newspapers. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  one  item,  and  there  is  another  item  of 
the  same  party,  $3,000,  on  August  26,  making  altogether  $6,304.17. 
They  were  merely  advertising  agents,  were  they  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds."  I am  not  familiar  with  their  exact  methods  of 
doing  business,  but  the  man  that  got  up  the  advertising  for  me  took 
it  to  them  and  made  the  deal  with  them,  and  when  those  bills  came 
in  they  were  O.  K’d  and  paid. 

The  Chairman.  You  O.  K’d  them.  When  a bill  like  that  would 
come  to  you  as  manager  of  the  campaign  you  would  O.  K.  it,  and 
then  what  would  you  do? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Usually  when  those  bills  were  O.  K’d,  quite  often 
Mr.  Sacket  was  present,  and  sometimes  Mr.  Puelicher,  and  if  they 
were  present  they  took  them 

The  Chairman.  They  did  what? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  They  "took  them,  and  I assume  paid  them. 

The  Chairman.  But  you  did  nothing  in  regard  to  paying  them? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I did  nothing. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


69 


The  Chairman.  You  did  not  draw  checks  for  the  payment  of  any 
of  these  bills,  did  you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Except  in — it  is  possible  that  out  of  the  $5,000 

The  Chairman.  Except  to  the  extent  of  the  $5,000? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  no  other  way. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  not  give  any  check  or  anything  upon 
which  money  might  be  drawn  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  pay  all  the  bills  you  contracted?  You 
O.  K’d  the  bills  that  you  contracted? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Why,  I think  so. 

The  Chairman.  And  then  they  went  to  Mr.  Sacket  or  Mr. 
Puelicher  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know  what  they  did  when  they  re- 
ceived those  bills  O.  K’d  by  you  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I assume  they  were  paid  or  else  I would  have  heard 
from  them. 

The  Chairman.  Were  any  bills  paid  by  them  that  you  did  not 
O.  K.  or  that  had  not  been  approved  by  you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  personally  spend  any  money  for  Senator 
Stephenson  to  procure  or  assist  in  procuring  his  nomination  or 
election  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Did  I 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  personally  expend  any  money? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  this  $5,000,  or  part  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  Senator  Stephenson’s  money. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Oh,  of  my  own  money? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Not  that  I know  of. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  whatever  you  expended  was  chargeable 
against  the  $5,000? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  pay  anyone  for  what  you  call  organiz- 
ing; did  you  personally  pay  anyone? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I may  have  done  so,  out  of  funds  in  my  pocket. 
For  instance,  if  I had  drawn  $100  or  $200  for  personal  expenses  and 
one  of  the  boys  in  the  office  would  come  in  and  was  short  and  wanted 
me  to  pay  him  and  I happened  to  have  it,  I let  him  have  it.  I do 
not  recall  a single  instance  of  that  kind,  but  there  may  have  been 
some.  Otherwise  I paid  nothing  except  the  $5,000. 

The  Chairman.  You  employed  Puelicher  to  act  as  a banker? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Stephenson,  at  page  22  of  this  record, 
says,  in  response  to  the  question  “ Now,  are  there  any  others  that  you 
employed  yourself?  ” 

A.  I haven’t  anybody  now  in  mind;  no. 

Q.  Either  in  your  county  or  any  of  the  other  counties  of  the  State? — A.  No; 
I don’t  now  know  of  any  that  I did. 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Edmonds  was  employed  by  you  and  given  authority  to  employ 
others  to  carry  on  your  campaign,  was  he? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  In  your  account  which  you  filed  you  gave  the  name  of  Puelicher? — A.  He 
acted  as  banker. 


70 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Q.  Did  he  employ  Mr.  Puelicher? — A.  As  a banker;  yes — 
referring  to  you,  that  you  employed  Mr.  Puelicher  as  a banker. 

Q.  Well,  I mean  in  connection  with  your  campaign  did  you  employ  Mr. 
Puelicher? — A.  No;  only  as  a banker.  The  money  would  come  from  him  to  Mr. 
Edmonds,  that’s  all. 

Q.  In  what  way  did  you  employ  Mr.  Puelicher — what  was  the  talk  between 
you  and  him? 

But  he  says  here  the  money  would  come  from  Mr.  Puelicher  to  you. 
Did  you  receive  any  money  from  Mr.  Puelicher  during  that  cam- 
paign? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir ; except  as  I have  stated. 

The  Chairman.  Except  the  $5,000? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I did  not  receive 

The  Chairman.  You  received  that  from  Mr.  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes.  The  other  items  that  I spoke  of,  I do  not 
know  whether  that  aggregated  five  hundred  dollars  or  whether  it 
aggregated  seven  or  eight  or  nine  hundred  dollars  or  what  it  might 
have  been,  but  during  the  six  or  eight  weeks  that  I was  here,  I was 
given  a check  as  I ran  out,  by  Mr.  Puelicher,  or  money,  and  I used 
that  out  of  my  pocket.  That  was  Senator  Stephenson’s  money  which 
was  paying  my  expense  at  the  hotel  and  my  bills  at  the  hotel  and 
such  other  traveling  expenses  or  others  that  I might  have.  Other- 
wise, I received  no  money  from  anyone. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  do  not  know  what  the  money  was  used 
for  that  is  mentioned  in  this  account  published  as  a statement  of  your 
expenditures,  do  you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not,  because  I did  not  make  it  up. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  was  that  question?  I did  not  get  it. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  the  statement  found  in  connection  with  Mr. 
Edmonds’s  testimony. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Exhibit  49,  on  page  588? 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  49;  running  over  to  612. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Let  me  get  the  significance  of  the  question.  Will 
the  reporter  read  the  question  and  answer  ? 

(The. reporter  read  as  follows:) 

The  Chairman.  And  you  do  not  know  what  the  money  was  used  for  that  is 
mentioned  in  this  account  published  as  a statement  of  your  expenditures,  do 
you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not ; because  I did  not  make  it  up. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I want  to  correct  that.  I did  not  understand  your 
question.  I contracted  bills,  but  so  far  as  knowing  the  particular 
items,  I did  not  make  up  those  items  in  this  report.  Now,  just  how 
those  are  grouped — some  of  them,  I think  I would  remember,  others 
I would  not. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  you  contracted  these  items? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Some  of  them. 

The  Chairman.  What  contract  did  you  make  with  Mr.  J.  C.  Miller 
on  July  24  for  organizing? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Mr.  J.  C.  Miller  was  one  of  the  men,  as  I stated 
earlier,  who  was  employed  before  I came  there. 

The  Chairman.  But  he  seems  to  have  been  employed  after  you 
were  there. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  continued  right  through. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


71 


The  Chairman.  I find  him  there  after 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  was  paid  regularly. 

The  Chairman.  What  contract  did  you  make  with  him  in  regard 
to  organizing;  what  was  he  to  do? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I did  not  make  any  with  him.  He  was  employed 
when  I came,  and  when  I came  and  was  introduced  to  me  after  I took 
charge  I sent  him  out  again. 

The  Chairman.  What  contract  did  you  make  with  H.  Lewis  on 
July  28,  pursuant  to  which  he  was  paid  $200  for  organizing  Dane 
County ; what  was  your  contract  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  There  was  no — when  I say  “ contracted  ” bills  they 
were  “ contracted  ” ; there  were  no  written  agreements.  But  I saw 
Mr.  Lewis.  I presume  I invited  him  to  come  in  and  talked  with  him 
about  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Not  what  you  presume — what  was  said? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know  what  was  said. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Or  the  substance  of  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I am  trying  to  get  at  that,  Senator.  I presume  that 
I called  him  in  and  talked  the  situation  over  with  him  in  Dane 
County  and  he  suggested  that  he  could  use  $200  to  advantage  in 
organizing  Dane  County. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  was  he  to  do?  What,  in  a general  way, 
were  the  details  of  the  organizing?  That  is  what  the  subcommittee 
would  like  to  know,  I take  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I want  to  know  what  was  said,  merely,  and  we 
can  guess  at  the  rest,  from  what  you  say,  if  you  will  give  us  what 
was  said. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know  what  was  said  now.  I do  know 
that  when  men  would  come  in  and  I would  employ  them  to  work  in 
their  counties,  I did  not  employ  them  until  after  I believed  that  they 
were  fit  men  to  conduct  a campaign  in  their  counties  and  knew  the 
condition  of  affairs  there.  When  they  talked  with  me  and  if  I 
decided  that  the  amount  they  thought  was  best  to  be  expended  there 
was  sufficient,  I gave  an  order  on  the  banker  to  pay  that  money ; they 
took  it.  We  talked  the  situation  over  in  different  ways,  discussed  the 
phases  of  the  campaign,  and  they  used  that  money  to  their  best  inter- 
est— the  best  interests  of  the  candidate — to  secure  his  nomination. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  you  gave  him  an  order  on  the  banker. 
What  was  the  form  of  that  order — was  it  a check  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Was  it  a printed  form? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Sometimes  I telephoned;  sometimes  the  man  was 
known;  more  often  the  man  was  known  to  the  banker;  better  known 
to  him  than  to  me,  and  I would  telephone  him  or  go  there. 

The  Chairman.  And  the  banker  would  pay,  on  your  telephone,  to 
a man? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Most  assuredly. 

The  Chairman.  Against  what  fund  did  he  pay  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I assume  against  this  fund  that  Senator  Stephenson 
had  furnished,  which  had  been  furnished,  in  his  hands,  for  that  pur- 
pose. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Puelicher  would  make  that 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 


72 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


The  Chairman.  You  know  Mr.  Bancroft,  who  was  speaker,  do 
you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  know  him  personally  before  this  cam- 
paign commenced? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I had  met  him ; yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  paid  him  $250  on  the  31st  of  July? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  give  him  an  order  for  it  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  give  him  for  it  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Nothing  whatever. 

The  Chairman.  How  did  he  get  the  $250  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  did  not  get  it  from  me.  I did  not  know  that  he 
got  it. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  right  in  this  account  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I did  not  make  the  account.  I did  not  pay  him  the 
money.  I do  not  know,  to  a positive  statement,  that  he  got  it,  except 
on  this 

The  Chairman.  Who  made  this  account  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I was  not  present  when  it  was  made,  but  I think, 
from  what  I heard — it  is  only  hearsay — that  Mr.  Puelicher  and  Mr. 
Sacket  made  it. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  the  account  of  your  associates,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  They  wTere  the  custodians  of  the  fund ; yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  not  mean  to  be  understood  as  throwing 
discredit  upon  this  account 

Mr.  Edmonds.  None  whatever. 

The  Chairman.  When  you  say  you  do  not  know  anything  about  it  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  None  whatever,  except  to  say  that  I do  not  know 
that  he  got  the  money. 

The  Chairman.  In  the  account  that  is  made  by  Mr.  Puelicher  and 
whoever  is  associated  with  him,- on  page  589,  July  31, 1 find  the  item: 
“ Bichland  County,  cash,  L.  Bancroft,  $250.”  That  is  the  man  who 
was  speaker  of  the  assembly,  is  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  And  that  item  was  paid  by  your  bankers,  was  it  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  in  this  statement? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I assume  that  is  true. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  it  paid  to  him  for? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  hear  of  that  payment  before  to-day? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  first  learn  that  that  sum  had  been 
paid  to  Mr.  Bancroft  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Several  days  after  it  had  been  paid. 

The  Chairman.  Who  told  you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Mr.  Puelicher,  I think. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  he  tell  you  that  he  had  paid  it  for? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  can  you  recall? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  I recall  this  statement  that — I can  not  repeat 
his  exact  words,  of  course — but  I recall  that  the  money  was  given  him 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


73 


nfter  I had  left  on  Saturday  night,  after  I had  left  my  home  at 
Appleton  to  spend  Sunday.  Mr.  Puelicher  said  Mr.  Bancroft  was  in 
and  he  had  made  arrangements  with  him  to  work  for  Senator  Stephen- 
son; look  after  Senator  Stephenson’s  interests  in — what  county — - 
Richland  County. 

The  Chairman.  Richland? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir.  I remember 

The  Chairman.  That  is  all  you  know  about  that  item,  $250? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I remember  this  item : That  we,  knowing  that  Ban- 
croft was  a candidate  for  member  of  the  assembly — that  I discussed 
that  situation  with  Mr.  Puelicher. 

The  Chairman.  At  that  time? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  discussed  it  with  Puelicher? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  The  man  who  had  paid  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Your  financial  associate? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  the  man  that  you  employed  on  behalf  of 
Mr.  Stephenson  to  attend  to  the  banking  end  of  this  campaign? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I want  that  corrected.  I did  not  employ  him. 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Stephenson  was  mistaken,  then,  when 
he  says  in  his  testimony,  which  I have  just  read 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  certainly  was.  Mr.  Puelicher,  you  will  recollect 
from  testimony 

The  Chairman.  I was  just  reading  Senator  Stephenson’s  testimony. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes.  But  you  will  recollect  from  the  testimony  that 
Mr.  Puelicher  was  the  man  that  made  arrangement  with  me  finally — - 
Mr.  Puelicher  and  Mr.  Van  Cleve.  So  they  were  in  charge  before 
I was. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  not  spend  any  time  over  it.  I read  the 
testimony  in  which  Senator  Stephenson  says  that  you  employed 
Puelicher. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Senator  Stephenson  is  mistaken. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I beg  the  Senator’s  pardon.  I do  not  feel  that 
that  is  quite  the  construction  the  Senator  wants  to  place  on  it. 

The  Chairman.  Does  not  need  any  construction.  It  is  on  page  22 
of  the  testimony. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes.  Let  me  get  page  22. 

Senator  Sutherland.  The  testimony  will  bear  the  construction 
both  ways. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  At  one  point.  At  the  next  succeeding  point 
this  bears  an  entirely  different  construction,  and  it  is  a little  vigorous 
to  hold  the  Senator  on  a slip  of  the  tongue  like  that. 

The  Chairman.  Did  I make  a slip  of  the  tongue? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Oh,  no.  Senator  Stephenson  made  a slip  of  the 
tongue. 

The  Chairman.  Of  course,  you  can  explain  that  afterwards. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I have  not  seen  any  signs  of  any  difficulty  of 
that  sort  with  the  chairman  of  the  subcommittee,  but,  in  my  judg- 
ment, Senator  Stephenson  very  clearly  did,  and  the  context  shows  it. 

The  Chairman.  Of  course  I have  no  way  of  knowing  whether 
Senator  Stephenson  made  a slip  of  the  tongue  or  not.  He  makes 


74 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


that  statement  in  the  exact  language  that  I have  quoted.  I have 
written  it  down.  But  it  is  a mistake  that  is  easily  understood. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  It  is  not  very  material. 

The  Chairman.  I want  to  have  a proper  foundation  for  inquiring 
for  a conversation  between  this  representative  of  Senator  Stephenson 
and  another  in  regard  to  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes.  We  have  no  objection  to  that,  not  the 
slightest. 

The  Chairman.  Upon  what  date  did  you  have  the  conversation 
with  Mr.  Puelicher  in  regard  to  the  propriety  of  paying  this  $250 
to  Mr.  Bancroft  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall  just  when.  I should  say  some  time 
during  the  next  week  after  I got  back — as  soon  as  we  could  get 
together.  I presume  it  came  up  the  first  conversation. 

The  Chairman.  Was  any  effort  made  to  recall  the  money  that  had 
been  paid  to  this  candidate  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Not  by  me. 

The  Chairman.  Was  there  by  anybody? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Not  that  I know  of. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  proceed  to  do  the  things  that  he  had 
agreed  to  do  in  consideration  of  the  $250? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  I don’t  know.  He  didn’t  make  any  agreement 
with  me. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  never  inquire  as  to  whether  or  not  men 
delivered  the  goods  under  the  contracts  you  made  with  them  or  that 
were  made  by  those  associated  with  you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I most  assuredly  made  inquiries  as  diligent  as  I 
could  relative  to  carrying  on  the  contracts  that  I made  with  him; 
yes,  sir.  This  was  a contract  or  an  agreement  not  made  by  me. 

The  Chairman.  Merely  because  of  your  temporary  absence,  was 
it?  Had  you  been  in  the  office  this  would  have  been  within  the 
legitimate  scope  of  your  duties  to  make  this  contract,  would  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  so. 

The  Chairman.  And  it  would  have  been  madeby  you,  had  you 
been  at  home? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  would  not. 

The  Chairman.  Would  you  have  refused  to  make  that  contract 
because  that  Mr.  Bancroft  was  a candidate  for  the  legislature? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Well,  now,  Senator,  I do  not  want  to  carry  the  idea 
here  that  Mr.  Puelicher  would  not  be  as  careful  as  possible  and, 
possibly,  as  careful  as  I.  But  I had  no  intention  and  no  thought  and 
did  not — except  in  one  instance,  which  I am  perfectly  frank  in 
mentioning — pay  any  money  to  any  candidate  for  the  office  of 
assemblyman  or  senator.  I thought  that  was  too  close  a point,  too 
close  to  the  law  which  provided  that  money  should  not  be  paid  by 
a candidate  for  the  United  States  Senate  to  a candidate  for  the 
State  senate  or  assembly,  for  the  purpose  of  influencing  his  vote. 
That  is  what  would  be  assumed. 

The  Chairman.  What  position  did  Mr.  Puelicher  take  when  you 
called  his  attention  to  this? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  This:  That  Mr.  Bancroft  was  probably  the  best 
posted  man  in  Richland  County,  that  he  would  know  best  how  to 
expend  money  for  Senator  Stephenson’s  election,  could  best  organize 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


75 


and  bring  out  the  votes  there,  could  best  look  after  the  interests, 
of  any  man  in  that  county.  He  further  stated,  that  there  could  not 
be  any  question  as  to  the  propriety  of  paying  that  money  to  Mr. 
Bancroft  for  the  purpose  of  aiding  Senator  Stephenson,  because  in 
* the  campaign  two  years  before  and  in  the  election  of  Senator  Stephen- 
son, Mr.  Bancroft  was  one  of  his  warmest  supporters. 

The  Chairman.  You  said,  or  I understood  you  to  say,  that  there 
was  only  one  case  in  which  you  knowingly  paid  money  to  a man  who 
was  a candidate  for  the  legislature,  what  case  was  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Mr.  Shauers,  of  Oconto  County. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  he  elected? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  was  his  name? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Mr.  Shauers. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose  did  you  pay  him  money? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  was  a railroad  man,  and  for  the  purpose  of  or- 
ganizing he  went  in  different  parts  of  the  State  to  see  railroad  men. 

The  Chairman.  Was  he  in  employment  then  or  out  of  employ- 
ment? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Out  of  employment. 

The  Chairman.  Then  he  went  from  his  home  to  different  parts  of 
the  State,  outside  of  the  legislative  district  where  he  was  a candidate? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes.  It  wTas  distinctly  understood  that  he  was  to 
spend  no  time,  no  money,  in  that  district. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  but  did  he? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  did  not,  to  my  knowledge. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is,  in  his  own  district? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  his  own  district. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  So  that  nothing  that  was  expended  by  him  had 
any  relation  to  the  campaign  pending  in  his  district? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Absolutely  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Either  directly  or  indirectly. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  did  you  pay  Shauers? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I don’t  recall.  I should  think  it  might  range  from 
$50  to  $100  or  $125.  I don’t  think  more  than  that.  I paid  him,  I 
think,  two  or  three  different  times  $25. 

Senator  Pomerene.  How  do  you  spell  that  name? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  S-h-a-u-e-r-s. 

The  Chairman.  How  many  organizers  did  you  employ  in  this 
State? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I don’t  remember.  A lot  of  them. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Give  the  number  approximately. 

The  Chairman.  He  says  he  does  not  know. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Oh,  there  are  71  counties.  There  were  in  some  in- 
stances more  than  one  man  in  a county — ordinarily  not — and  then 
there  were  a good  many  or  several  other  men  who  went  around  from 
County  to  county. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  C.  E.  Brady,  of  Manitowoc — is  that 
the 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  Mr.  Brady? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  pay  Mr.  Brady  $500  for  ? 


76 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Mr.  Edmonds.  For  organizing  and  looking  after  Mr.  Stephenson’s 
interests  in  Manitowoc. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  he  do? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  To  my  personal  knowledge  I don’t  know.  He  made^ 
the  statement,  I think,  before  the  committee. 

The  Chairman.  But  the  petitions  had  all  been  filed  before  August 
21,  had  they  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir;  I think  that  was  the  date. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  the  date  within  wdiich  petitions  were 
required  by  the  statute  to  be  filed  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I don’t  recall  now.  I think  about  the  1st  of 
August — no ; it  must  have  been  earlier  than  that,  I guess. 

Mr.  Black.  Thirty  days  before. 

The  Chairman.  Thirty  days  before  September  2. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  You  were  not  getting  men  to  circulate  petitions 
after  August  2? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Most  assuredly  not. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  I find  here  items — they  are  too  numerous 
to  undertake  to  take  up  all  of  them,  but  take  a few.  I find  here, 
“ S.  L.  Perrin,  $500,  August  14.”  What  did  you  pay  him  $500  for? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Organizing  in  Douglas  County  and  in  surrounding 
counties  there. 

The  Chairman.  You  paid  him  altogether  $3,000.  Was  that  all  for 
organizing? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Of  course,  you  do  not  intend  to  be  understood  as 
including  the  getting  of  petitions,  because  that  is  in  the  middle  of 
August  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  do  you  mean  by  “ organizing,”  now,  besides 
the  distinct  getting  of  petitions  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I mean  this,  Senator:  When  Senator  Stephenson 
asked  me  to  run  his  campaign  it  was  with  the  idea  of  managing  the 
campaign  in  the  State.  The  only  method  I knew  of,  of  organizing 
and  running  a campaign,  was  to  divide  the  State  in  certain  units,  and 
the  units  of  counties  was  the  best,  and  to  select  some  man  in  that 
county.  A number  of  the  counties  I had  never  been  in;  I knew 
nothing  about  them.  The  way  to  do,  as  I thought,  was  to  select 
some  man  out  of  each  county  and  ask  him  to  look  after  Senator 
Stephenson’s  interests  in  that  county. 

The  Chairman.  What  do  you  mean  by  “ looking  after  ” ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Endeavor  to  get  out  the  vote — to  endeavor  to  inter- 
est people  in  Senator  Stephenson’s  campaign. 

The  Chairman.  They  were  not  getting  out  a vote  along  from  the 
1st  to  the  15th  of  August,  were  they  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  But  I don’t  know  that  he  spent  that  $3,000  in  this 
particular  instance,  at  any  particular  time,  that  was  given  to  him. 

The  Chairman.  I find  it  charged  here  as  paid  under  that 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I understand  he  was  paid  when  the  agreement  was 
made,  and  then  he  conducted  the  campaign  in  that  county  under  his 
best  judgment. 

The  Chairman.  I find,  say,  $18,000  was  spent  between  the  date 
when  the  time  expired  for  filing  petitions  and  the  18th  of  August  ; 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


77 


the  items  are  generally  indicated  only  by  the  amount,  the  date,  and 
the  name,  the  county.  Were  those  all  organizers?  Take,  for  in- 
stance, in  Milwaukee  County,  “ J.  T.  Kelley,  $500”;  what  was  that 
for  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I had  nothing  to  do  with  Milwaukee  County.  That 
was  attended  to  by  Mr.  Knell. 

The  Chairman.  I mean  that  was  paid  on  September  6;  what  was 
it;  what  was  the  $500  paid  J.  T.  Kelley  for? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I am  telling  you  I have  not  the  slightest  idea.  Mr. 

Knell 

The  Chairman.  You  gave  an  order  for  its  payment,  did  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir.  Mr.  Knell  was  running  the  campaign  here 
in  Milwaukee  County,  and  I had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  it. 
He  contracted  any  bills  in  Milwaukee. 

The  Chairman.  Then  I will  go  outside  of  Milwaukee  County. 
Take  Dane  County,  “A.  R.  Ames,  $350  on  August  8.”  What  was 
Ames  doing?  You  were  not  getting  signatures  then;  the  time  had 
exjiired. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I have  always  assumed  there  was  something  for  a 
man  to  do  in  a campaign  besides  getting  signatures.  I have  not 
intended  to  convey  the  idea  that  the  money  was  spent  in  getting  sig- 
natures— only  a small  amount  of  the  money. 

The  Chairman.  I want  to  know  what  you  mean  by  the  word 
“ organize.”  What  constituted  organizing  the  campaign? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  For  instance,  Mr.  Ames,  in  Dane  County,  came  in 
here  and  we  talked  over  the  situation  in  Dane  County  and  discussed 
the  best  method  of  getting  out  a good  vote  for  Senator  Stephenson, 
and  I 

The  Chairman.  Well,  you  discussed  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Well,  I am  getting  to  that 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Excuse  me.  I beg  the  Senator’s  pardon.  I 
think  if  the  witness  goes  on  and  states  fully — I have  been  watching 
him  very  frequently,  and  I do  not  think  he  has  stated  fully  his  defi- 
nition of  “ organizing.” 

The  Chairman.  That  is  what  I am  trying  to  get. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  Senator  will  excuse  me,  of  course,  but  I think 
if  the  witness  is  allowed  to  go  right  along  in  his  own  way  and  com- 
plete his  answer  in  full  we  can  perhaps  draw  out  other  details. 

The  Chairman.  I think  that  is  probably  intended  as  a criticism 
upon  my  interruption  of  the  witness.  That  the  attorney  will  have  to 
leave  to  my  judgment. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Oh,  sure. 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes.  I appreciate  that;  certainly.  And  I think 
that  the  witness,  however,  will  get  the  result  better 

The  Chairman.  That  may  be,  but  I will  have  to  use  my  judgment 
about  that.  I make  that  suggestion  for  the  guidance  of  counsel. 

[To  the  witness.]  Now,  what  do  you  mean  by  “ organize  ” when 
you  use  the  term  in  connection  with  the  payment  of  this  money? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I mean  that  the  man  employed  by  me  to  look  after 
Dane  County  and  get  out  the  vote — the  largest  possible  vote — for 
Senator  Stephenson  was  given  latitude,  usually  guided  by  his  judg- 
ment alone,  as  to  what  was  to  be  done. 


78 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


The  Chairman.  Now,  I want  to  know  what  you  mean  by  “ looking 
after  ” ? I will  exercise  the  judgment  as  to  the  manner  of  the 
answer.  What  do  you  mean  by  the  words  “ look  after  ” ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  “ Look  after  ” ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes.  You  say  you  employed  a man  to  look  after 
Senator  Stephenson’s  interests? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I refer  to  that  in  the  same  way  that  Senator 
Stephenson  is  supposed — asking  to  look  after  the  interests  and  run 
the  campaign.  These  men  would  run  the  campaign  in  the  county  for 
Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  too  general.  What  do  you  mean  by  “ look 
after  ” ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Whatever  he  thought,  in  his  judgment,  would  bring 
about  the  best  result  for  Senator  Stephenson  in  his  county. 

The  Chairman.  Anything  that  would  bring  about  the  best  results 
for  Senator  Stephenson,  regardless  of  the  nature  of  the  act? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  anything  within  the  law,  of  course.  That  is 
presumed. 

The  Chairman.  What  do  you  mean  by  “ within  the  law  ” ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Why,  within  State  laws.  There  are  certain  provi- 
sions or  prohibitions  as  to  what  men  may  do  and  may  not  do  in  run- 
ning a campaign.  I assumed  that  a man  that  I employed  would  be 
just  as  well  informed  regarding  that  as  I would  be. 

The  Chairman.  Particularize  the  word  “ organize,”  and  tell  me 
what  constituted  organization  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  My  idea,  in  a county  that  was  thoroughly  organized, 
would  be,  in  the  first  place,  to  get  out  the  advertising  that  we  sent  to 
the  county — have  it  fully  distributed  and  posted — and  after  that  was 
done  he  was  to  put  in  his  full  time  going  around  the  county,  and  he 
was  paid  for  his  services  going  around  the  county  and  interesting  men 
of  influence  in  the  different  localities  to  interest  their  friends,  so  as  to 
get  out  a full  vote  for  Senator  Stephenson  election  day.  In  some  in- 
stances still  further  organizing,  if  in  their  judgment  that  was  wise, 
by  getting  out  the  vote  by  hiring  teams,  and  so  forth,  for  getting  men 
to  the  polls. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  how  many  days  A.  R.  Ames  was  en- 
gaged, for  which  he  was  paid  $350  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir.  I assumed,  however,  that  the  amount  of 
$350  that  was  paid  him  then  was  paid  at  the  time  the  agreement  was 
made,  and  he  thought  that  was  about  the  amount  that  he  ought  to 
have  to  do  such  work  as  he  deemed  necessary  for  Senator  Stephenson 
and  to  reimburse  him  for  his  services. 

The  Chairman.  Now,  I go  to  August  12,  general  cash,  J.  W.  Stone, 
$2,500.  What  was  J.  W.  Stone  paid  $2,500  for  doing? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Because  Senator  Stephenson  told  me  do. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  what  services  he  performed  for  the 
$2,500? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  no  knowledge  on  that  subject? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  talk  with  Senator  Stephenson 
about  it  ? 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


79 


Mr.  Edmonds.  At  the  time  he  told  me  or  sent  word — I do  not  re* 
call  whether  he  sent  word  to  me  through  Mr.  Stone,  or  telephoned  me. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  the  conversation? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall. 

The  Chairman.  None  of  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  As  to  that,  no,  sir.  I do  not  even  remember  whether 
Senator  Stephenson  telephoned  me,  or  whether  the  man  brought  the 
word  himself. 

The  Chairman.  How  did  you  pay  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  My  recollection  is  that  I told  him  to  go  over  to 
Mr.  Puelicher  and  get  the  money.  I may  have  given  him  a slip, 
telling  him  to  get  it. 

The  Chairman.  On  the  same  day,  August  12,  you  paid  $1,800  to 
L.  B.  Dresser.  What  was  that  for? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  was  to  look  after  seven  counties,  to  organize 
seven  counties  up  in  the  eleventh  district. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Was  this  $1,800  for  his  personal  services? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  that  would  include  any  services  that  he 
might  have;  for  his  own  work,  and  for  organizing,  or  for  any  pur- 
pose whatever.  Those  seven  counties  were  left  entirely  to  his  charge. 
I think  he  did  good  work,  because  he  got  a big  vote  up  there. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  what  you  paid  C.  C.  Wayland  $300 
for  on  August  31  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir.  He  was  working  for  us  in  Outgamie 
County. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  he  doing? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Organizing. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  pay  up  all  the  bills  contracted  for  in 
connection  with  the  primary  election  work,  prior  to  the  day  of  the 
primary  election? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  My  judgment  is  that  every  bill  that  I had  con- 
tracted, I had  paid  or  had  arranged  to  pay  at  that  time. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  these  payments  after  September  3 are  for 
a different  class  of  services,  are  they? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know  what  they  were  paid  for,  but  my 
judgment  is 

The  Chairman.  I will  call  your  attention  to  September  5.  That 
would  be  the  third  day  after  the  election.  E.  H.  McMahon,  $300. 
What  was  that  for? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  I would  like  to  correct  my  statement  in  this, 
not  that  my  work  was  completed  on  the  day  of  the  election,  but 
within  three  or  four  days  after  that.  I assume  that  this  particular 
bill  you  speak  of  was  in  payment  of  the  final  amount  due  Mr.  Mc- 
Mahon. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  say  you  “ assume.”  Have  you  any  recol- 
lection about  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I know  he  was  one  of  the  men  who  had  been  in  the 
office  in  Milwaukee  with  us  here  during  the  whole  campaign.  I do 
not  recollect,  because  I do  not  remember  the  amount. 

The  Chairman.  You  paid  out  about  $4,000  in  the  10  days  between 
September  5 and  September  15.  What  sort  of  expenditures  was  that 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know.  Do  not  the  bills  show 


80 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


The  Chairman.  I will  call  your  attention  to  some.  Take  J.  R. 
Jones,  of  Racine  County,  $183.50. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  On  what  page  is  that  ? 

The  Chairman.  On  page  595. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  there  any  objection  to  handing  the  witness 
this,  so  that  he  can  follow  you  ? 

The  Chairman.  I should  rather  have  his  recollection,  and  then  you 
can  ask  him  afterwards. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know  what  that  was  for. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  no  recollection? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  were  still  paying  the  bills? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I did  not  get  that  question. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  He  is  asking  about  the  item  of  J.  R.  Jones, 
$183.50. 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  J.  R.  Jones. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Mr.  J.  R.  Jones  was  from  Racine  County. 

The  Chairman.  The  amount  was  $183.50. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I assume  that  was  the  amount  he  called  for  at  that 
time  as  having  been  expended  by  him  in  excess  of  any  amount  he  may 
have  received  before,  and  he  was  paid. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  think  that  was  for  services  performed  be- 
fore the  primaries? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Without  any  question. 

The  Chairman.  August  26,  advertising  bartenders’  program,  $4. 
What  was  that  item? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I have  not  the  slightest  idea. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  page  is  that  ? 

The  Chairman.  Six  hundred  and  one.  I suppose  that  was  for  ad- 
vertising his  candidacy  on  the  program. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I have  not  the  slightest  idea. 

The  Chairman.  Tickets  to  baseball  game,  Milwaukee  Baseball 
League.  $2.  Do  you  remember  that  item? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  was  not  put  in  by  me. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Advertising  bartenders’  program.  That  is  terra 
incognita  to  me.  That  is  why  it  struck  me  as  unusual. 

The  Chairman.  Three  citizenship  papers,  $3.  What  was  that  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I have  not  the  slightest  idea.  It  was  not  contracted 
by  me. 

The  Chairman.  This  was  on  August  7. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I understand  Mr.  Knell  was  running  the  Milwaukee 
County  campaign.  Those  were  accounts  in  Milwaukee  County. 

The  Chairman.  One  team,  primary  day,  town  of  Wauwatosa. 
Here  are  a number  of  items  of  teams  on  primary  day  in  a number  of 
places  other  than  Milwaukee.  Those  were  paid  out  of  the  general 
fund  in  your  hands,  were  they  ? 

Mr.‘  Edmonds.  I do  not  remember  any  such. 

The  Chairman.  I find  here  an  item,  expenses  of  ward  and  town 
managers,  including  conveyances,  primary  day  workers,  etc.,  $5,833. 
Then  there  is  a note  at  the  foot  of  the  page,  which  says,  “This  sum 
was  not  expended  in  one  day,  but  was  gradually  paid  out  to  the  vari- 
ous ward  managers  as  the  work  progressed.”  Do  you  know  anything 
of  that  item  ? 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


81 


Mr.  Edmonds.  No;  I think  that  was  in  Milwaukee  County.  We  did 
not  go  into  the  organization  of  wards  in  the  State. 

The  Chairman.  I notice  the  items  under  this  head  of  August  30, 
which  seems  to  have  been  the  Saturday  before  the  election,  three  days 
before  election,  expenses  of  Hebrew  manager  and  primary  day  Avork- 
ers,  $45.  Did  you  authorize  that  payment? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No. 

The  Chairman.  Who  did  authorize  these  payments? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  these  are  all  Milwaukee  County. 

The  Chairman.  Expenses  of  Greek  manager  and  primary  day 
workers,  $110.  What  was  the  nature  of  that  item? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I have  not  the  slightest  idea.  I did  not  contract  it. 

The  Chairman.  Advertising  in  Italian  paper,  $10.  Was  that  ad- 
vertising the  candidacy  of  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I presume  so. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  that  a Milwaukee  paper? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I have  no  idea. 

The  Chairman.  Advertising  in  colored  men’s  paper,  $5.  Was  that 
under  your  direction? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know  whether  I paid  it  or  Mr.  Knell.  I 
would  not  have  hesitated  at  all  to  contract  that  kind  of  a bill. 

The  Chairman.  The  three  citizenship  papers  you  do  not  know 
about? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No. 

The  Chairman.  I do  not  desire  to  dwell  upon  these  small  items,  ex- 
cept simply  to  see  whether  or  not  you  have  any  definite  information 
in  regard  to  these  expenditures.  I am  not  criticizing  the  character  of 
the  items,  but  I want  to  test  your  recollection. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I do  not  know  that  I am  familiar*  enough  with 
this  matter  to  make  an  intelligent  suggestion,  but  I think  you  will 
find  on  page  596  that  these  items  ail  follow  a heading  entitled 
“ Expenses  in  Milwaukee  County  as  reported  by  W.  14.  Knell.” 

The  Chairman.  I passed  that  item  because  the  witness  said  he  did 
not  know  of  that.  There  is  the  postage  item.  I think  I will  not  go 
further  into  these  items,  inasmuch  as  you  seem  to  have  paid  through 
the  medium  of  telephone  communications,  orders,  and  so  on. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Let  me  suggest  that  if  the  witness  will  take 
this  copy  and  look  it  over  between  now  and  to-morrow  morning,  and 
will  come  in  and  tell  us  which  are  the  particular  items  of  which  he 
has  personal  knowledge,  it  will  shorten  the  examination. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I will  go  over  that  with  him  to-night,  if  the  com- 
mittee would  like  to  have  that  done,  and  see  how  far  he  can  localize 
the  items. 

The  Chairman.  Yes.  He  can  mark  a copy  of  it  or  indicate  it  in 
some  way. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I should  like  to  ask  some  questions.  How 
long  had  you  known  Senator  Stephenson  before  you  took  this  em- 
ployment? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Oh,  I can  not  tell ; something  like  15  years,  I 
should  say. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  have  any  arrangement  with  Mr. 
Stephenson  to  be  compensated  for  your  services? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

15235° — vol  1 — 11 6 


82 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Senator  Sutherland.  How  long  were  you  conducting  this  work 
for  him  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  think  about  six  weeks. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Taking  your  entire  time  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Were  you  obliged  in  any  way  to  neglect 
your  own  business  during  that  time  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Most  assuredly. 

Senator  Sutherland.  It  was  something  of  a sacrifice  on  your  part? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Were  you  compensated  for  your  services  in 
any  way  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Absolutely  in  no  way  whatever. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  expect  any  compensation? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Why  were  you  doing  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  For  Senator  Stephenson. 

Senator  Sutherland.  But  why  ? Merely  through  personal  friend- 
ship? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir.  He  asked  me  to.  I had  gone  up  to  see 
him  two  or  three  days  before  to  ask  a favor  of  him. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  was  the  favor  you  spoke  about — that 
he  should  keep  out  of  a political  contest? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  he  had  assented  to  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes.  Then  he  asked  a favor  of  me. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is,  to  give  him  six  weeks  of  your  time? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  to  neglect  your  business? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes.  He  did  not  put  it  in  that  way,  of  course. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  you  expected  absolutely  no  compensa- 
tion for  it,  and  got  none? 

Mr*  Edmonds.  I expected  none  and  got  none. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Senator  Stephenson  was  a man  of  wealth  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  You  understand  that  I mean  no  compensation  in 
excess  of  my  actual  expenses. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Yes;  I understand  you  got  your  actual 
expenses. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Actual  expenses. 

Senator  Sutherland.  But  absolutely  not  a dollar  for  that  six 
weeks’  time  you  put  in? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Absolutely  none. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  it  occur  to  you  that  while  everybody 
else  was  being  compensated  somewhat  liberally  you  ought  to  have 
something  yourself  for  your  services? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think  that  appealed  to  me. 

Senator  Sutherland.  It  did  not  appeal  to  you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I thought  I was  able  to  get  along  without  it.  I 
would  not  have  taken  any  money  if  he  had  offered  it  to  me. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  would  not  have  taken  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir.  May  I just  make  a statement  here,  Senator, 
in  connection  with  that  employment  and  the  question  of  compensa- 
tion? I do  not  like  to  have  the  matter  left  just  as  the  testimony  of 
the  Senator  would  tend  to  leave  it.  The  question  in  your  mind,  or 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


83 


in  the  minds  of  those  reading  this  testimony,  might  arise  as  to 
whether  I did  not  in  some  way  get  some  compensation.  I could  not 
possibly  have  gotten  any  compensation  out  of  the  $5,000,  because  I 
received  that  $5,000  check  and  deposited  it  in  the  bank.  I kept  my 
check  book  and  returned  to  Senator  Stephenson  the  checks  and  the 
stubs  with  the  balance  of  $459,  if  I recall  correctly.  There  was  no 
chance  for  me  to  get  any  of  that  money.  The  only  way  I could  have 
gotten  any  money  in  the  way  of  compensation  was  out  of  these  items 
of  $100  or  $200  or  $150  at  a time,  given  to  me  by  Mr.  Puelicher  for 
expenses.  If  I knocked  down  on  Senator  Stephenson,  I got  some 
pay  out  of  it.  If  I did  not,  then  I did  not  get  any  pay,  and  I did  not 
knock  down.  I want  to  make  that  perfectly  clear. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  got  no  compensation  from  him  in  any 
way,  shape,  or  form? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  expected  none? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir.  Let  me  say.  Senator,  that  when  I agreed 
to  take  the  management  of  that  campaign  I am  sure  I did  not  realize 
the  duties  and  the  hard  work  that  would  be  required.  I thought 
more  perhaps  of  the  honor  of  being  called  upon  by  Senator  Stephen- 
son and  the  trust  he  was  willing  to  repose  in  me,  to  call  on  me  as  his 
manager,  to  be  manager  of  his  campaign. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  have  charge  of  the  people  who  were 
sending  out  the  mail  matter,  the  clerks,  and  so  on? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes.  That  is,  I was  manager  of  the  campaign;  but 
the  office  manager,  as  I should  perhaps  designate  him,  was  Mr.  Sacket, 
and  in  a way  he  was  looking  after  that. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Where  were  the  headquarters  for  the  State? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  the  Wells  Building  on  the  thirteenth  floor. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Here  in  Milwaukee? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Here  in  Milwaukee ; yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  have  a number  of  clerks  employed  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes.  That  was  headquarters  for  everything  except 
Milwaukee.  They  had  another  headquarters  in  another  part  of  the 
city. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  you  know  about  this  expenditure  of 
$11,000  for  postage? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No;  except  that  I know  there  were  very  large  items 
for  postage  at  different  times. 

Senator  Sutherland.  The  entire  amount,  as  I recall  it,  stated  in  the 
account,  was  something  over  $11,000. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  so. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Just  a lump  sum,  in  that  way.  That  would 
pay  postage  on  something  like  half  a million  letters. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  If  you  had  seen  the  hundreds  of  sacks  of  mail  that 
left  the  Wells  Building,  and  I presume  the  other  building  from  the 
Milwaukee  headquarters,  you  would  see  that  it  would  be  possible. 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  was  the  nature  of  the  matter  that  was 
sent  out  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Of  course  a great  deal  of  postage  would  be  required 
in  sending  out  posters,  lithographs,  and  that  kind  of  thing;  but  as 
much  as  possible  we  tried  to  get  close  to  the  voters,  and  wrote  personal 
letters  to  those  whose  names  we  had. 


84 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  try  to  get  into  communication  in 
that  way  with  all  of  the  Republican  voters? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  had  lists? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No  ; that  is  where  we  were  so  terribly  lame.  That  is 
why  we  expended  so  much  money,  why  the  expenditure  of  so  much 
money  was  made  necessary.  Later  I ran  the  State  campaign  of  the 
Republican  Party,  and  I think  the  expenditure  of  money  in  that  cam- 
paign was  about  a quarter  of  the  amount  expended  in  this  campaign 
for  one  candidate,  and  so  far  as  the  wTork  was  concerned,  it  was  in- 
finitely easier  to  run  the  last  campaign  than  it  was  the  first,  for  this 
reason : In  each  community  there  are  a number  of  Republican  voters. 
It  was  safe  for  the  chairman  of  the  State  central  committee  in  the 
general  campaign  to  call  on  any  one  of  those  Republicans  for  assist- 
ance in  the  campaign,  and  to  assume  that  they  were  all  with  him. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  you  have  local  Republican  committees,  do 
you  not  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes:  but  in  the  primary  campaign  there  is  no 
nucleus,  unless  you  send  somebody  to  find  out  where  the  nucleus  is. 
You  do  not  know  what  Republican  is  with  you  and  what  Republican 
is  against  you,  and  in  six  weeks  it  was  necessary  to  gather  that  infor- 
mation in  order  to  make  a working  campaign. 

Senator  Sutherland,  That  is,  the  State  chairman  had  a right  to 
call  upon  the  local  chairmen  and  the  Republicans  generally,  because 
they  are  all  a part  of  the  general  organization? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  is  it. 

Senator  Sutherland.  But  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Stephenson,  he  was 
simply  a private  individual  desiring  an  office,  and  he  could  not  call 
upon  them  in  that  way. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No;  and  there  were  four  candidates,  and  his  man- 
ager, in  hundreds  of  instances  and  localities,  did  not  know  the  name  of 
one  man  to  whom  he  might  write,  and  he  had  to  get  that  information 
in  order  intelligently  to  conduct  the  campaign. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Was  this  the  first  time  that  the  primary  law 
had  been  tried  out  in  the  election  of  United  States  Senator? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  it  was. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  as  to  LTnited  States  Senator,  I think  that  is 
right. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  was  the  first  case  that  had  arisen 
under  the  law,  so  far  as  United  States  Senator  was  concerned? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  and  for  the  reason  that  I knew  so  few  people  in 
different  localities  in  the  State,  I considered  that  the  best  way  to 
conduct  the  campaign  was  to  divide  the  State  into  counties  and  em- 
ploy a manager  you  might  say  in  each  county  to  run  the  campaign, 
and  have  as  little  to  do  with  the  details  of  the  work  in  that  campaign 
in  that  county  as  possible. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  were  breaking  new  ground? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  say  you  employed  some  man  to  take 
charge  of  the  work  generally  in  each  county  in  the  State? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  How  was  he  compensated?  Was  it  accord- 
ing to  any  fixed  rule,  or  was  that  arbitrary? 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


85 


Mr.  Edmonds.  That  was  what  I meant  to  explain.  In  some  in- 
stances it  was  understood  that  the  man  was  a friend  of  Senator 
Stephenson,  sufficiently  so  that  he  would  be  willing  to  work  without 
any  compensation.  In  other  cases,  depending  on  the  man  and  his 
financial  condition,  he  was  paid  for  his  services.  There  was  no  fixed 
rule.  We  tried  to  get  the  best  man  in  each  county. 

Senator  Sutherland.  In  the  case  of  a man  who  was  paid  $350,  that 
would  be  for  about  six  weeks’  work  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Was  not  that  pretty  liberal  compensation? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Understand,  Senator,  that  that  $300  would  be  given 
to  him  at  the  time  that  the  agreement  was  made  with  him,  and  he 
used  his  own  judgment.  In  all  probability  I would  make  an  agree- 
ment with  him  as  to  how  much  of  that  he  would  keep  for  his  own 
services. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  do  that  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  I think  in  every  instance. 

Senator  Sutherland.  In  this  case  of  $350,  I have  forgotten  the 
name,  do  you  remember  how  much  that  man  was  to  keep  for  his  per- 
sonal services  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  presume  about  $100.  I am  not  positive. 

Senator  Sutherland.  When  you  say  you  “ presume  ” or  “ assume,” 
do  you  mean  that  is  your  best  recollection  about  it  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  is  my  best  recollection. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Or  are  you  simply  guessing  at  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  is  my  best  recollection;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  he  would  keep  about  $100  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  the  other  $250,  how  would  that  be  ex- 
pended ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  organizing  the  county. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Can  you  give  me  an  illustration  of  what  he 
would  do  with  the  money?  What  would  he  expend  the  $250  for? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I would  say  that  in  all  probability  he  would  go 
out  into  the  different  towns  in  the  county  and  organize  those  dif- 
ferent towns.  That  is,  he  would  find  some  person  in  each  of  those 
different  towns  or  voting  precincts  who  was  for  Senator  Stephen- 
son and  would  get  him  to  put  in  so  much  time,  and  out  of  the  $250 
he  would  in  some  instances  pay  him;  sometimes  he  would  employ 
a man  and  pay  him  to  get  the  voters  out  for  election  day — to  have  a 
team;  and  as  he  could  not  make  two  or  three  trips  around  to  make 
those  agreements  and  then  later  pay  the  money,  usually  he  would 
pay  the  money  when  he  made  the  agreement,  the  same  as  I did. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is,  having  general  supervision  of  the 
county  he  would  employ  others  to  cany  out  the  work  in  detail. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  pay  them? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  In  what  other  way  would  he  spend  money, 
if  you  know? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  would  be  the  man  to  whom  we  sent  the  adver- 
tising matter.  He  would  be  the  man  to  get  the  list  of  names  to 
whom  we  could  send  personal  letters. 


86 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Senator  Sutherland.  That  was  a part  of  his  own  personal  duty, 
for  which  he  was  paid  the  $50  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Now,  speaking  of  the  $250,  in  what  other 
ways  would  he  expend  that  money?  You  say  he  would  keep  a 
hundred  dollars  for  himself  and  would  expend  a part  of  the  $250 
remaining  to  employ  others  to  carry  out  the  details  of  the  work.  In 
what  other  way  would  he  expend  it  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  We  would  send  to  him  this  advertising  matter, 
and  he  would  have  to  distribute  that.  That  would  be  a part  of  the 
expense,  in  addition  to  the  hundred  dollars.  He  would  employ  some 
one. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is,  he  would  employ  others  to  dis- 
tribute it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes.  You  realize  that  in  these  counties  they  would 
average  probably  36  towns  to  a county,  and  $5  to  a man  in  a town 
would  not  be  a very  large  sum  to  pay  him. 

Senator  Sutherland.  In  the  case  of  the  $1,800  payment  to  the 
man  who  had  seven  counties  under  his  charge,  do  you  know  whether 
or  not  he  did  employ  somebody  in  each  of  the  seven  counties? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  he  did ; yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  you  know  anything  about  it?  Do  you 
remember  anything  about  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall  the  names  of  the  persons,  but  I am 
sure  he  did  in  every  instance,  because  I saw  him  and  talked  with 
him  at  the  time  the  agreement  was  made,  and  I know  he  gave  me  the 
names  of  men,  but  they  were  not  men  whom  I knew,  because  that 
was  in  the  eleventh  district,  where  I was  not  at  all  acquainted. 

Senator  Sutherland.  He  paid  each  of  those  seven  men  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  may  have  hired  more  than  one  man  in  a county. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  do  not  recollect  that  he  made  any 
statement  of  what  he  spent  the  money  for? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  that  is  included  in  his  statement. 

Senator  Sutherland.  No  details? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  he  made  a detailed  statement  at  the  time 
of  the  investigation. 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  became  of  those  detailed  statements? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Those  detailed  statements  were  made  to  this  in- 
vestigating committee,  and  that  committee  kept  them. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Was  there  a detailed  statement  of  how  this 
$1,800  was  expended? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is  what  I meant. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I did  not  understand  the  question. 

Senator  Sutherland.  There  was  no  detailed  statement  of  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  you  did  not  send  any  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Simply  a payment  of  $1,800,  and  left  the 
man  free  to  do  as  he  pleased  with  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Without  accounting  to  anybody? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir.  Now,  that  may  seem  to  be  a very  unwise 
way  to  do.  Probably  it  was.  Undoubtedly,  in  my  judgment,  there 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


87 


was  money  wasted  in  that  campaign.  I conducted  it  to  the  best  of 
my  ability;  but  when  you  realize  that  Senator  Stephenson  was  a 
man  known  to  be  wealthy,  a man  who  had  always  been  in  campaigns, 
and  had  in  the  campaigns  in  which  he  was  interested  expended  his 
money  liberally,  and  some  people  even  said  extravagantly,  it  is  no 
wonder 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  mean  that  he  had  expended  his  money  for 
other  people  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  For  other  people;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Not  for  himself. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  is  not  strange  that,  having  that  reputation,  for 
being  a good  spender  in  campaigns,  men  who  otherwise  would  work 
for  a man  who  was  poor,  for  nothing,  would  demand  pay  for  their 
services  for  Senator  Stephenson,  because  they  would  say  “He  is 
able  to  pay  it.” 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  they  would  demand  rather  more  than 
living  wages  for  what  they  did? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes.  I think  you  will  find  that  is  true  always  in 
campaigns,  however. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  At  least  that  has  been  the  experience  of  most 
of  us. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  have  mentioned  one  or  two  men  who 
received  money,  who  were  candidates  for  the  legislature.  Do  you 
know  of  any  others  except  those  you  have  mentioned  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Or  have  you  heard  of  anybody  else  except 
those  mentioned? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Have  I heard  of  anybody  else  ? 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  you  remember  any  other  man  who  was 
a member  of  the  legislature  who  received  any  money  out  of  this 
Stephenson  fund? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  mean  any  man  who  was  a candidate  for  the 
legislature.  Of  course,  at  that  time  there  were  not  any  of  them 
members. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Anybody  who  afterwards  became  a member  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall  any.  I am  sure  I did  not  pay  any 
others. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Let  me  ask  you  another  question:  Were  you 
in  Madison  while  the  legislature  was  in  session  at  the  time  and  before 
the  time  that  Mr.  Stephenson  was  elected  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  were  you  doing  there  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I was  not  there  at  the  time  that  Senator  Stephenson 
was  elected. 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  were  you  doing  there? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I suppose  I may  be  said  to  have  been  looking  after 
Senator  Stephenson’s  interests  there. 

Senator  Sutherland.  How  much  time  did  you  spend  there? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Most  of  the  time  for  that  three  weeks. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  were  there  about  three  weeks? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  talk  with  members  of  the  legisla- 
ture? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 


88 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Senator  Sutherland.  Did  it  become  apparent  to  you  that  Senatoi 
Stephenson  had  not  a majority  of  the  members  of  the  legislature  who 
were  prepared  to  vote  for  him? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  This  matter 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  I mean  by  that  is  that  there  were  sev- 
eral ballots  cast  in  which  he  failed  of  election.  It  became  apparent 
to  you,  did  it  not,  that  he  did  not  have  enough  votes  in  the  legislature 
under  those  conditions? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I felt  that  he  was  legally  elected  in  January,  when 
the  first  vote  was  taken,  and  that  it  was  a farce  to  continue  this  con- 
tinual balloting  every  day.  On  the  other  hand,  I did  not  know  of 
any  means  or  method  by  which  that  balloting  might  be  done  away 
with.  There  were  not  votes  enough  there  after  that  day  to  elect  him. 
The  only  possible  way  that  he  could  be  elected  would  be  by  reason 
of  the  fact  that  some  men  who  were  voting  against  him,  having  to 
come  up  there  every  day  to  vote,  would  get  tired  of  that  kind  of 
thing,  and  say,  “ Here,  we  might  as  well  elect  him  and  get  through 
with  this  ”;  or  that  on  some  particular  day  all  of  the  friends  of  Sen- 
ator Stephenson  might  be  there,  and  some  of  those  who  were  opposing 
him  might  be  away,  and  in  that  way  he  might  get  a majority  of  the 
votes  cast. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  had  thought  of  that  contingency. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  it  was  very  close  for  several  days,  and  we 
hoped  every  day  that  that  might  occur. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Was  anything  done  by  anybody  else  to  bring 
about  a realization  of  that  contingency  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  it  was  done  by  me.  I was  trying  my  best, 
and  all  the  fellows  who  were  working  with  me,  interested  in  Senator 
Stephenson’s  campaign,  were  looking  after  every  man  who  was  a 
friend  of  Senator  Stephenson  so  that  he  would  be  there  every  day. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Finally,  when  Senator  Stephenson  was 
elected,  I understand  it  is  said  that  three  members  of  the  legislature, 
three  Democrats  who  were  opposed  to  him,  absented  themselves  on 
that  day.  Do  you  know  anything  about  that  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir.  That  is,  I know  it  in  the  way  that  you  do, 
having  heard  it. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  know  that  has  been  said? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  But  you  know  nothing  about  that  yourself? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir.  I had  left  Madison ; I had  not  been  in 
Madison  at  that  time  for,  I think,  three  weeks. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  was  after  you  left? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  knew  nothing  about  the  circumstances, 
then  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Nothing  about  the  charge  that  they  had  been 
paid  to  absent  themselves  on  that  day  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  I know  absolutely  nothing  of  that. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is  all. 

The  Chairman.  The  hour  of  5 o’clock  having  arrived,  the  com- 
mittee will  stand  adjourned  until  to-morrow  morning  at  10  o’clock. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


89 


Before  adjournment  is  had,  I desire  that  Mr.  Sacket,  who  was  not 
present  earlier  to-day,  but  who  was  subpoenaed  to  be  here,  and  who 
is  now  present,  be  sworn. 

(Mr.  Sacket  appeared  and  the  chairman  administered  the  oath.) 

The  Chairman.  The  witnesses  that  have  been  examined  to-day 
will  remain  for  to-morrow,  and  the  witnesses  who  have  been  sub- 
poenaed for  to-morrow  are  H.  J.  Brown,  S.  L.  Perrin,  H.  H.  Morgan, 
C.  C.  Wayland,  and  Henry  Overbeck.  All  of  the  witnesses  who  have 
been  subpoenaed  and  have  not  been  examined  to-day,  of  course,  will 
remain,  and  those  who  have  been  examined  will  also  remain,  as  the 
committee  may  desire  to  ask  further  questions.  Witnesses  will  remain 
in  attendance  until  excused. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  will  be  the  general  rule  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  So  that  we  can  all  know  that  until  excused  the 
witness  will  be  here  to  be  reached  by  any  of  us. 

Mr.  Black.  Mr.  Chairman,  we  have  here  a copy  of  a letter  from  the 
attorney  general  to  Senator  Stephenson  in  relation  to  the  filing  of 
his  expense  account,  which  I will  hand  to  the  reporter  to  have  it  in- 
corporated in  the  record. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Do  you  know  that  to  be  an  exact  copy? 

Mr.  Black.  It  was  furnished  to  me  as  an  exact  copy. 

Senator  Pomerene.  By  whom? 

Mr.  Black.  By  Senator  Stephenson’s  secretary.  I have  not  the 
original,  but  we  can  produce  that  if  necessary. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Let  it  go  into  the  record.  It  can  be  com- 
pared with  the  original  hereafter,  and  if  it  is  not  an  exact  copy,  be 
corrected. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  If  it  turns  out  that  it  is  not  an  exact  copy,  we  will 
have  the  record  corrected  to  agree  with  the  original. 

(The  letter  is  as  follows:) 

[Copy.] 

Office  of  Attorney  General, 

Madison,  Wis.,  September  28,  1908. 

Hon.  Isaac  Stephenson, 

Marinette,  Wis. 

Dear  Sir  : In  your  letter  of  the  23d  instant  you  say  that  you  “ understand 
that  a candidate  for  United  States  Senator  is  not  under  the  law  obliged  to 
file  an  expense  account  until  after  the  legislature  elects  in  January,”  and  you 
ask  for  my  interpretation  of  the  law. 

Section  1 of  chapter  502,  Laws  of  1905,  is  in  part  as  follows : 

“ Every  person  who  shall  be  a candidate  before  any  convention  or  at  any 
primary  or  election  to  fill  an  office  for  which  a nomination  paper  or  certificate 
of  nomination  may  be  filed  shall,  within  thirty  days  after  the  election  held  to 
fill  such  office,  make  out  and  file  with  the  officer  empowered  by  law  to  issue 
the  certificate  of  election  to  such  office  or  place  a statement  in  writing,  sub- 
scribed and  sworn  to  by  such  candidate,  setting  forth  in  detail  each  item  in 
excess  of  five  dollars  in  money  or  property  contributed,  disbursed,  expended,  or 
promised  by  him  and,  to  the  best  of  his  knowledge  and  belief,  by  any  other 
person  or  persons  for  him  or  in  his  behalf,  wholly  or  in  part,  in  intending  to 
secure  or  in  any  way  in  connection  with  his  nomination  to  said  office  or  place, 
or  in  connection  with  the  election  of  any  other  person  at  such  election,  the  day 
when  and  the  persons  to  whom  and  the  purpose  for  which  all  such  sums  were 
paid,  expended,  or  promised,  and  the  total  aggregate  sum  paid,  expended,  or 
promised  by  such  candidate  in  any  sum  or  sums  whatever.  Such  statement  shall 
also  set  forth  that  the  same  is  as  full  and  explicit  as  affiant  is  able  to  make  it.” 


90 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


The  question  here  presented  is  this : Which  election — the  primary,  the  Novem- 
ber election,  or  the  election  by  the  legislature — is  the  election  “ held  to  fill  such 
office”?  The  primary-election  law  is  entitled  “An  act  to  provide  for  party 
nominations  by  direct  vote.”  The  primary  is  not  an  election  for  the  purpose  of 
filling  an  office.  It  is  an  election  for  the  purpose  of  choosing  party  candidates, 
and  no  offices  except  precinct  committees  are  filled  at  the  primary.  The  Novem- 
ber election  is  not  an  election  held  to  fill  the  office  of  United  States  Senator. 
That  office  is  not  filled  until  an  election  is  held  in  the  legislature. 

I am,  therefore,  of  the  opinion  that  you  are  correct  in  your  understanding 
that  a candidate  for  the  office  of  United  States  Senator  is  not  required  to  file 
an  account  of  his  expenses  in  the  primary  campaign  until  after  the  election  by 
the  legislature  in  January. 

Very  truly,  yours,  F.  L.  Gilbeet,  Attorney  General. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I desire  to  read  now  two  letters  from  a letter-press 
copy  book,  the  first  letter  in  which  is  dated  February  3,  1905,  and 
the  last  letter  in  which  is  dated  July  1,  1909.  This  is  Senator  Ste- 
phenson’s personal  letter-press  copy  book. 

The  first  letter  that  I want  to  put  into  the  record  reads  as  fol- 
lows, and  is  found  on  page  807  of  this  letter  book : 

Marinette,  Wis.,  September  23,  1906. 

Hon.  J.  A.  Frear, 

Secretary  of  State,  Madison,  Wis. 

Dear  Sir  : I have  not  received  any  blanks  for  filing  expenditures  in  senatorial 
canvass  for  nomination  at  the  primary.  Will  you  kindly  send  me  some  at  once? 
What  is  the  law  in  this  matter,  and  when  must  I file  my  papers  in  order  to 
comply  with  the  law?  Kindly  post  me  in  the  matter. 

Yours,  truly,  Isaac  Stephenson. 

P.  S. — Please  let  me  know  what  the  law  is  in  my  case.  I have  been  told  that 
I do  not  have  to  report  until  the  legislature  acts. 

I.  S. 

Under  the  same  date,  on  page  808,  immediately  following,  on  the 
next  page,  is  the  following : 

Marinette,  Wis.,  September  23,  1908. 

Hon.  Frank  L.  Gilbert, 

Attorney  General,  Madison,  Wis. 

Dear  Sir  : I understand  that  a candidate  for  the  U.  S.  Senate  is  not,  under 
the  law,  obliged  to  file  expense  account  until  after  the  legislature  elects  in 
January.  Kindly  let  me  hear  from  you  regarding  this  law. 

Yours,  truly, 

Isaac  Stephenson. 

The  attorney  general’s  letter,  as  I understand  it,  was  in  answer  to 
this  inquiry. 

Senator  "Pomerene.  Was  there  a reply  to  the  letter  to  the  secre- 
tary of  state? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I have  not  seen  any.  I do  not  know  whether 
there  was  or  not.  Do  you  remember  whether  there  was,  Senator? 

Senator  Stephenson.  I do  not  remember. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I do  not  know  how  that  may  be. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I thought  if  there  was  it  might  be  well  to  put 
it  in  and  make  the  record  complete. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  Senator  says  he  does  not  remember.  I do 
not  know  how  it  was. 

At  5 o’clock  and  4 minutes  p.  m.  the  subcommittee  adjourned  until 
to-morrow,  Tuesday,  October  3,  1911,  at  10  o’clock  a.  m. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


91 


TUESDAY,  OCTOBER  3,  1911. 

Federal  Building, 

Milwaukee , W is. 

The  subcommittee  met  at  10  o’clock  a.  m. 

Present:  Senators  Hey  burn  (chairman),  Sutherland,  and  Pome- 
rene. 

Present  also:  Mr.  C.  E.  Littlefield,  Mr.  W.  E.  Black,  and  Mr. 
H.  H.  J.  Upham,  counsel  for  Senator  Isaac  Stephenson. 

TESTIMONY  OF  E.  A.  EDMONDS— Continued. 

E.  A.  Edmonds,  the  witness  under  examination  at  the  time  of  ad- 
journment yesterday,  resumed  the  stand  and  testified  as  follows : 

The  Chairman.  Before  adjournment  yesterday  you  were  requested 
to  make  some  examination  of  an  expense  account.  Have  you  done  so? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  have  you  to  say  now  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I believe  I was  asked  to  check  over  Exhibit  49  in  the 
senatorial  primary  investigation  and  pick  out  such  items  as  I have 
some  recollection  of. 

The  Chairman.  Proceed,  now,  and  state  the  items  and  what  your 
recollection  of  them  is  in  regard  to  their  payment  and  the  purposes 
for  which  they  were  paid. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  some  instances  I have  quite  a distinct  recollec- 
tion, and  in  others  some  recollection. 

The  Chairman.  Pick  out  the  items  and  state  your  recollection. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  The  item  of  $200,  July  18,  Dane  County,  organiz- 
ing. That  item  is  found  on  page  588  of  the  printed  record  of  the 
senatorial  investigation,  in  Exhibit  49.  This  was  the  first  money,  I 
believe,  paid  to  Mr.  Ames,  our  organizer  in  Dane  County. 

The  Chairman.  I asked  you  about  that  item  yesterday.  What  fur- 
ther recollection  have  you  to-day  than  that  which  you  had  yesterday  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  None,  except  that  he  was  employed  by  me  to  look 
after  the  interests  of  Senator  Stephenson  and  organize  in  Dane 
County.  The  special  organizing  that  he  was  to  do  was  left  largely  to 
his  judgment,  since  he  was  represented  to  me  as  a man  well  known  in 
the  county  and  well  acquainted  with  the  conditions  there. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  a distinct  recollection  of  that  employ- 
ment, have  you  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I have  a distinct  recollection  of  meeting  Mr.  Ames 
and  employing  him  for  that  purpose ; yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  I will  examine  yesterday’s  record  to  see  how  fully 
we  went  into  that. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  was  paid,  at  different  times,  amounts  as  called 
for. 

Mr.  Black.  What  is  the  date  of  that  item  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  July  18,  on  page  588.  It  is  on  page  588  of  the 
printed  record  of  the  primary  investigation. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  any  clear  recollection  this  morning  as 
to  the  conversation  that  was  had  between  you  and  Mr.  Ames  when 
you  paid  him  the  money,  as  to  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  to  be 
expended  ? 


92 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Mr.  Edmonds.  As  to  how  he  should  organize  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  the  conversation. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  I could  not  recall  the  conversation.  T do 
remember  that  Mr.  Ames  was  one  of  the  first  men  who  came  in,  and 
with  whom  I made  arrangements  for  county  organization;  and  I 
remember  that  I did  not  know  at  that  time  how  far  to  go  into  the 
organizing — how  far  our  funds  would  permit  us  to  go  into  the 
organizing  of  counties ; into  how  great  detail.  I remember  he  asked 
the  question  in  inquiring  what  it  would  cost  or  in  answer  to  my 
inquiry  as  to  what  it  would  cost  him  to  organize  that  county— -he 
asked  whether  I wanted  him  to  go  into  each  precinct  and  get  a list 
and  organize  thoroughly  or  do  what  he  could  without  going  to  that 
added  expense,  and  that  was  left  open  for  some  little  time  as  I recall. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Finish  your  statement  as  to  whether  it  was  ever 
concluded  with  him.  Did  you  ever  have  any  further  talk  with  him? 
That  is.  clean  that  subject  right  up. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  At  a later  time  it  was  decided  that  we  would  not 
organize  so  completely  as  that  because  it  would  cost  too  much. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  would  that  detailed  organization  involve? 
Explain  that  to  the  committee — that  detailed  organization  that  you 
decided  you  had  not  funds  enough  to  go  into. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Well.  I do  not  know  that  the  suggestion  was  made 
by  him  as  to  how  great  detail  we  should  go  into. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I know,  but  you  know  the  details. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  My  idea  of  a detailed  organization  is  a pretty 
expensive  proposition. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Explain  what  the  details  are. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  want  in  each  town  at  least  three  men,  and 
those  men  to  look  after  the  expenditure  of  such  funds  as  were  neces- 
sary, or  those  men  to  be  employed  rather  to  do  the  work  necessary — 
advertising,  distributing  posters,  looking  after 

The  Chairman.  Before  proceeding  to  the  cross-examination  I 
should  like  to  conclude  my  question.  I did  not  have  the  book  before 
me  when  I asked  the  question,  but  I have  it  now.  Referring  now  to 
the  page  and  item  that  you  are  considering,  what  is  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  is  the  seventh  item  on  page  588,  Dane  County 
organizing. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  the  name  of  the  party  to  whom  you  paid 
that  money? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  A.  R.  Ames. 

The  Chairman.  Did  Mr.  Ames  render  you  a statement  of  the  pur- 
poses for  which  the  money  had  been  expended? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ask  him  to? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  see  him  again  during  the  campaign  after 
you  had  given  him  this  money  to  expend  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  I saw  him  during  the  campaign  at  two  or 
three  different  times. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  discuss  the  use  that  had  been  made  of  the 
money? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  inquire  of  him  at  any  time  what  use  he 
had  made  of  this  $200,  or  how  much  of  it  he  had  expended? 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


93 


Mr.  Edmonds.  I am  not  certain  as  to  whether  I did  or  not.  When 
he  would  come  in  we  would  talk  over  the  situation  in  that  county. 

The  Chairman.  What  do  you  mean  by  the  “ situation  ”? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  As  to  how  the  Republican  voters  who  would  prob- 
ably get  out  to  the  polls  felt  as  to  the  election  of  Senator  Stephenson, 
whether  a majority  of  them,  or  a plurality  of  them,  would  be  for  the 
Senator  or  not.  Whether  he  thought  it  would  be  advisable 

The  Chairman.  You  gave  him  this  money  on  July  18.  That  was 
while  you  were  yet  securing  names  to  the  petition  for  the  nomination 
of  Senator  Stephenson,  was  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know  whether  he  used  this  money  for 
that  purpose  or  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  I do  not. 

The  Chairman.  Where  is  he  now  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  Madison,  I believe.  He  was  the  last  time  I knew. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  his  business? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  he  is  a real  estate  man. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  seen  him  recently? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Then  at  no  time  have  you  had  any  knowledge  as 
to  the  use  made  of  this  money  ? Is  that  true  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Except  in  a general  way;  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  knowledge  did  you  have  in  a general  way? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Just  as  I have  said.  When  he  would  come  in — lie 
came  in  at  two  different  times,  I think,  after  this,  either  two  or 
‘three — and  I paid  him  on  the  amount  that  I had  agreed  to  pay  him, 
and  at  that  time  we  would  talk  over  the  situation,  but  I do  not  recall 
just  what  was  said. 

The  Chairman.  As  I understood  you  in  regard  to  a former  ques- 
tion which  I asked  you,  the  conversation  w^as  merely  as  to  the  general 
political  condition  or  sentiment  in  regard  to  Senator  Stephenson. 
Would  you  call  that  services  for  which  you  would  pay  money? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I certainly  did  not  call  him  in  to  inquire,  and  have 
him  make  a definite  statement  as  to  why  he  had  expended  any  money; 
but  I have  no  doubt  that  in  our  conversation  something  of  that  kind 
was  mentioned. 

The  Chairman.  But  you  have  no  recollection? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I have  no  recollection,  no,  sir,  as  to  what  was  said. 

The  Chairman.  It  would  have  been  quite  natural,  would  it  not, 
for  you  to  have  asked  him  to  what  purpose  he  was  devoting  this 
money  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds,  Certainly,  it  would. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ask  any  of  these  men  to  whom  you  gave 
money  during  the  campaign  what  use  they  were  making  of  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I am  not  certain  that  in  any  particular  instance  I 
called  a man  in  and  said,  “ What  have  you  been  doing  wTith  that 
money?  ” But  I am  sure  that  after  I gave  a man  money  to  conduct 
the  campaign  in  his  county  whenever  I saw  him  after  that  and  there 
was  opportunity  to  discuss  what  was  being  done  with  it,  certainly  I 
tried  to  keep  track  of  affairs. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  admonish  these  men  when  you  gave  them 
money  that  they  were  to  keep  within  the  law  in  its  expenditure  or 
use? 


94 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall  that  I did. 

The  Chairman.  Never  on  any  occasion  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know  that  I ever  did.  I did  not  employ 
men  who 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  tell  them  you  were  giving  them 
money  for? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  did  you  say — that  you  w did  not  employ 
men  who  ” 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I did  not  employ  men  whom  I thought  it  was  neces- 
sary to  caution  in  those  matters.  The  men  who  were  employed  by  me 
were  in  almost  every  instance  men  who  were  better  acquainted  with 
politics  and  the  political  situation  in  their  counties  than  I,  and  they 
were  men  who  knew  the  law  as  well  or  better,  probably,  than  I. 

The  Chairman.  I was  trying  to  get  at  facts  rather  than  your  judg- 
ment in  regard  to  the  method  of  conducting  the  campaign.  I will 
resubmit  that  question.  When  you  paid  out  these  sums  of  money  to 
men  to  organize,  as  you  term  it,  did  you  have  any  conversation  with 
them  in  regard  to  the  manner  of  the  expenditures  to  be  made  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  now  recall  that  I did  in  any  partcular 
instance. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  interest  yourself  to  know  as  to  the  man- 
ner of  the  expenditure  to  be  made  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I most  assuredly  did. 

The  Chairman.  Or  the  character  of  it,  rather? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I most  assuredly  talked  the  matter  over  with  them 
when  they  were  employed. 

The  Chairman.  I just  understood  you  to  say  that  you  did  not.  I 
will  resubmit  that  question.  I want  a definite  answer.  When  you 
gave  money  to  these  several  men  for  the  purposes  of  organization,  did 
you  have  a conversation  with  them  in  which  you  admonished  them  or 
discussed  with  them  the  manner  of  the  expenditure  to  be  made  or  the 
character  of  the  expenditure  to  be  made  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  You  are  asking  me  a question  that  I do  not  know 
that  I can  answer. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  a most  important  question. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir.  There  is  no  question  but  that  in  employing 
a man  I talked  with  him  about  what  he  was  to  do,  and  he  discussed 
the  situation  with  me ; but  in  almost  every  instance- 

Senator  Pomerene.  Are  you  simply  reasoning  this  out,  or  are  you 
giving  your  memory  about  it  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I have  told  you  that  I do  not  remember  to  have  in 
any  particular  instance  given  definite  instructions. 

The  Chairman.  In  other  words,  are  we  to  understand  that  you 
paid  out  these  large  sums  of  money  wbthout  stating  any  restrictions  as 
to  the  character  of  the  expenditure  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I would  not  make  that  statement  ; no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  I would  like  to  have  you  make  a statement  on  that 
subject.  It  is  material. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I am  endeavoring  to  recall  some  particular  instance 
and  what  was  said,  but  I can  not  do  that.  I know  that  in  employing 
a man  and  in  turning  over  to  him  any  sum  of  money  for  the  purpose 
of  organizing  in  his  community,  I certainly;  went  over  the  situation 
with  him  as  thoroughly  as  I could  in  the  limited  time. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


95 


The  Chairman.  Suppose  we  get  more  definite  about  that.  You 
have  stated  several  times  about  u going  over  the  situation.”  That  is  a 
very  indefinite  phrase.  Give  us  your  recollection,  if  you  have  any,  as 
to. whether  or  not  you  discussed  with  him  the  propriety  of  the  ex- 
penditure to  be  made. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I can  not  remember  any  particular  instance  where  I 
did,  but  I am  sure  I did. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  sure  that  you  did  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I must  have  discussed  the  conditions  in  the  county 
as  to  how 

The  Chairman.  That  is  only  cumbering  the  record — as  to  the  dis- 
cussion of  conditions  in  the  county.  I presume  men  talk  over  those 
things  in  a general  or  specific  way,  but  you  being  the  responsible 
financial  representative  of  Senator  Stephenson  we  want  information 
as  to  what  you  did  and  said,  and  the  conversation  between  you  and  the 
persons  to  whom  you  gave  money  to  be  expended  in  the  campaign. 
We  want  some  definite  information,  or  else  a statement  from  you  that 
you  have  none. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I can  not  recall  any  particular  instance  where  I said 
any  particular  thing  as  to  the  expenditure  of  money. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  the  substance  of  what  you  said. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  remember  any  particular  man  to  whom 
you  made  any  such  statement? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No  ; I say  that  I can  not. 

The  Chairman.  You  can  neither  remember  the  individual,  nor  can 
vou  remember  the  conversation  in  any  instance.  Is  that  true  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I certainly  do  not  remember  the  conversation  so 
that  I could  repeat  it. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  remember  the  substance  of  the  conversa- 
tion? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  any  particular  instance? 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  remember  the  substance  of  the  conversa- 
tion, confining  yourself  now  to  the  question  as  to  the  character  of  the 
expenditure  to  be  made?  Do  you  remember  any  conversation  of 
which  you  can  give  the  substance? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  say,  if  I may  be  permitted,  that  in  my 
talks  with  Mr.  Wayland,  who  was  with  me  at  Appleton 

The  Chairman.  Let  us  turn  to  his  item. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  C.  C.  Wayland.  You  will  find  amounts  paid  at 
several  different  times. 

The  Chairman.  See  if  you  can  get  the  items,  so  as  to  be  definite.  ■ 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Here  is  one,  at  the  top  of  page  590  of  the  printed 
record  of  the  senatorial  investigation,  $49.18. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  Mr.  Wayland. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  And  there  are  others. 

The  Chairman.  Now,  what  conversation  did  you  have  with  Mr. 
Wayland  when  you  gave  him  that  money? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall  that  at  that  particular  time,  but  Mr. 
Wayland  was  associated  with  me  in  business  at  Appleton.  He  was  to 
run  the  campaign  in  Outagamie  County,  and  I had  talks  with  him 
about  the  amount  of  money  that  was  to  be  expended.  He  consulted 
with  me  as  to  what  he  proposed  to  do. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  agreed  upon? 


96 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Mr.  Edmonds.  It  was  agreed  that  he  should  advertise  that  county 
thoroughly,  putting  up  Senator  Stephenson’s  pictures  all  over  the 
county,  and  such  advertising  matter  as  was  thought  best ; if  he  could 
get  speakers  in  the  different  localities,  he  was  to  employ  them,  and 
arrange  for  the  employment  or  the  renting  of  halls,  and  in  some  cases 
the  employment  of  bands,  etc.  He  was  to  get  as  complete  an  organi- 
zation in  each  one  of  the  towns  in  that  county  as  was  possible. 

The  Chairman.  This  was  after  the  time  had  expired  for  filing 
petitions,  being  August  5,  that  you  paid  him  $49.18.  Had  you  paid 
him  any  sum  of  money  prior  to  that  time  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  I had  overlooked  the  item  which  appears  near 
the  top  of  page  589,  $100.  I had  overlooked  that. 

The  Chairman.  Now,  the  $100  on  page  589,  paid  on  July  27,  was 
for  what  services? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  services  in  advance,  for  expenditures  that  he 
would  make.  He  was  the  organizer  for  that  county. 

The  Chairman.  Was  the  payment  on  August  5 of  $49.18  to  close 
the  account  of  the  moneys  that  he  expended  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  How  did  it  come  that  there  was  an  odd  sum  in 
that  payment? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I assume  he  rendered  a bill  for  some  particular 
item,  though  I do  not  recall,  because  he  was  paid  at  different  times 
after  this. 

The  Chairman.  You  made  other  payments  later? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  the  total  amount  that  you  placed  in 
the  hands  of  Mr.  Wayland  for  election  purposes? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall  without  going  over  this  and  adding 
the  items  up,  but  I should  say  something  like  $800. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  We  can  state  the  amount  if  the  chairman  would 
like.  Mr.  Wayland  is  sitting  right  here.  It  is  $1,142. 

The  Chairman.  Did  Mr.  Wayland  render  an  account  of  any  por- 
tion of  that  money  that  had  been  paid  out  by  him? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  I went  into  detail  with  Mr.  Wayland  prob- 
ably more  than  any  other  man  as  to  expenditures,  because  I saw 
him  oftener;  when  I would  go  home  for  Sunday  he  would  talk  mat- 
ters over  with  me. 

The  Chairman.  You  paid  him  $500  on  August  22.  That  is  an 
item  that  appears  near  the  bottom  of  page  592. 

• Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  remember  what  that  was  for? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  was  a part  of  the  amount  that  I had  agreed 
to 

The  Chairman.  What  conversation  did  you  have  with  Mr.  Way- 
land  in  regard  to  that  item  of  $500  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall.  I do  not  remember  whether  it 
was  sent  to  him  by  mail  or  whether  I gave  it  to  him  when  I was  in 
Appleton. 

The  Chairman.  Where  is  Appleton? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  is  about  100  miles  north  of  here. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is,  north  of  Milwaukee. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


97 


Mr.  Edmonds.  North  of  Milwaukee. 

The  Chairman.  Is  your  recollection  as  distinct  as  to  the  con- 
versation with  Mr.  Wayland  as  it  is  with  reference  to  any  other  of 
these  parties  to  whom  you  gave  money  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  say  more  so.  I saw  him  oftener  and 
talked  with  him  oftener. 

The  Chairman.  Are  we  to  understand  that  your  recollection  with 
regard  to  other  sums  of  money  paid  out  for  organizing  is  no  more 
definite  or  detailed  than  it  is  in  respect  to  Mr.  Wayland? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  This  is  the  situation : Whenever  I made  a contract 
or  an  agreement  with  a man  to  organize  and  look  after  Senator 
Stephenson’s  interests  in  his  particular  county  the  sum  was  agreed 
upon.  Usually  at  that  time  I paid  him  the  amount  agreed  upon, 
and  he  immediately  went  to  work  in  the  interest  of  Senator  Stephen- 
son. If  ever  I saw  him  again  after  that  time  undoubtedly  we  talked 
the  situation  over. 

The  Chairman.  You  speak  of  paying  money  to  these  men.  I 
understood  you  yesterday  to  say  that  outside  of  the  $5,000  you  did 
not  pay  money  to  anybody. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  When  I say  paying  the  money  I mean  to  state  that 
I contracted  the  bills  and  I gave  instructions  either  to  Mr.  Sacket, 
the  office  manager,  or  to  Mr.  Puelicher,  the  custodian,  to  turn  the 
money  over  to  them ; so  that  while  I did  not  myself  pay  the  money, 
virtually  I did.  I contracted  the  bills. 

The  Chairman.  Your  act  was  equivalent  to  the  payment  of  the 
money  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  I undertook  yesterday  to  get  you  to  say  that,  but 
you  declined  to  say  you  paid  any  money  outside  of  the  $5,000. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Now,  Senator,  a moment 

The  Chairman.  Since  you  now  look  at  it  from  a different  stand- 
point, I will  ask  you  as  to  other  parties  to  whom  you  paid  money, 
in  the  sense  that  you  paid  it  to  Mr.  Wayland. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Will  the  Senator  excuse  me.  I would  like  to  ask 
whether  the  witness  may  not  be  allowed  to  make  an  explanation  that 
he  desires  to  make  ? 

The  Chairman.  The  witness  is  perfectly  safe  in  the  hands  of  the 
committee. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I have  not  any  doubt  of  that,  but  I ask  it  as  a 
favor  to  the  witness. 

The  Chairman.  I will  say  to  counsel  that  when  in  the  judgment 
of  a member  of  the  committee  a witness  is  going  into  extraneous 
matter,  beyond  the  scope  of  the  inquiry,  the  committee  will  exercise 
the  privilege  of  stopping  him  and  bringing  him  back  into  the  line 
where  it  desires  to  examine  him. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I suppose  the  Senator  has  not  any  objection  to 
my  making  a suggestion. 

The  Chairman.  Oh,  no;  I do  not  object  to  any  suggestion  by 
counsel. 

I will  now  ask  you  to  answer  the  question,  Mr.  Edmonds. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think  I understand  the  question. 

The  Chairman.  The  reporter  will  repeat  the  last  question. 

15235°— VOL  1—11 7 


98 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


(The  reporter  read  as  follows:) 

Since  you  now  look  at  it  from  a different  standpoint,  I will  ask  you  as  to 
other  parties  to  whom  you  paid  money,  in  the  sense  that  you  f)aid  it  to  Mr. 
Wayland. 

The  Chairman.  I will  finish  that  question  which  I was  proceeding 
to  ask  you.  Did  you  have  any  conversations  with  any  others  in  the 
sense  that  you  had  conversations  with  Mr.  Wayland? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  believe  I know  how  to  answer  the  question. 
I have  not  changed  my  method  of  reasoning — you  assume  there  that 
I make  some  change,  that  I think  differently  now  from  what  I did. 
I do  not. 

The  Chairman.  The  witness  evidently  misunderstands  the  chair- 
man. Yesterday  we  understood  you  to  say  that  you  had  not  paid 
out  any  money  except  the  $5,000,  and  on  further  examination  you 
insisted  that  you  had  made  no  payments;  that  you  had  merely  tele- 
phoned or  given  an  order  on  somebody  else.  In  regard  to  Mr.  Way- 
land  you  say  now  that  you  did  pay  him  this  money,  and  you  state 
what  you  mean  by  the  word  “pay”  as  you  use  it.  We  will  adopt 
that  meaning  as  to  the  other  transactions;  that  is,  transactions  with 
other  men.  At  the  time  you  gave  them  the  money  or  the  order  for 
the  money,  or  paid  it,  using  those  as  synonymous  terms,  did  you  have 
any  conversation  with  them  as  to  the  manner  of  the  expenditure  to 
be  made  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall  any  particular  conversation  I had 
with  any  particular  individual,  but  I am  sure  that  I did.  I would 
not  have  made  an  agreement  to  pay  any  man  any  money  without 
going  into  details,  more  or  less.  I can  not  recall  what  was  said. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  admonish  them  with  regard  to  keeping 
within  the  law  in  the  expenditure  of  this  money  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  is  quite  possible  I used  that  term.  That  is  the 
term  Senator  Stephenson  used  with  me,  I know, 44  to  keep  within  the 
law.” 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  discuss  the  question  how  far  under  the 
law  you  might  go  in  making  expenditures? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No;  I do  not  think  I discussed  the  legal  limits  of 
the  expenditure  of  money. 

The  Chairman.  With  no  organizer  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall  having  done  so. 

The  Chairman.  Your  business,  then,  was  to  make  contracts  or  ar- 
rangements with  persons  for  their  services  in  working  for  Senator 
Stephenson,  was  it,  and  to  leave  the  financial  transaction  to  some- 
body else? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  Senator  Stephenson’s  arrangement  with  me 
was  to  conduct  the  campaign  for  him,  and  he  left  the  details  to  me. 
In  the  interest  of  time,  since  the  time  of  his  primary  campaign  was  so 
short,  I turned  over  to  two  men  in  different  counties  the  conduct  of 
the  campaign  in  those  counties. 

The  Chairman.  Without  restriction  as  to  the  manner  in  which 
they  should  conduct  the  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No;  I think  we  discussed  it;  but  as  to  whether  in 
every  instance  I asked  a man  or  told  him  to  keep  within  the  law, 
I do  not  remember. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  in  any  instance? 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


99 


Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  say  it  was  quite  probable  that  I did. 

The  Chairman.  Say  whether  or  not  you  did. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I can  not  say.  I do  not  remember. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  not  willing  to  state,  then,  whether  or  not 
you  advised  or  instructed  your  agents  or  representatives  as  to  the 
manner  in  which  they  should  expend  the  money  that  you  gave  them. 
You  are  not  willing  to  say  whether  you  did  or  not  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  I am  not  willing  to  say  that  in  any  partic- 
ular instance  I said  to  a man,  “ Keep  within  the  law,”  “ Do  this  or 
do  not  do  that.”  I do  not  remember  that  that  was  ever  discussed. 

The  Chairman.  I will  ask  you  to  get  outside  of  these  expressions 
and  the  different  forms  of  language  that  you  may  have  used.  Did 
you  either  directly  or  indirectly,  specifically  or  in  effect,  state  to  any 
of  your  agents  the  manner  in  which  they  should  expend  the  money, 
and  admonish  them  that  they  should  make  no  unlawful  use  of  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  many  instances,  quite  probably  in  all,  I discussed 
in  more  or  less  detail  the  expenditure  of  the  money,  but  as  to  whether 
1 admonished  anyone  I can  not  say. 

The  Chairman.  I think  that  is  all. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  I understand  that  while  you  do  not  re- 
member the  name  of  the  person  or  the  particular  conversation  in  any 
instance,  in  a general  way  you  do  remember  that  you  admonished 
the  people  you  employed,  or  rather,  that  you  agreed  with  different 
people  whom  you  employed  as  to  the  way  the  money  should  be 
expended  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  say  this  was  more  likely  to  have  been  the 
case,  as  I remember  it.  In  talking  with  these  men  whom  I employed — 
I would  say  they  were  men  who  were  familiar  with  conditions,  and 
familiar  with  the  political  situation  and  the  laws  of  the  State  regard- 
ing the  expenditure  of  money— I would  hardly  have  told  them  not  to 
expend  money  unlawfully  unless  in  discussion  they  had  suggested 
something  that  was  unlawful,  in  which  case  I would  have  said  so. 
It  was  not  our  wish  or  intention  that  any  man  should  expend  any 
money  except  in  a lawful  manner. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you,  in  a general  way,  state  to  the  peo- 
ple what  the  money  was  to  be  used  for  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  say  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Way  land  it  was 
understood  that  he  was  to  employ  speakers,  to  hire  bands  and 
halls,  etc. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Now,  while  you  do  not  remember  the  par- 
ticular talk  with  any  other  particular  individual,  do  you  remember 
that,  in  a general  way,  you  did  state  that  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  say  in  every  instance  I did  go  into  the 
details  of  what  would  be  done  in  this  way.  I remember  conversations 
not  with  any  particular  individual,  but  with  some  one  who  was  em- 
ployed, as  to  whether  we  should  go  into  the  organization  of  every 
precinct  in  the  county,  employing  men  to  go  out  and  get  out  the  voters, 
employing  men  to  look  after  the  polls  in  the  precincts  on  election 
day,  etc.  I remember  discussing  that  with  people  for  a time,  not 
knowing  whether  we  would  do  that  or  not.  We  later  decided  we 
could  not  go  into  the  organization  so  completely. 


100 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Senator  Sutherland.  I understood  you  to  say  that  when  you  em- 
ployed a man  you  asked  him  how  much  he  needed  to  organize  that 
particular  county. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  How  did  he  arrive  at  the  amount  that  he 
was  to  ask  you  to  pay? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Quite  often  the  number  of  counties  or  the  number 
of  townships  or  precincts  would  be  referred  to  by  him,  and  he  would 
figure  that  in  each  precinct  I needed  to  do  some  advertising,  and 
I hired  a man  to  look  after  that  part  of  the  work,  and  to  get  out  the 
vote.  If  we  went  into  it  that  far  in  any  particular  instance,  the  man 
who  might  be  employed  to  travel  around  over  the  township,  talking 
with  farmers,  getting  them  interested  so  as  to  be  sure  to  get  them  out 
at  the  polls,  and  representing  the  good  qualities  of  our  candidate — I 
would  go  into  that  matter  quite  thoroughly.  I lost  the  thread  of  my 
sentence  there. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  that  in  that  case  would  be  the  basis  of 
the  amount  he  would  charge? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Was  there  any  other  basis  than  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Usually  the  only  thing  brought  up  would  be  the 
amount  of  his  compensation.  In  many  instances  they  spoke  of  no 
compensation  for  themselves,  but  where  there  was  to  be  compensa- 
tion for  them,  that  was  agreed  upon,  and  then  they  thought,  in  addi- 
tion to  that,  it  would  cost  about  so  much  to  organize  in  such  a manner 
as  they  felt  would  be  beneficial  to  the  candidate. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Then  you  would,  in  the  beginning  of  the 
employment,  simply  make  an  estimate  of  what  the  work  would  cost 
in  that  particular  county? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  that  amount  of  money  was  paid  to  the 
organizer  in  the  first  instance? 

Sir.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  he  was  not  required  thereafter  to  make 
any  accounting  as  to  the  way  in  which  he  had  expended  the  money 
or  to  furnish  you  with  an  itemized  statement  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  It  was  left  entirely  in  his  hands? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Entirely  in  his  hands;  yes,  sir.  I do  not  mean  by 
that  that  I would  never  see  him  again  or  ask  him  about  it  again,  but 
he  was  never  authorized  to  make  any  detailed  statement  of  his  ac- 
count. 

Senator  Sutherland.  In  the  case  of  fixing  the  compensation,  leav- 
ing out  the  question  of  the  money  for  expenditures,  what  was  the 
basis  of  fixing  that  compensation  for  the  organizers? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  there  was  no  basis ; I think  that  each  indi- 
vidual case  was  determined  upon  by  itself.  The  amount  to  be  paid 
was  determined  upon,  according  to  the  ability  of  the  man  and  the 
amount  that  the  man  demanded. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  you  mean  to  say  by  that  that  the  par- 
ticular organizer  you  were  talking  with  would  himself  say  what  he 
ought  to  have  and  you  would  assent  to  it  ? 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


101 


Mr.  Edmonds.  In  some  instances,  and  in  some  instances  that  was 
thought  to  be  too  much,  and  we  arrived  at  a satisfactory  amount  in 
that  manner. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Mr.  Edmonds,  when  was  it  that  Senator 
Stephenson  first  said  to  you  that  you  should  keep  “ within  the  law  ” ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I could  not  be  positive.  I should  say  that  in  the 
conversation  with  me  by  phone  from  Marinette  the  night  he  asked 
me  if  I would  assume  control  of  the  campaign,  I wanted  to  know  how 
far  I should  go  into  that,  and  I think  at  that  time  he  mentioned  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  was  said.  Give  us  that  conversation  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Those  were  his  words — “ to  keep  within  the  law,”  if 
he  used  that  term  at  that  time,  and  I think  probably  he  did. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  talked  with  him  later  on  that  subject? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall  any  particular  time,  but  I think 
without  question  that  phrase  “ to  keep  within  the  law  ” has  certainly 
been  used  by  him  a good  many  times. 

Senator  Pomerene.  He  told  you  at  least  once,  did  he  not,  that  the 
law  required  him  to  file  an  account  showing  the  persons  to  whom  the 
money  was  paid 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think  so. 

Senator  Pomerene  (continuing).  The  amount  paid  and  the  pur- 
pose  for  which  it  was  paid?  Did  he  tell  you  that  at  any  time? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I am  not  certain.  At  any  rate,  I knew  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Or  the  substance  of  it  at  any  time  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall  that  he  did,  though  it  would  not  be 
surprising  if  he  didn’t,  because  the  accounts,  as  later  developed,  were 
kept  by  the  office  manager  and  the  custodian. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  have  just  said  that  you  knew  the  require- 
ments of  the  law  in  that  behalf,  if  I understand  you  correctly. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I knew  that  we  had  to  make  a report ; yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  you  knew  that  before  you  undertook 
this  management,  did  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  so. 

Senator  Pomerene.  When  you  opened  up  this  office  or  headquarters 
what  arrangements  did  you  make  so  as  to  enable  you  to  comply  with 
this  law  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  The  arrangements  for  the  bookkeeping  and  the  office 
management  had  already  been  made  and  started. 

Senator  Pomerene.  By  whom  and  with  whom? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  Mr.  Sacket  opened  the  headquarters,  at  least 
he  was  in  charge  when  I came  to  Milwaukee. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  he  keep  the  memoranda  or  the  book  ac- 
count of  these  expenses? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I believe  so,  because  he  made  up  this  itemized  state- 
ment from  that. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  make  any  inquiry  as  to  whether  he 
was  preparing  or  providing  books  which  would  enable  him  to  make 
this  account  from  time  to  time? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I don’t  know  that  I made  any  inquiry,  but  at  any 
rate  I knew  that  he  was. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  give  that  matter  of  filing  an  account 
and  keeping  the  necessary  data  any  attention  at  all  during  the  cam- 
paign ? 


102 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  except  that  I knew  that  those  employed  to 
do  it  were  doing  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  When  you  would  make  an  arrangement  with  a 
manager  in  any  one  of  these  counties — for  instance,  take  this  man 
Ames,  after  you  had  made  your  arrangement  with  him  as  to  what  he 
was  to  do  and  what  he  was  to  receive,  what  then  did  you  do  which 
would  enable  them  to  keep  proper  account?  Would  you  report  to 
them  what  arrangement  you  had  made? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  To 

Senator  Pomerene.  To  anyone? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Certainly;  to  Mr.  Sacket. 

Senator  Pomerene.  In  the  office? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Certainly.  In  very  many  instances,  Senator,  almost 
every  instance,  the  office  manager  would  get  the  funds  from  the  bank 
and  either  mail  them  or  give  them  to  the  person;  sometimes  by 
phone,  but  very  often  in  the  other  manner. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Was  Ames  one  of  the  men  who  was  to  receive 
compensation  for  his  personal  services? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  what  amount  was  he  to  receive  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I could  only — I don’t  know. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Can  you  give  us  approximately  the  amount? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I don’t  want  to  do  any  injustice  to  him,  because  he 
will  remember 

Senator  Pomerene.  We  do  not  want  you  to. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  But  I will  say  that  it  was  $200.  That  is  my  recol- 
lection now. 

Senator  Pomerene.  When  you  would  report  that  to  Mr.  Sacket 
would  you  report  to  Mr.  Sacket  that  Mr.  Ames  was  to  receive  $200 
for  his  personal  services  and  so  much  to  pay  his  assistants  in  the 
county  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  I did,  in  every  instance,  explain  to  Mr. 
Sacket  that  a certain  amount  was  to  go  for  salary  and  the  rest  for 
organizing  the  county.  I do  not  know  that  I did. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  say  you  think  you  did;  did  you,  as  a 
matter  of  fact? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  every  instance  I do  not  believe,  at  least  I do  not 
presume  I did. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Are  you  speaking  now  from  any  recollection 
that  you  have  on  the  subject  or  are  you  simply  reasoning  it  out? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I am  not  reasoning  or  guessing  at  anything  I am 
testifying  to. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Is  that  your  recollection  of  it  now — that  you 
did,  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Ames,  tell  Mr.  Sacket  that  he  was  to  receive 
$200,  or  whatever  the  sum  wTas,  for  his  personal  services  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  remember  any  conversation  that  I had 
with  Mr.  Sacket  regarding  this  particular  transaction;  no,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  How  many  of  these  managers — call  them  local 
or  county  managers ; is  that  what  you  called  them  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know  that  we  had  any  name  for  them, 
but  I should  think  that  would  be  a good  name — county  managers. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  understand  what  I mean? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


103 


Senator  Pomerene.  How  many  of  these  managers  were  to  receive 
compensation  for  their  personal  services? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Are  you  able  to  go  over  the  account  which 
was  filed  and  thereby  refresh  your  memory  so  as  to  give  us  the 
names  of  the  persons? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  not  to  a certainty. 

Senator  Pomerene.  With  about  how  many  of  them  did  you  have 
an  arrangement  of  this  character? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Perhaps  half  of  the  men;  that  would  be  my  judg- 
ment now ; half  of  the  men  with  whom  I made  agreements. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Give  the  number. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  There  are  70  counties — I should  think  35. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  would  say,  then,  probably  35,  would  you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  How  much  were  you  to  pay  these  35  local 
managers  as  their  personal  compensation? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  remember.  Different  amounts  as  the 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  keep  any  memorandum  of  the 
amounts  which  you  were  to  pay  or  which  they  were  to  receive? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Did  I keep  it  ? It  wras  kept ; known  in  the  office. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  personally? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No;  I did  not  keep  a record. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  made  these  arangements,  I take  it,  some- 
times at  your  headquarters  or  sometimes  throughout  the  State, 
wherever  you  might  meet  these  managers? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  always  here  in  the  office. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  have  any  memorandum  of  any  ac- 
count on  your  desk  or  in  your  pocket  which  would  enable  you  to 
give  later,  if  called  upon,  the  amounts  which  each  of  these  men  was 
to  receive  for  his  personal  services  or  the  amount  which  they  were 
to  receive  for  the  general  purposes  of  organization? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I am  very  sure  that  since  that,  on  different  days, 
there  would  be  perhaps  four  or  five  men  come  in  with  whom  I had 
made  arrangements,  that  in  order  to  keep  myself  straight  on  it  I 
would  probably  make  some  notation. 

Senator  Pomerene.  In  a memorandum  book? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No.  I never  kept  any  memorandum. 

Senator  Pomerene.  On  a loose  sheet  of  paper? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  all  probability;  some  paper  on  my  desk;  in  order 
that  I might  report. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Have  you  got  any  of  those  papers  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I haven’t  any ; no,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  did  you  do  with  them  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Anything  that  i had  was  turned  over  to  the  investi- 
gating committee  appointed  by  the  Senate. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  have  any  such  papers? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall  that  I did. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Do  you  recall  now  that  you  turned  over  any 
papers  to  the  committee  which  contained  any  of  the  memoranda  of 
which  you  are  speaking? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I do  not  ask  you  to  do  it  now,  but  can  you  go 
over  this  account  which  was  filed  and  which  is  contained  in  the  report 


104 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


of  the  legislative  committee  and  tell  us  the  names  of  the  persons  with 
whom  you  made  the  arrangement  for  personal  compensation? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Can  you  as  to  a part  of  them? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  think  I could ; part  of  them ; yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Will  you  do  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Willingly. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  can  you  give  us  the  amounts  which  were 
paid  to  any  of  these  men  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  believe  I could  in  a single  instance. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Can  you  give  us  approximately  the  amounts 
which  were  paid  to  them  for  personal  services? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I wouldn’t  like  to  do  that,  because  those  men,  if  they 
are  asked  to  testify,  will  know,  and  my  statement  would  simply  be  my 
recollection,  and  I don’t  like  to 

Senator  Pomerene.  We  will  receive  it  with  that  understanding, 
and,  as  one  member  of  the  committee,  I would  like  to  have  you  do 
that,  if  you  can;  give  it  as  definitely  as  you  can.  In  talking  with 
these  different  managers,  did  you  tell  any  of  these  men  to  keep  an 
account  of  the  expenditures  which  they  made  of  this  money  which 
you  gave  them  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I don’t  recall  in  any  particular  instance  that  I did, 
but  I am  sure  that  was  discussed ; that  was  understood  by  the  men. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Can  you  remember  any  one? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  To  whom  I gave  those  instructions? 

Senator  Pomerene.  Yes. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No.  That  would  be  the  most  natural  thing  to  talk 
over,  because  that  was  one  of  the  things  understood. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Now,  you  are  reasoning  about  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Have  you  now  any  memory  of  giving  those 
instructions  to  any  of  the  men  you  employed  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I have  not. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  say  to  any  of  them  that  they  should 
furnish  you  with  an  account  of  the  expenditures  they  made? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  How.  then,  did  you  expect  to  be  able  to  comply 
with  the  Wisconsin  statute  on  this  subject,  if  you  gave  no  such  in- 
structions ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  How,  then,  did  I expect?  I don’t  know  that  it 
came  to  my  mind  at  all. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  knew  of  the  law,  did  you  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  we  would  have  to  report;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And,  knowing  that,  you  certainly  knew  you 
could  not  comply  with  it  unless  these  lieutenants  of  yours  would 
report  to  you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir:  I didn’t  know  that;  I don’t  know  it  now. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Then,  if  I correctly  understand  you,  none  of 
these  lieutenants  made  any  report  to  you  of  the  amount  they  had 
expended  or  the  persons  to  whom  they  paid  money  or  the  purpose 
for  which  it  was  paid? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Only  as  I have  stated  before. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


105 


Senator  Pomerene.  And  you  can  not  now  give  the  name  of  any 
person  who  rendered  you,  either  orally  or  in  writing,  any  account  of 
the  moneys  that  he  expended? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  I think  I talked  with  Mr. — I am  sure  I talked 
with  Mr.  Wayland  very  often  about  expenditures  that  he  was 
making. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Anyone  else? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Not  that  I can  recall,  who  made  any  reports  of 
expenses. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  your  talks  with  Mr.  Wayland  were  simply 
as  you  would  meet  as  friends  and  neighbors? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir.  There  was  no  daily  report  on  the  thing. 

Senator  Pomerene.  There  was  never  any  effort  on  the  part  of  Mr. 
Wayland  to  give  you,  and  never  any  effort  on  your  part  to  get  from 
him,  a detailed  statement  of  his  expenditures? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I did  not  require  from  him  or  anyone  a detailed 
statement;  no,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  you  made  no  such  requirement  of  any  of 
the  men  whom  you  engaged  to  do  this  work? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  not  in  a single  instance. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Mr.  Edmonds,  you  stated  yesterday  that  you 
had  some  talk  with  Mr.  Puelicher  on  the  subject  of  the  payment  of 
$250  by  him  to  Mr.  Bancroft;  when  was  that  talk? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I want  to  make  a correction  of  that,  if  I may. 
That  was  my  recollection  yesterday.  Last  night  Mr.  Puelicher  and 
Mr.  Sacket  said,  “ You  are  mistaken ; that  talk  was  with  Mr.  Sacket.” 
That  brings  to  my  mind  the  fact  that  I talked  with  Mr.  Sacket  in- 
stead of  Mr.  Puelicher. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Very  well;  we  will  accept  the  correction. 
When  did  you  talk  with  Mr.  Sacket  on  this  subject? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  say  as  soon  as  I returned  to  Milwaukee 
and  had  an  opportunity  to  talk  with  him  and  know  about  this  money. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  did  you  say  to  Mr.  Sacket  on  the  subject 
or  he  to  you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  is  a long  time  ago  and  I can’t  remember  the 
words  at  all. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Give  the  substance  of  it. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  The  substance  was  this:  That  I remonstrated  with 
him  against  paying  that  money  to  a candidate  for  member  of 
assembly. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Why  did  you  do  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Because  the  payment  of  any  money,  as  I under- 
stand the  law,  by  a candidate  for  United  States  Senator — and  I 
assume  that  would  mean  his  manager  as  well — for  the  purpose  of 
influencing  his  vote  is  unlawful. 

Senator  Pomerene.  When  did  you  understand  that  to  be  the  law? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  I have  understood  it  ever  since  the  law  was 
passed  or  some  time  soon  thereafter. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  had  no  doubt  about  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  stated  yesterday,  I believe,  that  you  paid 
some  money  to  Mr.  Shauers? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 


106 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Senator  Pomerene.  Who  was  a candidate  for  the  general  assembly  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  knew  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  you  knew  that  was  a violation  of  the 
law,  did  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir.  It  was  not  a violation  of  the  law. 

Senator  Pomerene.  How  do  you  discriminate  between  the  pay- 
ment to  Mr.  Shauers  and  the  one  to  Mr.  Bancroft  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not.  I remonstrated  when  I didn’t  know  the 
reason  for  which  this  money  was  handed  to  these — given  by  Mr. 
Sacket.  When  I understood  what  he  had  given  it  to  him  for — not 
to  help  himself,  not  to  help  the  candidacy  of  Mr.  Bancroft,  but  for 
the  purpose  of  organizing  that  county  to  get  out  a full  vote  for 
Senator  Stephenson — the  matter  was  placed  in  an  entirely  different 
light.  Mr.  Shauers  was  a candidate  for  member  of  assembly  from 
Oconto  County;  Oconto  County  had  three  candidates;  Oconto 
County  adjoins  Marinette  County,  the  home  of  Senator  Stephenson; 
the  three  candidates  wTere  all  favorable  to  Senator  Stephenson;  we 
didn’t  care  which  one  would  be  elected.  That  money  was  not  given 
to  Mr.  Shauers  to  expend  for  his  benefit;  it  was  not  given  to  him 
to  expend  in  Oconto  County,  but  in  helping  to  organize  and  interest 
railroad  men  in  the  State,  he  being  a railroad  man. 

* Mr.  Littlefield.  And  outside  of  his  county? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Entirely. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  it  occur  to  you  that  a man  who  was  a 
candidate  for  representative  having  money  to  expend,  and  that  he 
did  expend  it,  indirectly  at  least  would  receive  some  benefit  from  that 
expenditure  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  this  instance  I do  not  see  how  it  could  possibly 
be  so. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  do  not  have  any  doubt  about  that  as  a 
general  proposition,  do  you  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  I do.  I think  that  Mr.  Shauers  could  go  to 
Ashland  County  and  to  Sauk  County  and  different  counties  that  he 
visited  and  spend  $100  or  $200  to  interest  the  railroad  men  of  the 
State  for  Senator  Stephenson’s  nomination  and  not  in  any  possible 
wTay  affect  his  election  or  nomination. 

Senator  Pomerene.  So  you  think  that  these  candidates  have  pretty 
fine  discriminating  powers? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I don’t  know  that  they  do.  It  wouldn’t  be  neces- 
sary in  that  case,  in  my  judgment. 

Senator  Pomerene.  After  the  campaign  had  closed  did  you  aid 
Mr.  Sacket  in  making  out  his  account  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  have  anything  to  do  with  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  were  there  as  Senator  Stephenson’s  chief 
manager? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Not  at  the  time  it  was  made  out ; no,  sir.  That  was 
made  out  long  after. 

Senator  Pomerene.  W ell,  you  were  during  the  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS.  107 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  as  the  general  manager  you  felt  some 
responsibility  for  filing  this  account,  did  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Senator  Stephenson  asked  me  to  manage  the  cam- 
paign ; he  also  secured  the  services  of  Mr.  Puelicher  and  Mr.  Sacket ; 
I had  nothing  to  do  with  that;  their  duties  were  outlined;  they 
were  to  perform  their  duties  and  report;  I knew  that  they  had  kept 
their  reports — their  records. 

Senator  Pomerene.  So  you  gave  that  matter  no  attention  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No  attention  whatever;  no,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  ever  talk  with  Mr.  Sacket  on  the  sub- 
ject of  the  care  that  was  necessary  in  keeping  his  accounts  so  as  to 
enable  Senator  Stephenson  to  file  a proper  account  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I don’t  know  that  I ever  did. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  ever  talk  with  Mr.  Puelicher  on  the 
subject? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I don’t  know  that  I ever  did. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Or  with  anyone  else  on  the  subject? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I don’t  recall ; no,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  ever  take  any  legal  counsel  on  the 
subject? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir.  Senator  Stephenson  was  the  candidate; 
he  was  the  man  who  would  have  to  make  the  report.  Now,  if  I 
didn’t  expend  any  moneys,  there  was  no  need  of  my  keeping  an 
account. 

Senator  Pomerene.  But  you  did  expend  some. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I returned  the  $5,000  to  Senator  Stephenson;  that 
is,  the  checks  and  the  balance  on  hand. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  Mr.  Puelicher  pay  out  any  money  for 
bills  which  you  had  contracted  without  an  order  of  some  kind  from 
you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I presume  not.  I do  not  know. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Now,  let  us  understand  this  a little  more 
clearly. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Let  me  answer  that  further. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Surely. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  You  said,  did  he  pay  out  any  money  without  an 
order  from  me? 

Senator  Pomerene.  Any  money  in  payment  of  bills  that  you  had 
contracted. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No;  I presume  not. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  was  the  qualification  that  I think  I 
made.  Let  us  understand  a little  more  in  detail  the  manner  in 
which  this  money  would  be  paid  out.  For  instance,  after  you  had 
contracted  with  your  manager,  explain  what  you  would  do  and 
what  Mr.  Puelicher  would  do  or  anyone  else  toward  its  payment  out 
of  this  fund. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  very  many  instances  I would  arrange  with  the 
man  for  the  expenditure  of  certain  amount  of  money  in  his  county, 
and  that  day,  before  he  left  town,  he  would  receive  the  amount 
agreed  upon,  or  at  least  a part  of  it — usually  all  of  it.  In  most 
instances  I think  I would  communicate  that  fact  to  Mr.  Sacket.  Mr. 


108 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Sacket  would  make  a requisition  of  some  kind,  so  that  the  man 
would  get  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  kind  of  a requisition  would  he  make? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know.  I do  not  think  he  had  a check  book, 
but  I think  he  had  a receipt  of  some  kind.  I do  not  remember 
whether  it  was  a printed  form  or  not,  but  at  any  rate  it  was  some- 
thing that  would  be  satisfactory  between  him  and  Mr.  Puelicher. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  ever  see  any  of  these  receipts  or 
orders  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  so.  Sometimes  there  would  be  a letter  writ- 
ten, possibly.  I do  not  know  now  how  he  did.  I do  not  know 
whether  he  always  inclosed  a receipt  or  whether  he  would  write  a 
letter  to  that  effect.  He  will  know  more  about  that  than  I. 

Senator  Pomerene.  While  you  were  making  arrangements  for  this 
campaign,  you  would  occasionally  come  in  contact  with  men  who 
favored  some  of  the  other  candidates,  would  you  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  arrange  with  any  of  them  to  support 
Mr.  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I did  not. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  any  of  these  men  prefer,  or  did  you  dis- 
cover that  any  of  these  men  with  whom  you  made  arrangements  pre- 
ferred the  candidacy  of  some  other  man  prior  to  the  time  that  you 
had  your  conference  with  them  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Not  one. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Have  you  any  knowledge  as  to  the  class  of  men 
whom  your  managers  employed,  and  as  to  what  their  political  prefer- 
ences were?  In  other  wrorcls,  to  make  myself  clear,  do  you  know  now 
of  any  of  the  men  who  were  employed  in  behalf  of  Mr.  Stephenson 
who  favored  some  other  candidate  prior  to  the  time  of  that  employ- 
ment ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Not  one. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  hear  of  any? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  have  no  knowledge  on  that  subject,  either 
direct  or  by  hearsay? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I think  that  is  all  I have  to  ask.  I wish  you 
would  remember  and  check  up  that  account  and  give  me  that  further 
information. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is,  the  information  about  the  salaries. 

Senator  Pomerene.  The  salaries  of  the  different  lieutenants  or 
managers. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  want  him  to  give  it  the  best  he  can. 

Senator  Pomerene.  He  said  he  could  give  the  names  of  some  of 
them  positively,  but  not  all ; that  he  could  not  give  the  amounts  defi- 
nitely, but  I want  his  best  recollection. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes.  That  is  what  I understood. 

The  Chairman.  Is  it  true,  Mr.  Edmonds,  that  the  money  that  you 
handled  came  from  Mr.  Puelicher?  I refer  to  the  money  that  you 
handled  during  the  campaign. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  $5,000  was  given  me  directly  by  Senator  Stephenson, 
and  I think  the  balance  of  it  was  plaeed  in  Mr.  Puelicher’s  hands, 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


109 


and  was  expended  through  that  source.  I will  make  this  exception, 
as  to  the  amount  that  Senator  Stephenson  expended  himself. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  question  calls  for  the  money  with  whieh  you 
had  to  do. 

The  Chairman.  How  often  did  you  confer  with  Mr.  Puelicher  dur- 
ing this  campaign  in  regard  to  finances? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  We  took  dinner  or  lunch  together  very  often.  I 
think  I saw  him  every  two  or  three  days. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  advise  you  from  time  to  time  as  to  the 
condition  of  the  fund  against  which  you  might  make  contracts? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  It  has  been  shown  in  the  records  before  the  com- 
mittee that  Mr.  Van  Cleve  received  numerous  checks  from  Senator 
Stephenson,  and  turned  them  over  to  Mr.  Puelicher,  or,  I think,  the 
phrase  is  that  he  indorsed  them  over.  Would  you  be  advised  by  Mr. 
Puelicher  when  he  received  such  funds? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  except,  I think,  in  one  instance,  when  he 
reported  to  me  that  there  were  no  funds  on  hand,  and  then  a few  days 
later  he  reported  that  he  had  received  funds. 

The  Chairman.  When  was  it  reported  to  you  that  there  were  no 
funds  on  hand  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I can  not  recall  the  date. 

The  Chairman.  Approximately  at  what  time,  with  reference  to  the 
campaign  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  it  was  just  before  the  item  of  $30,000.  I do 
not  recall  that  date. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Have  you  a copy  of  that  memorandum?  I take 
it  the  Senator  would  like  to  get  the  date  as  nearly  as  he  can. 

Mr.  Black.  August  12. 

The  Chairman.  J have  some  data  here.  The  $30,000  payment  was 
on  August  12. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  A check  to  J.  H.  Puelicher.  Is  that  the  item  you 
refer  to,  and  the  date? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  that  at  or  immediately  prior  to  that  time 
the  treasury  was  empty? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  How  did  it  come  about  that  you  were  advised  that 
there  were  no  funds?  Did  you  inquire,  or  was  the  information  given 
to  you  voluntarily  or  officially  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  My  recollection  is  that  I sent  a man  to  Mr.  Sacket, 
and  he  reported  that  there  were  no  funds  in  the  bank. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  examined  the  accounts  for  the  purpose 
of  seeing  how  much  money  is  claimed  to  have  been  paid  out  before 
August  12? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  not  had  a balance  struck  for  the  purpose 
of  seeing  whether  or  not  it  was  true  that  the  funds  were  bankrupt  at 
that  time? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  I understand  you  to  say  that  Mr.  Sacket 
would  go  to  the  bank  and  procure  the  cash  and  deliver  it  to  the  par- 


110 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


ties  with  whom  you  made  a contract,  in  some  instances,  or,  in  other 
words,  cash  the  order  on  the  bank? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know  as  to  getting  the  cash,  but  either  cash 
or  a check  that  would  be  satisfactory  to  the  person  with  whom  I made 
the  agreement. 

The  Chairman.  That  is,  are  we  to  understand  that  you  made  the 
contract  first? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Or  made  an  order  that  was  the  equivalent  of  a 
contract  and  gave  it  to  Mr.  Sacket  or  to  the  party  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  To  Mr.  Sacket  in  instances  of  that  kind. 

The  Chairman.  You  handed  your  orders  over  to  Mr.  Sacket,  and 
Mr.  Sacket  then  would  negotiate  for  the  cash  or  the  equivalent  with 
Mr.  Puelicher? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Except  that  usually  it  was  a verbal  order  from  me 
to  Mr.  Sacket.  He  was  out  in  the  office  adjoining  me. 

The  Chairman.  Then  Mr.  Sacket  was  the  real  paymaster,  was  he? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir;  Mr.  Sacket  and  Mr.  Puelicher. 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  true  of  all  the  moneys  expended,  as  shown 
by  these  accounts? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir;  I should  say  that  was  approximately  true. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Sacket  kept  a list,  did  he  not,  of  these  pay- 
ments, showing  to  whom  he  paid  money  and  the  amount  paid  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  The  only  method  I have  of  knowing  is  that  he  must 
have  done  so  in  order  to  make  up  so  detailed  a report. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  not  see  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Never  at  any  time? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Was  he  under  you?  That  is  to  say,  was  Mr. 
Sacket  working  under  your  direction? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No.  sir;  I should  say  not. 

The  Chairman.  He  was  working  independently  of  you  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Could  he  have  made  a contract  for  the  expendi- 
ture of  money? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  did ; yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  he  had  as  much  authority  as  you  possessed 
in  that  regard? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  I should  hardly  say  he  did. 

The  Chairman.  Where  was  the  line  limiting  his  jurisdiction? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  presume  more  in  amount  than  I was.  I 
think  Senator  Stephenson  had  confidence  in  Mr.  Sacket,  and  I do 
not  know  just  what  the  arrangement  was  between  them. 

The  Chairman.  Would  Mr.  Puelicher  honor  Mr.  Sacket ’s  orders 
without  consulting  with  you  or  without  your  indorsement? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Sacket  could  draw  money  from  Mr.  Puelicher 
then,  without  limit,  as  far  as  these  campaign  expenses  were  con- 
cerned ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  So  far  as  I was  concerned.  It  would  have  to  be 
satisfactory  to  Mr.  Puelicher,  of  course,  in  that  regard. 

The  Chairman.  He  did  not  have  to  report  to  you  ? 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Ill 


Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Then  have  you  any  knowledge  as  to  how  much 
money  Mr.  Sacket  drew  and  paid  out  on  account  of  Senator  Ste- 
phenson ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  almost  every  instance  the  bills  for  printing  and 
lithograph  work  and  posters,  and  that  kind  of  thing,  would  pass 
entirely  through  Mr.  Sacket’s  hands,  and  I would  have  nothing  to  do 
with  them;  I did  not  know,  in  fact,  how  much  he  had  expended  in 
that  manner;  never  knew  until  this  report  was  made. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  confer  with  Mr.  Sacket  as  to  whether  or 
not  the  fund  was  sufficient  to  meet  contracts  which  you  were  making — 
both  of  you  making  contracts? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think  so.  I think  my  talk  with  regard 
to  finances  was  with  Mr.  Puelicher. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  not  know  but  that  Mr.  Sacket  might  have 
made  contracts  that  would  take  a considerable  portion  of  the  fund  in 
Mr.  Puelicher’s  hands  then,  did  you  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  How  did  you  ascertain,  when  you  wanted  to  make 
a contract  of  any  size,  whether  there  were  funds  enough  or  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  some  instances  I made  the  agreement  or  the  con- 
tract, and  there  were  no  funds  there. 

The  Chairman.  In  what  case? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  this  case  when  there  were  no  funds,  just  before 
the  $30,000  were  sent  in. 

The  Chairman.  What  contracts  did  you  make  against  an  empty 
treasury  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall.  I remember  there  were  two  or  three. 

The  Chairman.  Name  one. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  Mr.  L.  B.  Dresser  was  one. 

The  Chairman.  On  what  date  was  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  August  12. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  the  item  of  $1,800  on  August  12. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  My  recollection  is  that  in  the  case  of  that  item  I was 
told  that  there  was  part  of  that  money  on  hand,  but  that  there  was 
not  a sufficient  amount  to  pay  all. 

The  Chairman.  But  five  days  prior  to  that  the  sum  of  $30,000  had 
been  deposited.  Had  that  $30,000  been  exhausted  in  the  five  days? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  might  reasonably  have  been  the  case,  because  for 
some  time,  for  several  days  there  had  been  no  funds  in  the  bank,  and 
in  all  probability  debts  that  had  been  contracted  in  the  meantime 
would  be  paid  out  of  that  fund.  So  it  is  possible  that  that  had  all 
been  expended. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  it  is  possible.  Was  it  a fact? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Who  advised  you  when  you  made  the  contract  on 
August  12  with  L.  B.  Dresser  for  $1,800,  which  seems  to  have  been 
paid  to  him  at  that  time,  that  there  was  a shortage  of  funds  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  say  either  the  custodian  or  the  office 
manager. 

The  Chairman.  The  voucher  No.  33517  seems  to  have  borne  date 
August  12.  That  would  indicate  that  there  was  money  to  pay  it, 
and  that  it  was  paid,  would  it  not? 


112 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Mr.  Edmonds.  Of  course,  it  is  possible  that  this  recollection  I have 
of  there  not  being  funds  at  this  particular  time  may  have  been  be- 
fore, and  then  later  he  came  in  on  August  12  and  got  that.  I do  not 
recall  that. 

The  Chairman.  Did  the  bank,  or  Mr.  Puelicher  acting  for  the  bank, 
of  which  I understand  he  is  an  officer,  advance  funds  at  any  time  to 
the  Stephenson  campaign  fund? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know.  I have  no  reason  for  thinking  so, 
but  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Your  duties  as  manager  of  this  campaign,  then, 
would  seem  to  be  rather  indefinite  so  far  as  its  finances  were  con- 
cerned, would  they  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  I thought  it  was  a very  good  arrangement, 
indeed,  for  me. 

The  Chairman.  A good  arrangement  for  you  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  the  only  hesitancy  I had  in  taking  charge 
of  the  campaign  was  owing  to  the  fact  that  I would  have  to  handle 
money,  and  in  accounting  for  it,  that  it  would  be  placed  in  my  hands; 
and  when  the  arrangement  was  made  for  Mr.  Sacket  or  Mr.  Pue- 
licher to  handle  the  money,  for  it  all  to  pass  through  his  hands,  then 
there  was  no  hesitancy  at  all.  for  it  was  just  simply  a business  matter 
then  for  me  to  handle  that  campaign. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  not  in  a position,  then,  to  give  any 
account  for  the  funds  received  by  Mr.  Puelicher? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  None  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  During  the  month  of  August? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  As  to  the  disposition  made  of  them? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  Mr.  Puelicher  pay  out  any  money  except 
upon  your  order  or  under  your  instruction  during  the  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I am  sure  there  are  items  there  that  I knew  nothing 
about. 

The  Chairman.  You  were  manager  of  the  campaign? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  Mr.  Puelicher  disburse  moneys  at  all;  did  he 
disburse  any  of  the  fund  without  your  order  to  do  so? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Without  any  question  he  did. 

The  Chairman.  What  amounts? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  As  I have  stated,  the  bills  that  would  come  in 
would  be  O.  K’d  by  Mr.  Sacket.  The  arrangements  would  be  made 
for  them  to  be  paid.  I had  nothing  to  do  with  those  in  many  in- 
stances. For  instance,  there  was  a man  in  the  office  looking  after 
the  mailing  lists,  and  so  forth,  and  postage  bills  and  printing  bills 
that  he  would  contract  would  be  O.  K’d  by  him  and  turned  over  to 
Mr.  Sacket.  I never  would  see  them. 

The  Chairman.  Still  what  I was  endeavoring  to  bring  out  was 
whether  or  not  Mr.  Puelicher  would  pay  out  money  on  account  of 
campaign  expenses  without  an  order  from  either  you  or  Mr.  Sacket  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  As  to  that  I do  not  know.  1 do  not  know  what  his 
latitude  may  have  been  or  his  agreement  with  Mr.  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  have  no  knowledge  as  to  whether  he  did  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


113 


The  Chairman.  The  account  which  we  find  in  connection  with 
your  testimony,  or  at  the  end  of  it,  as  Exhibit  49,  page  588,  of  the 
proceedings  before  the  joint  committee  is  to  be  taken  as  your  state- 
ment of  campaign  expenses,  is  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  As  prepared  by  the  office  manager;  yes,  sir.  He 
wTas  in  charge. 

The  Chairman.  The  office  manager  who  was  under  your  direction 
and  control? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  part  of  this  expenditure  of  $98,083.72  rep- 
resented by  the  statement  was  disbursed  under  your  direction,  and 
how  are  we  to  identify  the  items? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  the  best  way  to  identify  them  would  be  by 
the  testimon}'  of  the  office  manager,  who  would  know. 

The  Chairman.  Will  he  know? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  without  any  question.  Any  that  he  does 
not  know  I should  be  glad,  if  I contracted  them,  to  give  any  explana- 
tion I can  in  regard  to  them. 

The  Chairman.  In  what  business  are  you  engaged  at  this  time? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I am  a paper  and  pulp  manufacturer. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  return  to  that  business  after  the 
campaign  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  the  election  was  on  Tuesday,  and  I believe  I 
returned  on  Thursday. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  is  the  name  of  your  company? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Which  one?  I am  not  the  manager  of  any. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Would  there  be  any  objection  to  Mr.  Edmonds 
going  right  along  and  stating  all  the  companies  with  which  he  is  con- 
nected, if  you  would  like  them  in  the  record  at  this  point?  I was 
going  to  draw  out  that  fact  later. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  company  did  you  refer  to  when  you  said 
you  are  a paper  manufacturer? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I have  been  manager  of  the  Rhinelander  Paper  Co., 
and  I still  have  some  connection  with  the  company,  but  I have  moved 
to  Appleton. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Are  you  and  Senator  Stephenson  business  asso- 
ciates? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know  of  any  association  we  have  together  in 
business,  except  that  he  has  stock  in  a bank  and  I have  a little  stock 
in  the  same  bank. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Are  you  jointly  interested  as  partners  or  stock- 
holders in  any  concern? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think  in  any  instance  except  that. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  referred  to  an  item  on  August  12  of 
$1,800.  The  entry  in  this  account  is  44  General.  No.  33.517,  L.  B.  Dres- 
ser, $1,800.”  What  does  that  word  “general”  mean? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know.  This  report  was  made  out  by  Mr. 
Sacket,  and  I assume  that  in  his  summary  perhaps  that  was  the  name 
of  the  account. 

The  Chairman.  What  does  that  number  mean? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  presume  that  was  the  bank  check  or  cer- 
tificate. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  the  check  number,  33,517,  do  you  mean  ? 

15235°— vol  1—11 8 


114 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  presume  that  was  it,  though  I am  not 
certain. 

The  Chairman.  You  made  this  contract  with  Mr.  Dresser,  did  you  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  it  for?  Tell  us  what  the  conversation 
was  between  you. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  was  to  handle  the  campaign  in  seven  counties  in 
the  eleventh  district.  The  talk  was  that  he  should  secure  in  each 
county  a manager  in  the  county.  I was  not  acquainted  there  at  all, 
and  the  talk  was  that  he  should  secure  a manager  in  each  county  that 
he  did  not  personally  handle  himself,  and  this  money  was  to  be  dis- 
tributed to  these  men. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  say  anything  to  him  about  rendering  an 
account  to  you  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  render  any  account  to  you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  of  this  was  he  to  receive  for  his  per- 
sonal compensation? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  none  at  all.  He  was  a very  warm  personal 
friend  of  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know  how  this  was  distributed  then  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir ; I do  not. 

The  Chairman.  You  can  not  tell  how  much  was  sent  to  anyone  or 
all  of  these  seven  counties? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  know  who  his  managers  were  in  each  of 
those  seven  counties? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall  now,  but  I think  I met  only  two  or 
three  out  of  the  number. 

The  Chairman.  Did  any  of  them  ever  make  any  report  to  you  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  This,  I assume,  was  paid  by  an  order  which  you 
had  given  to  Mr.  Puelicher,  or  directed  to  be  given  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I assume  so;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  remember  what  the  fact  was  about  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No;  not  when  it  was  paid.  The  only  recollection  I 
have  is  in  regard  to  that  being  called  for  at  one  time  and  not  having 
the  funds  to  meet  it.  There  was  nothing  peculiar  about  that. 

The  Chairman.  Did  Mr.  Sacket  give  an  order  for  it,  do  you  know  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know.  There  was  nothing  peculiar  about 
that  transaction. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  give  any  memorandum  to  Mr.  Puelicher 
or  to  Mr.  Sacket  to  show  the  purposes  for  which  this  money  was 
given  or  how  it  was  to  be  distributed  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I talked  the  matter  over  with  Mr.  Sacket  more  or 
less. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  say  to  him? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I have  not  the  slightest  idea  now. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  give  him  any  written  memorandum  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think  so. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  make  any  memorandum  of  the  purposes 
for  which  this  money  was  to  be  given? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


115 


The  Chairman.  Did  he  make  any  written  memorandum  at  any 
time  to  your  knowledge  of  the  purposes  for  which  any  of  this  money 
was  to  be  paid,  which  you  contracted  to  be  given  out  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Or  the  names  of  the  persons? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  aot  know.  His  office  where  he  conducted  his 
work  was  adjoining  mine.  Usually  he  came  in  to  see  me  when  I 
called  for  him,  so  I did  not  see  what  he  was  doing;  but  I assumed  that 
he  did  it,  and  he  kept  this  report.  I did  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  have  referred  several  times  to  telephoning 
the  bank  in  connection  with  these  disbursements.  To  what  bank  did 
you  telephone? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  When  I say  “ to  the  bank,”  I mean  to  Mr.  Puelicher, 
who  was  the  cashier  of  the  bank. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  bank  was  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  The  Marshall  & Usley  Bank. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Then  are  we  to  understand  that  whenever  you 
say  you  phoned  the  bank  you  wish  to  be  understood  as  phoning  Mr. 
Puelicher,  who  was  the  treasurer  of  the  campaign  fund  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  I should  have  made  that  clear. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Will  you  be  kind  enough  to  state  the  various  cor- 
porations with  which  you  were  connected  in  business  and  the  offices 
you  held  in  connection  therewith  at  the  time  you  entered  into  this 
arrangement  with  Mr.  Stephenson  relative  to  his  campaign. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  the  one  nearest  Appleton,  the  one  in  which 
I was  most  actively  engaged,  was  the  Kaukauna  Paper  Co.,  of  which 
I am  president. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Give  us  the  next. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I was  treasurer  of  the  Falls  Manufacturing  Co. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  does  that  manufacture? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Paper  and  pulp,  at  Oconto  Falls. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  is  the  capacity  of  the  first  company  you 
named  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  About  20  tons. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Daily? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Daily. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  the  next  one? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  About  30  tons  of  paper  and  about  the  same  amount 
of  pulp. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Daily? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is,  about  60  tons  of  pulp  and  paper  daily? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  is  the  next  company? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  The  Union  Manufacturing  Co.  I am  president  of 
that  company,  which  is  located  at  Oconto  Falls. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  'What  is  its  business? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Manufacturing  ground  wood  pulp. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  is  its  capacity  daily  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Fifteen  to  20  tons. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  other  companies? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I am  treasurer  of  the  Wausau  Paper  Mills  Co.,  at 
Brokaw. 


116 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Mr.  Littlefield.  What  is  its  capacity? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  About  40  tons  of  sulphite  pulp,  25  tons  of  ground 
wood  pulp,  and  70  tons  of  paper. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Daily? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Daily. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  what  others? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I am  a stockholder,  and  I had  a contract  with  the 
Rhinelander  Paper  Co.,  at  Rhinelander,  manufacturers  of  pulp  and 
paper. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Any  other  paper  companies? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Were  you  a stockholder  in  all  these  companies? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  When  were  you  the  manager  and  treasurer  of  the 
Rhinelander  Paper  Co. — prior  to  1908? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  I think  I severed  my  connection  with  that 
company  in  July,  1907. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Were  you  receiving  a salary  as  manager  and 
treasurer  of  the  Rhinelander  Paper  Co.  at  that  time? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is,  before  you  severed  your  connection 
there  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Subsequently  to  that  did  you  receive  a salary  as 
an  officer  of  any  of  these  companies  which  you  have  mentioned  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think  so. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  So  that  in  1908.  while  you  were  an  officer  of  all 
these  various  companies,  and  a stockholder,  and  interested  in  their 
business,  you  were  receiving  no  salary  from  any  of  them  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  After  I severed  my  connection  in  Rhinelander  I 
was  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  of  course  you  were  under  no  obligation  to 
render  any  special  service  to  them? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Were  you  receiving  salaries  from  any  other  busi- 
ness organizations? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No  salaries  whatever. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  Senator  Stephenson  know  what  your  busi- 
ness condition  was  with  reference  to  your  obligations  at  the  time  you 
had  this  conversation  with  him,  when  you  met  him  for  the  purpose 
of  discussing  the  candidacy  of  Mr.  Minor  and  Mr.  Kuestermann  ? I 
refer  now  to  the  conversation  when  you  stated  as  you  left  that  if  you 
could  be  of  any  service  to  him,  you  asked  him  to  let  you  know. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir.  I had  a talk  with  him  at  that  time.  We 
visited,  perhaps,  two  or  three  hours  that  evening,  when  I was  at 
Marinette,  and  I remember  telling  him  that  this  particular  summer 
I expected  to  have  the  best  time  I had  ever  had,  because  it  was  the 
first  summer  I had  been  my  own  boss— that  is,  not  being  in  a salaried 
position — and  I remember  going  into  it  in  some  detail  as  to  what  I 
proposed  to  do,  and  the  kind  of  a time  I expected  to  have. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Were  you  at  that  time  in  receipt  of  a reasonably 
respectable  income  from  your  various  investments? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  My  family  never  complained  of  being  hungry. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


117 


Mr.  Littlefield.  So  that  that  was  your  practical  business  con- 
dition when  you  took  charge  of  this  campaign  for  the  Senator  with- 
out any  expectation  of  compensation? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  without  receiving  any  compensation  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I never  received  any. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  had  been  elected  a member  of  the  legislature 
in  1892,  I think  you  said? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Subsequent  to  that  did  you  take  any  part  in  an}-* 
political  campaigns  so  as  to  familiarize  yourself  with  the  methods  of 
campaigning. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  To  some  extent? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  Oconto  County. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  In  what  campaigns? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  the  campaign  of  1900  and  in  1902.  for  Senator 
La  Follette. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  were  you  doing  in  those  campaigns— pro- 
curing the  election  of  delegates  to  the  State  convention  favorable  to 
the  Senator? 

The  Cpiairman.  What  is  the  purpose  of  this? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I simply  want  to  show  his  knowledge  of  general 
campaigning,  and  then  later  to  follow  it  up.  I am  not  going  to 
pursue  it. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall  the  question  now. 

(The  question  was  read  bv  the  reporter  as  follows:) 

What  were  you  doing  in  those  campaigns — procuring  the  election  of  delegatee 
to  the  State  convention  favorable  to  the  Senator? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes.  At  that  time  we  had  a delegate  or  convention 
system — getting  delegates. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  only  purpose  of  the  inquiry  is  this:  Did  you 
have  the  local  charge  of  the  campaign  for  the  election  of  the  dele- 
gates? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Both  years;  yes;  in  the  county. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  do  whatever  organizing  was  done  for 
the  purpose  of  reaching  that  result  in  the  county  in  those  two  years? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yfcs. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Having  conducted  this  campaign  for  Senator 
Stephenson  in  the  primary  of  1908.  you  have  stated  that  you  were 
elected  chairman  of  the  State  central  committee. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  we  understand  by  that  that  that  is  the 
State  central  committee  representing  the  Republican  party  in 
Wisconsin  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  as  such  chairman  of  the  State  central  com- 
mittee, did  you  have  charge  of  the  State  election? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I did. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is,  the  general  election? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  At  which  all  of  the  various  candidates  that  had 
been  nominated  at  the  primary  were  up  for  election? 


118 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Will  you  be  kind  enough  to  state  what  the  char- 
acter of  the  Republican  organization  was  that  you  found,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  getting  out  the  vote  at  the  general  election,  in  the  fall  of 
1908?  First,  how  many  election  precincts  are  there  in  the  State? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Twenty-two  hundred  precincts,  approximately. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  whether  or  not  the  Republican  Party,  as  a 
part  of  its  regular  organization  at  that  time,  in  1908,  when  you  took 
charge  as  chairman,  had  a committee  in  each  of  these  election  pre- 
cincts ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I believe  so;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  of  how  many  did  that  committee  consist? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Three  in  each  precinct. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  So  that,  as  a groundwork  of  the  Republican  or- 
ganization, you  had  6,600  committeemen? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  there  a county  organization? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Superimposed  upon  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  many  counties — 71? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Seventy-one. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Of  what  did  the  county  committees  consist? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  A member  from  each  precinct  and  a chairman  and 
secretary. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  So  that  there  were  2,200  members  of  the  county 
committees  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  in  addition  to  that  142  members,  consisting 
of  a chairman  and  secretary  for  each  county? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Of  how  many  did  your  State  central  committee 
consist  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Two  from  each  congressional  district,  of  which  there 
are  11,  besides  the  chairman  and  the  secretary.  That  makes  24. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  makes  an  aggregate  of  8,966  Republicans 
who  were  a part  of  the  regular  party  organization,  whose  only  and 
sole  purpose  was  to  get  out  the  vote  at  the  general  election  in  1908. 
Am  I correct  about  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  this  small  army  of  gentlemen  connected  with 
the  organization  had,  in  addition  in  the  general  election  campaign, 
the  assistance  of  all  the  local  candidates  to  aid  them  in  getting  out 
the  full  Republican  vote,  did  they  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I understood  you  to  say  yesterday  that  it  was 
very  much  easier  to  get  out  the  vote  at  the  general  election,  with  the 
expenditure  of — what  was  the  amount? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  My  recollection  is  less  than  $20,000.  I think  about 
$17,000. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  About  $17,000  that  was  expended  in  the  general 
campaign  in  connection  with  this  organization  of  nearly  9,000  Re- 
publicans? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


119 


Mr.  Littlefield.  Am  I right  about  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  You  are. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I understood  you  to  say  it  was  very  much  easier 
to  get  out  the  vote  at  the  general  election  than  it  was  to  get  out  the 
vote  over  that  same  territory  with  the  expenditure  of  the  money  you 
had  to  make  in  Senator  Stephenson’s  campaign? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes.  I think  that  statement  is  true.  That  is,  that 
campaign  was  much  more  satisfactorily  and  easily  run  than  the 
former  one,  and  getting  out  the  vote,  of  course,  is  the  primary  object. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Are  you  familiar  with  the  general  methods  of 
organization  and  as  to  how  the  details  are  worked  out  in  the  cam- 
paign, taking  into  account  your  experience  both  in  connection  with 
your  campaigns  for  these  various  conventions  and  as  chairman  of 
your  State  central  committee? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  say  that  my  knowledge  compared  favorably 
with  that  of  my  opponents.  We  always  won. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  whether  or  not  it  is  the  rule  and  necessary 
in  conducting  a campaign  with  this  great  organization  to  employ  men 
who  are  hired,  with  conveyances,  in  the  various  sections  of  the  State 
for  the  purpose  of  getting  out  to  the  polls  a percentage  of  people  who 
otherwise  would  not  get  out. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  You  ask  is  that  customary? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  is. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Has  it  been  so  for  years? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  state  whether  or  not  it  is  customary  with 
this  organization  to  have  watchers  at  the  polls  for  the  purpose  of 
ascertaining  and  keeping  tab  upon  the  people  who  have  voted  and 
ascertaining  how  many  have  not  voted,  so  that  they  can,  if  necessary, 
send  out  and  bring  them  in  with  their  conveyances  and  teams. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  has  always  been  customary,  I think,  in  the  State. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  With  your  experience  as  Mr.  Stephenson’s  man- 
ager I would  like  to  ask  you  how  much  you  think  it  would  cost  to 
create  in  his  interest  as  a candidate  in  this  primary  election  an 
equally  efficient  and  capable  organization  for  the  only  purpose  of 
getting  out  the  vote  as  the  Republican  Party  had  done  in  that  general 
election. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  would  have  been  absolutely  impossible  to  do  it  in 
the  short  time  that  we  had. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What,  in  your  judgment,  would  it  have  cost?  I 
am  assuming  that  the  Republican  Party  had  the  State  thoroughly 
organized,  from  the  precincts  up,  in  the  control  of  these  8,966  people. 
What,  in  your  judgment,  would  it  have  cost  for  the  legitimate  ex- 
penditure of  creating  and  operating  a sufficient  organization  to  have 
covered  the  whole  2,200  precincts,  in  order  to  assure  yourself  with 
reasonable  certainty  that  Senator  Stephenson’s  friends  were  gotten 
out  on  the  primary-election  day  and  voted  for  him  ? 

Senator  Pomerene.  Do  you  mean  in  a fight  against  us  Democrats, 
or 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Oh,  no;  this  was  amongst  the  Republicans.  I 
want  the  committee  to  bear  in  mind  that  there  were  three  other  Re- 
publican candidates.  I am  sorry  to  say  that  the  Senator’s  friends 
are  to  a certain  extent  a negligible  quantity  here. 


120 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Senator  Pomerene.  About  the  same  as  in  the  State  of  Maine  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Well,  I do  not  know.  I am  afraid  they  pre- 
ponderate more  in  the  State  of  Maine  than  they  do  here,  taking  into 
account  recent  events. 

I understood  you  to  say,  Mr.  Edmonds,  it  would  be  impossible  to 
create  so  efficient  and  capable  an  organization  as  would  be  necessary 
to  get  the  ultimate  best  results.  State  in  your  judgment  what 
it  would  have  cost  to  create  an  organization,  State-wide,  covering 
as  the  Republican  organization,  every  precinct  in  the  State,  for  the 
purpose  of  getting  out  to  the  polls  every  man  friendly  to  Senator 
Stephenson,  who  would  vote  for  him  at  the  primary,  with  legitimate 
expenditure. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  is  difficult  to  make  a determination.  I think  I 
could  get  at  it  better  by  taking  Oconto  County,  which  was  the  only 
county  that  I ever  organized.  I would  say  to  get  out  an  efficient 
organization — and  by  “ efficient  ” means  a complete  organization  of 
the  precincts 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  what  I mean. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  each  precinct  we  would  have  a list  of  voters  and 
then  have  those  voters  checked  up  and  determine  whether  they  were 
for  Senator  Stephenson  t r the  other  candidates. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Certainly;  canvassed. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  work  thoroughly  done,  worked  out  in  each 
precinct  for  Oconto  County  in  the  way  we  would  have  to  go  into  it, 
because  we  had  no  foundation  as  we  had  in  the  general  election, 
would  have  cost  $2,500  to  $3,000. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  mean  in  that  county  1 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I know  nothing  about  the  county.  Is  it  large  or 
small?  How  many  precincts  are  there  in  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  is  one  of  the  northern  counties.  I think  there 
are  19  precincts. 

Senator  Pomerene.  How  many  voters? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  About  4,000. 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  would  that  cost  in  the  entire  State? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Well,  that  is  hardty  an  average  sized  county. 
There  are  71  counties  in  the  State. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Twenty-five  hundred  dollars  in  each  county? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  say  in  order  to  get  such  an  effective  and 
complete  organization  as  we  would  want,  to  determine  definitely  how 
the  result  would  come  out,  that  $2,500  a county,  average,  would  be 
small. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  would  be  pretty  close  to  $200,000? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  How  much? 

Senator  Sutherland.  Nearly  $200,000.  At  $2,000  it  would  be 
$142,000.  It  would  be  between  $170,000  and  $180,000. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Of  course  I have  no  means  of  knowing  what  the 
necessary  expenses  would  be  in  a county  like  this. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Milwaukee  is  a very  much  larger  county  than 
any  other. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  would  be  the 
minimum  expenditure?  This  county  you  speak  of  is  not  an  average 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


121 


county;  it  is  smaller  than  the  average.  So  on  the  average  it  would 
cost  more  rather  than  less. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  the  minimum  expenditure  for  that 
effective  sort  of  organization  would  be  between  $170,000  and  $180,000? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  without  any  question. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Would  you  consider  such  an  oraginzation  as 
that  necessary  in  order  to  get  out  the  vote  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  full  vote. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  order  to  get  out  all  the  voters  friendly  to  your 
candidate,  that  is  the  kind  of  organization  that  would  be  necessary. 

Senator  Sutherland.  If  that  is  a necessary  thing  under  the  direct 
primary  system,  what  becomes  of  the  man  who  has  not  $170,000  or 
$180,000? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  had  better  keep  out  of  politics. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Then  simply  the  man  who  has  that  much 
money  ought  to  go  in  and  everybody  else  ought  to  stay  out. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  about  $5  a vote,  as  I calculate  it,  for  the 
entire  county — as  I understand  your  figures. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Oh,  no;  the  vote  was  something  like  4,000. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  the  vote  in  that  county  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  About  4,000. 

The  Chairman.  And  it  would  cost  $2,500  or  $3,000  to  get  them  out? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  $2,500  to  $3,000.  That  includes  getting  the  complete 
organization,  such  as  we  should  have  in  a general  election. 

The  Chairman.  What  proportion  of  people  were  engaged  in  get- 
ting the  others  out  in  that  county?  Were  half  of  them  engaged  in 
getting  the  other  half  out? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Possibly  my  reply  to  your  question  is  not  clear  or 
satisfactory. 

. The  Chairman.  It  is  satisfactory. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  What  I intended  to  say  was  that  it  would  cost 
$2,500  to  get  a complete  organization  in  Oconto  County  such  as  would 
enable  us  to  determine  and  get  out  the  full  vote  on  election  day. 
That  does  not  necessarily  mean  it  takes  $2,500  to  get  the  vote  out  on 
that  particular  day,  but  to  get  such  an  organization  as  will  enable  us 
to  get  out  the  vote. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  May  I ask  the  witness  a question  right  here  as  to 
whether  or  not  that  estimate  includes  all  of  the  expenses  of  the  cam- 
paign, literature,  advertising,  and  everything  of  that  sort? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  it  does  not. 

The  Chairman.  What  portion  of  the  voters  were  engaged  in  get- 
ting  the  others  out? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Oh,  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Did  anybody  go  out  voluntarily  under  the  direct 
primary  and  vote,  or  was  it  necessary  that  somebody  should  do  some- 
thing to  bring  the  other  men  out  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  If  there  was  not  a lot  of  dragging  out  on  the  1st 
of  September,  there  would  not  be  a big  vote — a very  small  vote. 

The  Chairman.  It  has  been  generally  understood  that  it  was  be- 
cause of  the  overpowering  desire  of  the  people  to  vote  and  the  condi- 
tions that  prevented  them  from  voting  that  it  was  necessary  to  have 
a direct  primary. 


122 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Mr.  Edmonds.  I will  venture  to  say  that  if  on  the  first  day  of  Sep- 
tember— the  primary  election  day — after  these  four  candidates  had 
been  spending  months  in  a campaign  to  secure  their  election,  I were 
to  walk  down  the  street  here  for  two  blocks  and  accost  every  man 
whom  I met,  every  other  man  would  not  even  know  that  it  was  elec- 
tion day,  nor  care  as  to  who  was  elected. 

The  Chairman.  Can  we  be  mistaken  in  the  supposition  that  the 
people  are  clamoring  for  an  opportunity  to  vote  on  these  occasions? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  chairman  means  at  the  direct  primary? 

The  Chairman.  At  the  primary. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  They  do  not  seem  to  be  clamoring.  It  is  a very  diffi- 
cult matter  to  get  them  out. 

The  Chairman.  The  only  people  who  were  clamoring  were  those 
being  paid  for  getting  somebody  else  to  get  out  the  vote,  were  they? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Well,  some  of  them. 

Senator  Sutherland.  How  would  you  get  along  if  you  had  a few 
more  elections  here,  and  had  the  initiative  and  referendum?  Would 
you  get  people  out  to  vote  at  all  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know,  Senator.  I have  wondered  some- 
times if  what  we  call  hard  times  here  in  Wisconsin  have  not  come 
about  by  reason  of  the  large  amounts  of  money  that  have  been  ex- 
pended in  these  primary  election  campaigns. 

Senator  Sutherland.  If  you  had,  in  addition  to  the  direct  pri- 
maries, initiative  and  recall  elections  scattered  along  through  here, 
would  you  be  able  to  get  anybody  at  all  out  to  vote? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think  anybody  at  all. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I think  I should  rather  run  for  Senator  in  Ohio 
than  in  Wisconsin. 

The  Chairman.  Is  not  a campaign  here  rather  a means  of  distribut- 
ing the  wealth  of  the  rich  among  the  poor? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I presume  that  is  one  of  the  benefits  to  be  derived 
from  any  large  expenditure  of  money. 

The  Chairman.  You  had  TO  men,  I understand,  in  your  organiza- 
tion industriously  engaged  in  distributing  money  among  the  common 
people  throughout  the  campaign. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  say  there  were  probably  that  many. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  see  any  general  benefit  indicated  in  the 
general  prosperity  of  the  communities  where  it  was  distributed? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I was  very  busy,  and  I did  not  have  the  opportunity 
to  get  around  to  notice  those  benefits. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  many  men  did  you  have  at  work  in  what 
you  call  organizing,  as  contradistinguished  from  this  organization 
consisting  of  nearly  9,000  people?  How  many  men  did  you  have  at 
work,  both  under  pay  and  who  were  at  work  on  account  of  their  in- 
terest in  the  campaign  for  Senator  Stephenson?  Just  give  the 
approximate  number. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  We  did  not  have  9,000  people. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I know  you  did  not,  but  how  many  did  you  have 
at  work  for  Senator  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know  how  many  men  may  have  been  em- 
ployed by  the  county  managers 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I understand  that,  but  how  many 

Mr.  Edmonds.  From  our  office,  I should  say  100  to  125, 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


123 


Mr.  Littlefield.  Of  course,  it  is  quite  impossible  to  tell,  even  with 
this  rather  large  Republican  organization,  how  many  men  they  indi- 
vidually employ,  in  terms. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  is. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  It  is  a great  many  in  every  campaign,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  you  understand,  I suppose,  properly  so? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  When  the  campaign  was  begun  for  Senator 
Stephenson  three  other  candidates  were  already  in  the  field — Mr. 
Hatton,  Mr.  Cook,  and  Mr.  McGovern — were  they  not?  Am  I right 
about  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Will  you  be  kind  enough  to  state  to  the  com- 
mittee whether  or  not  when  you  came  to  send  out  your  correspond- 
ence to  men  who  were  expected  naturally  to  support  Senator  Stephen- 
son you  found  that  quite  a large  number  of  these  men  had  already 
pledged  themselves  to  candidates  who  were  already  in  the  field  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  there  were. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Could  you  make  an  approximate  estimate  of  how 
many  of  Senator  Stephenson’s  friends  were  thus  pledged  to  the 
other  candidates? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  I could  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is,  whether  it  ran  up  to  100  or  200  or  300. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Probably  very  much  in  excess  of  that  number. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Were  they  men  who  otherwise  would  have  been 
expected  to  have  aided  Senator  Stephenson  without  compensation  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  in  some  instances. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  the  fact  that  friends  of  his  who  had  been 
previously  pledged  to  the  other  candidates  were  not  at  liberty  to 
support  the  Senator  necessarily  involved  the  expenditure  of  more 
money  in  organizing  this  campaign  than  would  otherwise  have  been 
required,  did  it  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  I should  say  so.  There  were  in  addition  to  the 
men  who  had  pledged  themselves  to  the  candidacy  of  other  men, 
certain  individuals  with  whom  I talked  who  were  undecided  as  to 
whom  they  would  support.  I have  in  mind  now  one  man  with  whom 
I talked.  I asked  him  as  to  the  candidacy  of  these  different  men  for 
United  States  Senator,  and  he  said  he  did  not  know  whom  he  was 
going  to  support,  and  I urged  the  candidacy  of  Senator  Stephenson, 
and  he  said  he  was  not  ready  to  say  then  that  he  would  support  the 
Senator,  that  he  had  alwaj^s  been  a pretty  good  half-breed,  and  that 
he  would  have  to  learn  from  Senator  La  Follette  who  he  wanted  the 
half-breeds  to  support  before  he  would  announce  who  was  his  can- 
didate or  say  who  he  would  support. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  is  a half-breed? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Half-breeds  as  designated  or  named  in  this  State 
are  the  people  who  are  not  regular  and  who  are  aligned  with  La 
Follette.  When  I say  “ regular  ” I might  say  that  that  is  wrongly 
stated.  They  are  regular.  They  are  regular  with  Senator  La  Fol- 
lette. They  follow  him  all  the  time,  because  if  they  do  not  follow 
him  he  does  not  have  anything  more  to  do  with  them,  and  they  are 
no  longer  half-breeds.  So  a half-breed  in  Wisconsin  is  a La  Fol- 


124 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


lette  man  all  the  time  until  he  does  something  to  incur  the  dis- 
pleasure of  Senator  La  Follette;  then  he  is  off  the  list. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Just  a few  questions  more  in  relation  to  the 
campaign  and  the  condition  when  you  took  charge.  I suppose  we  all 
know  that  it  is  practically  impossible  to  get  at  anything  definite  in 
connection  with  a campaign  without  a list  of  the  voters  who  are  to 
participate  in  it  later  on.  Did  you,  as  the  representative  of  Senator 
Stephenson,  have  any  poll  list  for  use? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Were  you  able  to  get  any  poll  list  that  gave  you 
any  definite  information,  either  as  to  the  whole  number  of  voters 
or  of  Republican  voters  in  the  various  precincts? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think  we  had  a poll  list  of  any  precinct  in 
this  State,  unless  it  may  have  been  here  in  Milwaukee  County,  where 
the  campaign  was  conducted 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  carry  your  organization  far  enough  so 
that  you  had  a detailed  canvass  of  any  precinct  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Not  one. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  For  the  purpose  first  of  ascertaining  not  only  the 
Republican  voters  and  who  they  were,  but  next  the  proportion  of 
those  voters  who  would  support  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  were  not  able  to  carry  your  organization 
into  that  detail? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  We  neither  had  the  time  nor  the  funds  to  go  into 
details  in  that  way. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  In  connection  with  your  literary  bureau,  what 
did  you  do  for  the  purpose  of  getting  addresses  to  which  to  send  your 
campaign  literature? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  We  got  from  the  county  managers  lists  of  names  of 
people  to  whom  they  deemed  it  advisable  to  send  literature. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is,  after  you  arranged  with  the  county  man- 
agers, they  would  send  you  in  such  lists  as  they  were  able  to  make  up 
from  their  general  observation? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes.  When  we  started  we  had  nothing. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  had  some  mailing  lists,  did  you  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  We  had  the  mailing  lists  of  two  newspapers,  I be- 
lieve. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  *They  were  simply  the  names  of  people  who  were 
subscribers  to  the  newspapers,  were  they  not  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  They  might  have  been  Democrats  or  they  might 
have  been  Socialists. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  But  the  lists  were  not  political  in  their  character, 
were  they?  From  that  basis  you  had  to  begin  from  the  ground  floor 
and  work  your  organization  up,  did  you  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  many  different  kinds  of  literature  did  you 
use  in  the  campaign,  roughly  speaking? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Perhaps  a dozen. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  A dozen  different  kinds? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  they  consisted  of  the  platform  upon  which 
Senator  Stephenson  was  running,  among  other  things,  did  they  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


125 


Mr.  Littlefield.  And  pamphlets 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  we  got  out  personal  letters  as  much  as 
possible. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  then  you  would  duplicate  the  letters? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  many  times  did  you  undertake  to  circularize 
the  people  whose  addresses  you  were  able  to  get  under  all  these  cir- 
cumstances ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  We  endeavored  to  do  so  twice. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Have  you  stated  how  many  voters  there  are  in 
the  State  of  Wisconsin,  or  how  many  voted  in  the  last  election? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think  I have. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  remember? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  was  within  a thousand  votes  of  450,000. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  there  any  money  used  in  this  campaign, 
Mr.  Edmonds,  to  your  knowledge,  corruptly  or  improperly? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Not  one  dollar  that  I know  of. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  any  money  used,  to  your  knowledge,  for  the 
purpose  of  bribing  any  voter  to  support  Senator  Stephenson  in  the 
primary  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Not  one  cent. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Or  for  the  purpose  of  inducing  any  member  of 
the  legislature  to  support  Senator  Stephenson  in  the  legislature? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Not  one  cent  that  I know  of. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did’  any  information  from  any  reliable  source 
ever  come  to  you  that  any  money  had  been  used  for  a corrupt  pur- 
pose ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Not  any  source  that  I considered  reliable;  no,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Of  course,  I am  excluding  now  the  general 
charges  in  the  campaign. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Of  course,  there  were  charges  by  the  opposition, 
and  so  forth. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  But  what  I am  inquiring  about  is  whether  any 
information  was  brought  home  to  you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Any  information  that  in  any  way  you  would 
recognize  as  substantial? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Indicating  that  any  money  that  had  been  con- 
tributed by  Senator  Stephenson  and  used  by  any  of  his  lieutenants 
had  been  used  corruptly  for  the  purpose  of  bribing  any  voter  to  vote? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  I do  not  think  of  any  instance. 

Senator  Pomerene.  When  were  the  charges  of  corruption  first 
made  through  the  press,  or  generally  made? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  it  was  January  26  that  the  charges  were 
made  by  this  man — as  a matter  of  general  talk. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I do  not  care  about  that. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Newspaper  comments. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Newspaper  comments  throughout  the  State. 
When  was  that  comment  first  begun? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think  until  that  time.  I never  heard  of 
any.  This  primary  election  was  supposed  to  determine  the  result  of 
the  election  by  the  legislature.  We,  in  our  campaign,  made  no  effort 
to  secure  the  election  of  any  member  of  the  legislature,  because  in 


126 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


practically  every  instance  in  the  State  the  Republican  candidates, 
no  matter  how  many  there  might  be,  had  stated  usually  in  the  news- 
papers over  their  own  signatures  that  they  would  support  the  pri- 
mary nominee,  so  we  did  not  care. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  If  the  Senator  will  pardon  me,  I do  not  think  the 
witness  got  the  significance  of  }mur  question.  I understood  the 
Senator  to  inquire  as  to  when  you  first  learned  or  first  saw  that  any 
of  the  newspapers  on  the  part  of  the  opposition  or  otherwise,  as  the 
case  may  be,  first  made  any  charges  of  corruption  in  the  campaign. 

Senator  Pomerene.  My  question  was  not  when  he  first  heard  it, 
but  if  he  knows  when  this  comment  was  generally  made,  et  cetera. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  about  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  not  until  this  man  made  these  charges  before 
the  legislature.  I think  that  brought  it  out,  and  the  comments  were 
made  on  those  charges  and  nothing  else. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Who  was  it  that  made  those  charges? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Senator  Blaine. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  like  to  call  the  attention  of  the  committee, 
if  I may  be  permitted,  to  the  fact  that  this  man  made  the  charges 
on  information  and  belief,  as  he  said,  and  then  when  called  before 
the  committee  to  testify  he  pleaded  leave  not  to  testify  because  he 
was  a member  of  the  Senate,  and  he  refused  absolutely  to  name  the, 
charges  and  specify  what  they  might  be. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  mean,  to  give  the  sources  of  his  information  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Is  that  Senator  Blaine  to  whom  you  are  re- 
ferring ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  My  attention  has  just  been  called  to  a statement, 
relating  to  the  matter  of  telephoning  to  the  bank,  to  which  I want  to 
call  your  attention.  The  transcript  of  the  proceedings  of  yesterday 
came  to  my  room  this  morning  about  9 o’clock.  I should  say,  rather, 
that  I got  to  my  room  about  9 o’clock  and  found  it  there;  I do  not 
know  when  it  came.  Mr.  Edmonds,  have  you  had  an  opportunity  to 
read  through  your  examination  of  yesterday? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir ; I have  not  seen  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  If  it  is  agreeable  to  the  subcommittee,  I will  ask 
Mr.  Edmonds,  as  there  is  a great  deal  of  detail  involved  in  this,  to 
read  his  testimony  through  carefully,  to  see  if  everything  is  as  he  de- 
sires to  have  it  remain,  or  if  there  are  any  changes  in  it  he  desires  to 
make. 

Senator  Pomerene.  If  he  wTants  to  make  any  correction  I take  it 
there  will  be  no  objection. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I will  call  Mr.  Edmonds’  attention  to  one  matter 
right  here  that  has  been  called  to  my  notice,  and  then  I should  like 
to  have  the  witness  read  this  and  see  if  he  has  any  change  to  make 
by  way  of  qualification. 

The  question  I refer  to  is  as  follows.  It  is  on  page  230  of  the  type- 
written record  of  yesterday : 

The  Chairman.  And  the  banker  would  pay,  on  your  telephone,  to  a man? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Most  assuredly. 

That  is  one  of  your  answers  when  you  spoke  about  telephoning  to 
the  bank.  You  say  “ most  assuredly.”  Now,  what  is  the  fact  about 
that?  What  was  the  transaction,  or  what  were  the  transactions? 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


127 


Mr.  Edmonds.  As  I understood  the  question  it  was,  would  the  cus- 
todian of  the  fund  pay  on  my  telephone  communication.  I stated 
that  he  would.  I think  he  would.  I think  he  did. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  the  man  to  whom  you  refer  is  Mr. 
Puelicher  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  to  say,  there  would  be  instances  when  he 
would  pay  on  your  order  over  the  telephone  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Instead  of  having  the  formal  written  order? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  in  any  case  where  Mr.  Sacket  might  be  out, 
and  the  handling  of  those  funds  or  the  getting  of  the  amount  that  I 
had  agreed  upon  with  the  county  organizers  would  be  delayed,  that 
if  I telephoned  to  Mr.  Puelicher  he  would  allow  the  funds  to  be  paid 
over  on  my  telephone  order,  because  he  would  recognize  my  voice. 
I do  not  think  there  is  any  question  about  that. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  it  your  practice  to  accompany  the  order 
from  you  by  written  orders  or  vouchers? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Not  from  me,  but  from  Mr.  Sacket. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  With  reference  to  the  gentlemen  whom  you  em- 
ployed, I think  you  have  already  stated  the  fact,  but  I should  like 
to  have  it  appear  clearly  in  the  record.  I understand  you  to  say  that 
you  did  not  employ  anybody  as  a manager  or  as  a local  representative 
that  was  not  a man  who  was  familiar  with  not  only  local  conditions, 
but  who  had  also  had  experience  in  political  campaigns.  Am  I right 
about  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  whether  or  not  you  believed  them  to  be  men 
of  such  character  and  integritv  as  could  be  properly  and  safely  in- 
trusted with  the  expenditure  of  money  placed  in  their  hands? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I certainly  believed  them  to  be  so,  or  I would  not 
have  let  them  have  any  money. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Where  a man  came  in  who  was  a stranger  to 
you,  did  you  make  an  effort  to  acquaint  yourself  with  his  charac- 
teristics and  his  reputation  before  engaging  him? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir.  I had  men  who  were  associating  with 
me  and  friendly  to  Senator  Stephenson’s  candidacy  who  were  very 
well  posted  in  politics — had  large  acquaintance  in  the  State.  I con- 
sulted with  them  in  any  instance  where  I wasn’t  certain. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  So  that  I understand  it  to  be  a fact  that  when 
a man  came  to  you  who  was  a stranger  to  you,  before  you  made  any 
engagements  with  him,  you  satisfied  yourself  by  an  investigation  and 
a conference  with  people  that  you  did  know  and  upon  whom  you 
could  rely  that  he  was  a proper  man  to  intrust  with  the  work  in 
question. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I certainly  did. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  all,  I think. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  all,  you  are  excused. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Does  this  excuse  me  from  further  attendance? 

Senator  Pomerene.  I want  you  to  get  the  information  about  which 
I asked  you. 

The  Chairman.  No  witness  will  be  excused  from  attendance  ex- 
cept upon  a special  announcement. 


128 


J.  H.  PUELICHER. 


Mr.  Littlefield.  I beg  your  pardon,  Senator. 

The  Chairman.  No  witness  will  be  excused  from  attendance,  even 
though  he  may  have  been  called  to  testify,  except  by  special  an- 
nouncement. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I suppose  if  Mr.  Edmonds  desires  to  go 
home  he  can  return? 

The  Chairman.  Yes.  If  you  desire  to  be  excused,  just  state  it. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I would  like  to  be  excused,  if  I may,  until  not 
earlier  than  the  13th.  I have  an  appointment  in  New  York  City 
that  it  is  very  important  I keep. 

The  Chairman.  The  witness  is  excused  until  October  13. 

Senator  Pomerene.  When  will  you  get  this  information  that  I 
asked  for? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I can  give  you  that  this  afternoon. 

Senator  Pomerene.  All  right. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  are  going  to  give  this  detail  asked  for  by 
Senator  Pomerene  before  you  go? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  I will  get  that. 

TESTIMONY  OF  J.  H.  PUELICHER. 

J.  H.  Puelicher,  having  been  previously  sworn,  was  examined, 
and  testified  as  follows: 

The  Chairman.  State  your  residence. 

Mr.  Puelicher.  Milwaukee. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  your  occupation? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  Cashier  of  the  Marshall  & Ilsley  Bank. 

The  Chairman.  How  long  have  you  resided  in  Milwaukee? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  I was  born  in  Milwaukee. 

The  Chairman.  How  long  have  you  been  cashier  of  the  bank  re- 
ferred to? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  Four  or  five  years. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  the  Mr.  Puelicher  referred  to  in  the  tes- 
timony just  given  by  Mr.  Edmonds  as  having  been  cashier  of  the 
Stephenson  campaign  fund,  are  you? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  Custodian  of  the  Stephenson  campaign  fund? 

The  Chairman.  Custodian? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  How  did  you  become  custodian  of  that  fund? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  Mr.  Stephenson,  a depositor  of  the  bank  and 
having  funds  in  the  bank,  asked  me  to  become  custodian  of  a certain 
fund  which  he  wished  to  disburse  in  this  campaign  to  meet  the 
expenses  of  the  primary  campaign. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  such  custodian  independently  of  your 
connection  with  the  bank? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  were  not  representing  the  bank  in  any  of  the 
transactions  with  reference  to  this  fund? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  I am  not. 

The  Chairman.  You  were  not? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  I was  not. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  money  did  you  receive  as  custodian  of 
the  Stephenson  campaign  fund;  and,  if  you  have  a memorandum, 
when  did  you  receive  the  amounts,  and  from  whom  ? 


J.  H.  PUELICHER. 


129 


Mr.  Puelicher.  I received  from  Isaac  Stephenson,  account  of 
senatorial  primary  campaign,  checks  as  follows  [referring  to  memo- 
randum] : On  June  28,  check  on  the  Stephenson  National  Bank  of 
Marienette,  through  J.  A.  Van  Cleve,  for  $2,000. 

The  Chairman.  Now,  just  before  proceeding,  inasmuch  as  your 
items  are  all  similar:  You  say  “through  J.  A.  Van  Cleve.”  Was 
that  check  accompanied  by  a letter  or  written  communication? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  I believe  that  check  was  handed  to  me. 

The  Chairman.  Proceed. 

Senator  Pomerene.  By  Senator  Stephenson,  I presume? 

The  Chairman.  By  Van  Cleve. 

Mr.  Puelicher.  I don’t  remember  that. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  If  the  chairman  wants  to  follow  along  the 
printed  book,  it  is  page  37. 

Mr.  Puelicher.  July  6,  on  Marshall  & Ilsley  Bank,  Milwaukee, 
payable  to  J.  A.  Van  Cleve,  $10,000;  on  July  30,  on  Marshall  & 
Ilsley  Bank,  Milwaukee,  payable  to  me,  $10,000;  August  7,  on  Mar- 
shall & Ilsley  Bank,  Milwaukee,  payable  to  me,  $30,000;  on  August 
20,  check  on  the  Corn  Exchange  National  Bank  of  Chicago,  payable 
to  J.  A.  Van  Cleve,  $15,000;  on  August  24,  on  the  Corn  Exchange 
National  Bank  of  Chicago,  payable  to  J.  A.  Van  Cleve,  $10,000;  on 
August  27,  check  on  the  Corn  Exchange  National  Bank  of  Chicago, 
payable  to  Rodney  Sacket,  $5,000;  on  August  31,  check  on  the  Corn 
Exchange  National  Bank  of  Chicago,  payable  to  J.  A.  Van  Cleve, 
$2,000;  on  September  3,  check  on  the  Corn  Exchange  National  Bank 
of  Chicago,  payable  to  J.  A.  Van  Cleve,  $13,500;  on  October  10. 
check  on  the  Stephenson  National  Bank,  Marinette,  payable  to  me, 
$3,700;  on  November  20,  check  on  the  Stephenson  National  Bank. 
Marinette,  payable  to  me,  $200.  Total,  $101,400. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  have  any  other  funds  deposited  with 
you  than  the  sums  just  named? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  To  be  used  in  the  primary  campaign  fund  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Puelicher.  None. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  explain  with  reference  to  an  item  of 
$50,000,  testified  to  by  Senator  Stephenson  as  a fund  that  was  the 
result  of  the  collection  made  in  his  behalf? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  Senator  Stephenson  had  no  check  account  with 
the  Marshall  & Ilsley  Bank.  We  occasionally  made  investments  for 
him.  This  $50,000  remained  in  the  hands  of  the  bank  as  the  result 
of  the  payment  of  an  investment  and  the  amount  had  not  been  re- 
invested and  was,  therefore,  being  held  in  the  bank  for  further 
orders  from  Senator  Stephenson. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  it  subject  to  his  check? 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  draw  against  that  fund  during  the  cam- 
paign ? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  He  exhausted  the  fund  during  the  campaign. 

The  Chairman.  Is  it  the  identical  fund  that  is  represented  by 
these  other  deposits?  Did  he  draw  the  checks  to  Van  Cleve  and 
others  against  that  fund  and  redeposit  them? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  The  three  checks  drawn  on  the  Marshall  & Ilsley 
Bank,  two  of  them  amounting  to  $10,000  each  and  one  of  them 
$30,000  exhausted  that  fund,  and  they  are  the  checks  mentioned  here. 

15235°— vol  3—11 


9 


130 


J.  H.  PUELICHER. 


The  Chairman.  So  that  there  is  no  additional  fund  represented 
by  the  $50,000? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  There  was  no  additional  fund. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Those  three  checks  were  the  ones  of  July  6. 
J uly  30,  and  August  30,  were  they  ? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  paid  out  this  money  that  is  represented  by 
the  deposits  that  you  referred  to ; upon  what  did  you  pay  it  out  ? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  Upon  the  order  of  the  campaign  manager  and 
the  office  manager,  as  directed  by  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  Was  any  of  it  paid  out  without  written  au- 
thority ? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  None. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  the  evidence  upon  which  you  acted  in 
paying  it  out  ? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  These  orders  were  turned  back  to  the  office  man- 
ager, against  his  receipt,  to  enable  him  to  make  up  his  statement. 

The  Chairman.  That  is,  to  Mr.  Sacket. 

Mr.  Puelicher.  To  Mr.  Sacket. 

The  Chairman.  Were  those  orders  uniform  in  manner  or  style? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  They  were  not. 

The  Chairman.  Were  they  on  printed  forms? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  They  were  not. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  pay  out  any  of  this  money  upon  verbal 
or  telephonic  information? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  Only  in  one  instance,  and  immediately  asked  for 
a requisition  to  cover  the  instance. 

The  Chairman.  You  paid  it  out  on  requisition  in  writing,  in  all 
cases  ? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  In  all  cases. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  exercise  any  supervision  as  to  the  use  for 
which  this  money  was  being  paid  out  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Let  me  inquire  here,  you  mean  in  all  cases  except 
this  one? 

The  Chairman.  He  says  that  was  represented  by  a requisition. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  represented  by  a requisition  later. 

Mr.  Puelicher.  Immediately  after  the  payment  was  made. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  there  is  a voucher  for  each  item? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  There  was. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  exercise  any  supervision  or  have  any 
knowledge  in  regard  to  the  use  to  which  the  money  was  to  be  put 
which  you  paid  out  ? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  No,  sir.  I acted  simply  as  banker. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  in  consultation  with  Mr.  Edmonds  or 
Mr.  Sacket  with  reference  to  the  manner  in  which  the  money  was  to 
be  expended  or  used  ? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  They  only  consulted  me  when  they  needed  money. 

The  Chairman.  Was  there  any  time  when  the  fund  was  exhausted? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  There  were  times  when  the  fund  was  very  low  and 
practically  exhausted. 

The  Chairman.  You  had  an  arrangement,  I suppose,  with  Mr. 
Stephenson  that  you  were  to  perform  these  services  ? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  I was  acting  under  direction  from  Senator  Ste- 
phenson. 


J.  H.  PUELICHER. 


131 


The  Chairman.  Did  you  undertake  your  duties  or  enter  upon  them 
before  Mr.  Edmonds  entered  upon  the  duties  of  manager  ? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  were  already  managing  some  funds  for  Mr. 
Stephenson  in  the  campaign? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  During  that  time,  prior  to  Mr.  Edmonds  taking 
hold  of  the  matter,  did  you  pay  out  any  money  on  account  of  the 
campaign  ? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  On  the  order  of  the  office  manager. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Sacket? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  Mr.  Sacket. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Mr.  Puelicher,  when  this  $50,000  was  collected 
by  your  bank,  did  Senator  Stephenson  have  any  evidence  of  it,  by 
way  of  a certificate  of  deposit  or  pass  book  or  something  of  that  kind  ? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  That  was  evidenced  by  a cashier’s  check,  and  Sen- 
ator Stephenson  was  advised  of  the  fact  that  the  amount  had  been 
collected  and  that  we  were  holding  at  his  disposal,  in  the  form  of  a 
cashier’s  check,  the  sum  of  $50,000,  we  expecting  shortly  to  reinvest 
it  for  him  and  we  having  carried  sums  for  Senator  Stephenson  in 
that  manner. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  mean  by  that  that  you  held  it  and  did 
not  send  the  certificate  to  him  ? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  We  advised  him  by  letter  that  we  held  the  cer- 
tificate. 

Senator  Pomerene.  But  you  did  not  send  it  to  him? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  We  did  not  send  it  to  him,  as  we  expected  to 
reinvest  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  When  these  several  payments  were  made,  two 
payments  of  $10,000  each  and  one  of  $30,000,  did  he  draw  a check 
on  that  account? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  Yes;  and  the  bank  considered  it  an  order  on  that 
sum,  although  he  was  not  authorized  to  check  on  the  sum,  and  some 
officer  of  the  bank  advised  him  in  writing  that  the  sum  which  we 
held  on  his  account  was  reduced  by  the  amount  which  he  had  ordered 
out  of  the  account. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  is,  as  a check  would  be  drawn  he  would 
be  advised  that  that  was  charged  on  that  certificate. 

Mr.  Puelicher.  A new  certificate,  in  that  instance,  would  be 
issued,  minus  the  amount  which  he  had  ordered  out  of  that  account. 

Senator  Pomerene.  When  did  he  first  talk  with  you  about  your 
acting  as  banker  or  treasurer  of  his  funds  ? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  Late  in  June  of  1908. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  was  said  between  you? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  He  said  to  me  that  he  had  an  amount  in  the 
Marshall  & Ilsley  Bank,  namely,  $50,000,  a part  or  all  of  which  he 
might  want  to  use  in  his  primary  campaign,  and  asked  me  to  dis- 
burse it  on  the  order  of  his  managers,  which  I did. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  he  name  the  managers  then? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  At  that  time  the  general  manager  had  not  been 
selected,  but  the  office  manager  had  been  appointed,  and  later  on  the 
general  manager  was  selected  and  I was  instructed 


132 


J.  H.  PUELICHER. 


Senator  Pomerene.  Who  was  this  office  manager? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  Rodney  Sacket. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  pay  out  this  money  on  Sachet’s  order 
or  Mr.  Edmonds’s  order? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  Either  on  the  order  of  Mr.  Sacket  or  Mr. 
Edmonds. 

Senator  Pomerene.  On  the  order  of  either  one  of  them. 

Mr.  Puelicher.  On  either.  Those  were  my  instructions.  I was 
to  pay  out  this  money  on  the  order  either  of  Senator  Stephenson, 
Mr.  Sacket,  the  office  manager,  or  the  general  manager. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  he  give  you  any  instructions  as  to  the 
method  of  account  that  you  were  to  keep? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  He  did  not. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Was  anything  said  to  you  about  cautioning 
you  against  illegal  expenditures  of  money? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  I was  not  concerned  in  the  purposes  of  the  fund. 

Senator  Pomerene.  No;  that  is  not  answering  the  question.  Was 
anything  said  on  the  subject? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  Nothing;  so,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  kept  no  book  account  of  your  transactions 
for  Mr.  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  I kept  an  absolute  record. 

Senator  Pomerene.  In  what  form? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  As  I received  the  deposits,  in  a memorandum 
form,  which  I furnished  Senator  Stephenson  later;  the  checks  were 
also  there,  and  held  the  requisitions  or  the  orders  on  me  as  evidence 
of  the  amount  which  I had  disbursed. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Perhaps  I have  not  made  myself  clear.  Did 
you  have  any  account  in  your  bank  books  with  Mr.  Stephenson  rela- 
tive to  this  matter? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  This  memorandum  or  account  which  you  may 
have  kept  was  an  individual  matter  of  your  own? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  An  individual  matter  of  my  own ; yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Have  you  that  original  memorandum  or  ac- 
count ? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  I have  only  the  final  receipt.  I held  the  orders 
until  the  account  was  made  up.  I checked  back  with  the  office  man- 
ager carefully  every  amount  which  I had  turned  over  to  him,  bal- 
anced my  account  with  his  account,  took  his  receipt  for  the  total 
which  I had  disbursed,  and  surrendered  the  orders  to  him. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Then  all  of  the  original  memoranda  you  had 
you  surrendered  at  the  time  that  he  gave  you  this  receipt  ? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  Except  that  there  are  in  the  bank  to-day,  in  the 
records  of  the  bank,  the  original  orders  for  cashier’s  checks  or  drafts 
with  which  the  managers  paid  the  expenses  of  this  campaign;  there 
are  the  stub  books  giving  the  numbers,  amounts,  payees,  and  dates; 
there  are  the  register  records  of  these,  drafts  and  cashier’s  checks 
which  the  managers  used;  there  are  the  drafts  and  cashier’s  checks 
themselves,  giving  the  date,  number,  amount,  payee,  and  all  the 
indorsements. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Those  w7ould  be  subject  to  inspection  by  the 
subcommittee  at  any  time  they  may  desire? 


J.  H.  PUELICHER. 


133 


Mr.  Puelicher.  Absolutely. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  said,  I believe,  there  was  no  general  form 
of  receipt  or  voucher  which  would  be  given  to  you  at  the  time  you 
disbursed  these  funds.  Were  these  receipts,  or  vouchers,  or  orders, 
whatever  you  may  call  them,  numbered  ? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  They  were  not.  They  were  dated. 

Senator  Pomerene.  In  the  account  that  was  filed  here  I notice  in 
very  many  of  the  items  there  are  numbers;  for  instance,  on  page  590: 
“ Waupaca  Co.,  33437,  R.  Rowe,  $35.25;  general,  No.  33436,  C.  C. 
Wayland ; ” next  number,  “ 33435 ; ” next  number,  “ 33434.”  Do  you 
know  what  those  numbers  mean  ? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  I had  no  personal  knowledge  of  those  numbers 
while  the  campaign  was  going  on,  but  subsequently,  during  the  inves- 
tigation by  the  legislative  committee,  I learned  that  those  were  the 
numbers  of  the  cashier’s  checks  that  were  used  in  the  payment  of 
these  items  and  are  now  on  file  in  the  bank.  Those  are  the  numbers 
of  the  cashier’s  checks  or  drafts  that  were  used  and  which  are  now 
on  file  in  the  bank. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Let  me  understand.  Then  if  an  order  came 
to  you — take  this  one,  for  illustration:  “ 33436,  C.  C.  Wayland, 
$49.18  ” — you  would  issue  then,  for  the  order,  a cashier’s  check  bear- 
ing this  number? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  No,  sir.  Those  are  the  numbers  of  the  cashier’s 
checks  of  the  bank  and  follow  consecutively  or  chronologically  in 
the  books  of  the  bank.  Those  numbers  were  put  in  at  a later  date, 
from  the  records  of  the  bank,  at  the  request  of  the  legislative  com- 
mittee at  Madison,  and  that  number  will  call  for  the  number  of  draft 
or  cashier’s  check  and  will  be  found  in  the  register  of  the  bank  under 
that  number  and  date. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Perhaps  I do  not  quite  understand  it.  T am 
trying  to  find  out  now — when  Mr.  Wayland,  for  instance,  would-  call, 
how  would  you  pay;  or,  if  somebody  else  would  call  with  an  order 
for  that  amount,  how  would  you  pay  him ; would  you  give  the  bearer 
of  that  order  a cashier’s  check  or  the  currency,  or  what? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  Ordinarily  the  office  manager  called,  or  some  one 
employed  by  him,  to  purchase,  to  the  order  of  the  person  designated, 
a cashier’s  check.  He  would  go  to  the 

Senator  Pomerene.  Suppose  he  did  that;  that  would  bear  one  of 
these  numbers,  would  it? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  One  of  those  numbers.  He  would  go  to  the  pay- 
ing teller  of  the  bank.  I should  like  to  state  that  my  duties  in  the 
campaign  were  merely  incidental.  I continued  my  employment  in 
the  bank  during  the  whole  period  and  was  gone  on  a vacation  a 
portion  of  the  time  and  they  were  conducted  by  the  regular  employees 
of  the  bank. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  was  the  reason  for  not  opening  up  an 
account  with  Senator  Stephenson  in  your  bank,  as  you  would  with 
any  other  customer  of  the  bank  ? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  Senator  Stephenson  never  requested  it.  AYe  had 
these  amounts  from  him  for  investment,  at  various  times,  and  every 
time  the  investment  was  paid  up  we  turned  it  into  cashier’s  check, 
awaiting  further  orders,  and  would  then  have  the  instrument  on 
hand  to  make  the  investment  immediately. 


134 


J.  H.  PUELICHER. 


Senator  Pomerene.  But,  Mr.  Puelicher,  you  were  advised  early, 
perhaps  in  the  latter  part  of  June  or  the  early  part  of  July,  that 
here  was  a matter  of  $50,000  that  he  was  going  to  expend  in  cam- 
paign purposes,  etc.,  as  might  be  directed  by  his  manager,  and  later 
on  you  received  additional  amounts,  etc.;  was  it  not  rather  unusual 
to  manage  this  account  in  the  way  that  you  did? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  I continued  the  account  just  as  it  had  been  run 
with  Senator  Stephenson  before.  He  made  no  request 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  ever  do  that  with  any  other  cus- 
tomer ? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  We  frequently  carried  funds  in  cashier’s  checks  in 
that  manner ; yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  was  the  purpose  of  doing  that  with  Mr. 
Stephenson  ? I do  not  care  about  the  others.  What  was  the  purpose 
of  handling  this  fund  in  this  particular  way  ? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  Mr.  Stephenson  did  not  request  that  an  account 
be  opened,  nor  did  he  authorize  an  account  opened,  so  I continued  it 
just  as  it  had  been  done  before,  thinking  that  an  efficient  way  of 
handling  it  as  far  as  I was  concerned. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  was  not  a careful  method  of  doing  things, 
was  it?  # 

Mr.  Puelicher.  I had  requisitions  for  everything  I paid  out  and 
kept  the  requisitions  until  I had  receipts  in  full  and  until  I saw  the 
statement  made. 

Senator  Pomerene.  These  funds  were  kept  in  the  bank,  were  they 
not? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  They  were  in  charge  of  some  of  the  officers  of  the 
bank  or  the  paying  teller  of  the  bank. 

Senator  Pomerene.  When  you  collected  this  $50,000  you  issued  a 
cashier’s  check  to  the  order  of  Senator  Stephenson  for  that  amount? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  No,  sir.  To  the  order  of  the  bank.  I beg  pardon. 

Senator  Pomerene.  To  the  order  of  the  bank  ? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Would  it  not  have  been  a simpler  way  to  have 
opened  up  an  account  there,  subject  to  some  man’s  check,  or  two  or 
three  men’s  checks,  as  the  exigencies  of  the  case  might  have  required, 
than  to  have  done  it  the  way  you  did  ? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  I don’t  know.  This  was  the  manner  in  which  it 
was  done  and  it  was  simply  a continuation  of  the  manner  in  which 
it  had  been  done  before.  I don’t  think  much  thought  was  given  to 
it  at  any  time. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Does  it  not  impress  you  now  as  being  rather 
out  of  the  ordinary  to  do  it  in  that  kind  of  way  ? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  No,  sir.  I rather  think  that  the  method  adopted 
by  the  managers  in  buying  cashier’s  checks  for  the  payment  of  their 
expenses,  which  would  leave  permanent  records  in  the  bank,  was 
rather  a good  way  of  handling  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I do  not  ask  for  names  now — do  not  care  to 
know  anything  about  them — but  is  the  bank  conducting  the  business 
of  any  of  its  depositors  or  customers  in  that  way  now  ? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  We  are  not  frequently  called  upon  and  did  not 
know  how  much  we  would  be  called  upon  to  handle  when  we  first 
started  this 


J.  H.  PUELICHER. 


135 


Senator  Pomerene.  Have  you  conducted  the  business  of  any  cus- 
tomer of  the  bank  in  this  way  since  the  occurrences  of  1908  and  1909? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  We  frequently  hold  funds  for  people  in  the  shape 
of  cashier’s  checks  subject  to  their  order. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  does  not  answer  my  question.  Have  you 
done  that  with  reference  to  any  other  customer  since  this  transaction 
of  Senator  Stephenson’s? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  We  have  had  no  transactions  of  that  magnitude 
since  that  time. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Have  you  had  any  of  that  character  since  that 
time  ? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  As  I said,  we  frequently  hold  funds  in  cashier’s 
checks  for  the  disposition  of  the  customers  of  the  bank. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  still  does  not  answer  my  question,  Mr. 
Puelicher. 

Mr.  Puelicher.  I don’t  seem  to  comprehend 

Senator  Pomerene.  Have  you  conducted  the  business  of  any  cus- 
tomer of  the  bank  since  this  affair  of  Senator  Stephenson  in  the 
same  style  or  manner  that  you  conducted  Senator  Stephenson’s  trans- 
actions? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  No  occasion  of  like  nature  has  arisen  since  Sena- 
tor Stephenson’s  transaction. 

Senator  Pomerene.  How  long  before  that  did  any  such  occasion 
transpire? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  Never,  to  my  knowledge,  have  we  conducted  any 
campaign  through  the  bank. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Then  it  was  out  of  the  order,  was  it  not? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  It  was  the  only  one  I know  about  and  seemed  to 
me  good  at  the  time. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  is  all. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  stated,  Mr.  Puelicher,  that  you  paid  out 
these  various  checks  as  directed  by  Senator  Stephenson;  are  we  to 
understand  by  that  that  he  gave  you  individual  direction  or  that  it 
was  in  accordance  with  the  general  direction  that  he  gave  you  in  the 
beginning? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  It  was  in  accordance  with  the  general  direction 
which  he  gave  me  in  the  beginning. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  It  did  not  apply  to  each  individual  transaction? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  Certainly  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  received  in  all,  I notice  by  the  account, 
something  like  $101,400,  which  was  not  all  disbursed  in  connection 
with  the  campaign;  will  you  be  kind  enough  to  state  whether  the 
balance  that  may  have  remained  in  your  hands  was  paid  over  to 
Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  It  was  returned  to  Senator  Stephenson. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  At  the  time  of  the  final  settlement? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  At  the  time  of  the  final  settlement. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is,  the  whole  thing  was  completed. 

Mr.  Puelicher.  The  whole  thing  was  completed. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I do  not  catch  that  question. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  sum  of  $101,400  does  not  appear  to  have  all 
been  disbursed  in  the  campaign,  leaving  a balance  in  his  hands.  My 


136 


JOHN  A.  VAN  CLEVE. 


inquiry  was  whether  at  the  time  of  the  final  settlement  the  balance 
was  paid  over  bv  him  to  Senator  Stephenson. 

Mr.  Piielicher.  It  was. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  was  the  balance  ? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  $3,316.28. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  the  amount  expended  was  how  much? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  $98,083.72;  and  it  should  balance  with  the  state- 
ment of  the  office  manager. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  was  the  date  of  that  payment,  Mr. 
Puelicher  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is,  the  settlement  with  the  Senator? 

Senator  Pomerene.  Yes. 

Mr.  Puelicher.  The  final  settlement  with  the  Senator  was  on 
March  6,  1909. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  all,  Mr.  Puelicher. 

Senator  Pomerene.  There  is  just  one  question  I want  to  ask.  You 
stated  that  when  you  made  this  settlement  you  turned  over  these 
vouchers  and  the  original  memoranda  you  had  to  some  one,  and  I am 
not  sure  that  you  stated  to  whom. 

Mr.  Puelicher.  The  office  manager.  s 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  is,  to  Mr.  Sacket? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  Mr.  Sacket. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Personally? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  Personally. 

Senator  Pomerene.  When  was  that;  do  you  know? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  I think  some  time  in  October  or  November. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Of  1908? 

Mr.  Puelicher.  Of  1908. 

The  Chairman.  The  witness  is  excused.  The  sergeant  at  arms  will 
call  the  names  of  H.  J.  Brown,  S.  L.  Perrin,  C.  C.  Wayland,  and 
Henry  Overbeck,  who  have  been  subpoenaed  as  witnesses. 

(The  sergeant  at  arms  called  the  names  of  the  persons  indicated, 
and  H.  J.  Brown,  C.  C.  Wayland,  and  Henry  Overbeck  responded 
and  appeared  and  were  sworn  by  the  chairman,  who  directed  them 
to  remain  in  attendance  until  called  to  the  witness  stand.) 

The  Chairman.  The  committee  will  take  a recess  until  2 o’clock. 

Whereupon,  at  12.30  o’clock  p.  m.,  the  subcommittee  took  a recess 
until  2 o’clock. 

A1TER  RECESS. 

At  the  expiration  of  the  recess  the  subcommittee  reassembled. 

TESTIMONY  OF  JOHN  A.  VAN  CLEVE. 

John  A.  Van  Cleve,  having  been  previously  sworn,  was  examined 
and  testified  as  follows: 

The  Chairman.  You  have  been  sworn  in  this  case.  Will  you  slate 
your  full  name? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  John  A.  Van  Cleve. 

The  Chairman.  Where  do  you  reside? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Marinette,  Wis. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  your  occupation? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  1 am  in  the  real  estate  and  banking  business. 


JOHN  A.  VAN  CLEVE. 


137 


The  Chairman.  How  long  have  you  resided  at  your  present  place 
of  residence? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  A little  over  38  years. 

The  Chairman.  You  had  some  connection  with  the  campaign  of 
Senator  Stephenson  in  1908,  did  you? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  connection  did  you  have  with  that  cam- 
paign ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  The  Senator  announced  his  candidacy  on  the  24th 
of  June,  1908.  Shortty  after  that  he  appointed  Mr.  Edmonds,  Mr. 
Puelicher,  and  me  as  a committee  to  look  after  his  campaign. 

The  Chairman.  Where  did  this  appointment  take  place? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  It  was  either  at  Marinette,  or  it  might  have  been 
here  at  Milwaukee. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  all  together  here  at  the  time? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  No,  sir. 

The  Chapman.  Who  was  present  at  any  time  when  you  were  pres- 
ent in  consultation  with  Senator  Stephenson  in  regard  to  it? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  I do  not  remember  just  exactly  when  that  was 
done,  but  it  was  done  very  shortly  after  he  announced  his  candidacy. 
He  appointed  the  three  whom  I have  just  mentioned  to  act  as  a cam- 
paign committee. 

The  Chairman.  What  duties  did  you  undertake  to  perform? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  I acted  as  the  home  member  of  that  committee. 
The  other  two  members  were  here  in  Milwaukee.  Mr.  Puelicher  and 
Mr.  Edmonds  were  in  Milwaukee  and  I was  in  Marinette.  I also 
took  charge  of  the  Marinette  County  campaign  for  Mr.  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  do  that  separately ; that  is,  as  a separate 
transaction  from  your  connection  with  the  State  committee  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Yes;  it  was  a separate  transaction. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  keep  an  account  of  moneys  received  and 
paid  out  by  you  in  connection  with  the  county  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  keep  it  separately  from  your  accounts  of 
the  State  campaign? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  an  account  of  the  moneys  expended  in 
the  State  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Of  the  moneys  that  went  through  my  hands? 

The  Chairman.  Of  the  moneys  expended  by  you  in  the  nature  of 
payments  to  the  credit  of  other  members  of  the  committee,  or  by  you 
personally. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  If  the  chairman  will  excuse  me,  in  your  question 
you  said,  “ State  campaign.”  You  mean  the  primary  campaign? 

The  Chairman.  The  witness  has  said  that  Senator  Stephenson 
appointed  three  members  as  his  State  campaign  committee;  that  is,  of 
his  campaign  in  the  State,  and  I used  the  expression  in  that  sense. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  refer  to  the  primary  campaign? 

The  Chairman.  I do  not  refer  to  the  primary  particularly.  I refer 
to  the  committee  that  Senator  Stephenson  is  said  by  this  witness  to 
have  appointed. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Very  well. 


138 


JOHN  A.  VAN  CLEVE. 


The  Chairman.  Can  you  produce  a statement  of  the  moneys  re- 
ceived and  paid  out  by  you  as  a member  of  that  committee  of  the 
State  campaign? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Will  you  do  so? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Yes,  sir;  I have  it  right  in  front  of  me. 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  your  original  account? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  It  is  taken  from  a memorandum  book  that  I kept 
at  the  time. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  that  memorandum  book? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  No,  sir;  I have  this  statement. 

The  Chairman.  Where  is  the  memorandum  book? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  At  Marinette. 

The  Chairman.  You  can  produce  that,  can  you? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Will  you  undertake  to  produce  it  without  a special 
subpoena  in  the  matter  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Please  do  so.  Now  for  the  present  we  will  take 
your  statement  from  the  memorandum. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Will  it  be  sufficient  if  he  mails  the  memorandum 
book  to  the  chairman  of  the  committee? 

The  Chairman.  We  want  to  see  it  while  the  committee  are  in  ses- 
sion. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I wish  to  have  that  done  to-day.  Can  it  not 
be  mailed  here  to-day  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Could  it  be  mailed  here  to-day  before  we  get 
through  this  afternoon  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  No. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Could  you  get  it  by  telephoning  for  it? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  No,  sir;  it  is  in  my  safe.  Nobody  but  myself  has 
the  combination ; but  there  is  absolutely  nothing  in  it  but  what  I 
have  here. 

The  Chairman.  Proceed  to  give  us  the  items. 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  In  connection  with  this  committee  that  the  Sena- 
tor appointed,  $52,500  passed  through  my  hands.  On  June  28  I sent 
to  Mr.  Puelicher  a check  for  $2,000  on  the  Stephenson  National 
Bank. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Is  that  your  bank? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  That  is  our  bank  at  Marinette — the  Stephenson 
National  Bank  of  Marinette. 

The  Chairman.  From  whom  did  you  receive  the  $2,000? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  From  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  In  what  form  or  shape? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  It  was  a check  for  $2,000  on  the  Stephenson 
National  Bank,  in  my  favor,  which  I endorsed  over  to  Mr.  Puelicher, 
and  it  was  sent  to  him. 

The  Chairman.  You  received  a check.  What  did  you  do  with  it? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  I sent  it  to  Mr.  Puelicher,  or  handed  it  to  him. 
I might  have  handed  it  to  him.  He  got  it. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  what  Mr.  Puelicher  did  with  that 
$2,000  check? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  No,  sir. 


JOHN  A.  VAN  CLEVE. 


139 


The  Chairman.  What  was  the  next  sum  of  money? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  The  next  item  was  on  July  6,  a check  for  $10,000, 
on  the  Marshall  & Ilsley  Bank. 

The  Chairman.  Where  is  that  bank? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Here  in  Milwaukee. 

The  Chairman.  Who  gave  you  that  check? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  Was  it  a check? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Tn  the  usual  form  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  I think  so.  That  is  my  recollection. 

The  Chairman.  To  whose  order  was  it? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  To  my  order. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  do  with  it? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  I sent  it  to  Mr.  Puelicher. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  indorse  it? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Yes,  I indorsed  it  over  to  Mr.  Puelicher,  and  sent 
it  to  him. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  any  knowledge  as  to  what  Mr.  Pue- 
licher did  with  that  money? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  a copy  of  the  letter  transmitting  it  to 
Mr.  Puelicher? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  say  in  transmitting  it,  as  to  the 
purpose  you  had  in  doing  so? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Of  course  he  understood  all  that.  I do  not  re- 
member, but  T do  not  suppose  I said  anything  any  more  than  I wrote 
a letter  to  him  and  told  him  that  I inclosed  a check  for  campaign 
purposes. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  the  next  item? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  August  20,  a check  for  $15,000  on  the  Corn 
Exchange  Bank  of  Chicago. 

The  Chairman.  Who  gave  you  that  check? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  do  with  it  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  I indorsed  it  over  to  the  Marshall  & Ilsley  Bank 
and  sent  it  to  Mr.  Puelicher. 

The  Chairman.  What  conversation  or  correspondence  took  place 
between  you  and  Senator  Stephenson  at  the  time  he  gave  you  this 
check  for  $15,000  as  to  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  to  be  used? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Well,  the  purpose  of  course  was 

The  Chairman.  No;  I want  to  know  what  conversation  took  place. 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  I do  not  recollect  in  particular. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  refresh  your  memory  and  recollect  what 
conversation  took  place? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  In  regard  to  this  particular  check? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  No.  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  Senator  Stephenson  hand  it  to  you  person- 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  I think  he  did;  yes,  sir.  I know  that  I got  it.  I 
know  it  passed  through  my  hands,  and  that  I indorsed  it  over  to  the 
Marshall  & Ilsley  Bank. 


140 


JOHN  A.  VAN  CLEVE. 


The  Chairman.  Yes ; I understand  that,  but  I want  to  know  what 
was  said  by  Senator  Stephenson  at  the  time  he  gave  you  that  check. 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  I do  not  remember. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  remember? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  No,  sir;  there  is  nothing  that  would  make  me 
remember. 

The  Chairman.  Does  he  frequently  hand  you  a check  for  $15,000 
without  accompanying  it  with  any  statement? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Of  course  we  all  understood  what  it  was  for. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  say  anything  when  he  handed  you  that 

check  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  I did  not  say  anything,  any  more  than  to  indorse 
it  over  to  the  Marshall  & Ilsley  Bank  and  send  it  to  Mr.  Puelicher. 

The  Chairman.  Did  Mr.  Stephenson  tell  you  this  was  for  cam- 
paign purposes? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Of  course  that  was  understood.  I do  not  know 
that  he  told  me  that  when  he  handed  me  the  check,  but  that  was 
understood,  that  it  was  for  campaign  purposes. 

The  Chairman.  When  he  gave  you  the  first  check  for  $2,000  on 
June  28  that  was  the  beginning  of  the  financial  transaction.  Did  he 
make  any  statement  to  you  as  to  the  purpose  he  had  in  giving  you 
that  check  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Of  course  he  gave  it  to  me  for  that  purpose,  for 
campaign  purposes. 

The  Chairman.  I am  asking  you  if  Senator  Stephenson  made  any 
statement  to  you. 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  I do  not  recollect  what  words  he  might  have  used, 
but  I do  know  that  he  gave  it  to  me  for  that  purpose. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  have  a conversation  as  to  the  fur- 
nishing or  handing  to  you  of  this  money  by  Senator  Stephenson? 
When  did  you  have  any  conversation  about  it? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Bight  at  the  beginning  of  the  campaign,  when 
the  campaign  opened  and  this  committee  was  appointed;  then  when- 
ever funds  were  needed  the  matter  was  taken  up  from  time  to  time. 

The  Chairman.  No  ; but  I want  to  know  when  you  first  had  a con- 
versation in  regard  to  Senator  Stephenson  furnishing  this  money  to 
you  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  T could  not  tell  you  the  exact  time,  any  more  than 
that  it  was  shortly  after  he  announced  his  candidacy. 

The  Chairman.  Was  it  at  the  time  that  you  were  handed  the  $2,000 
check  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Shortly  after;  yes. 

The  Chairman.  After? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  That  is,  he  announced  his  candidacy  on  June  24. 
and  this  check  was  handed  to  me  on  June  28,  four  days  after. 

The  Chairman.  What  conversation  had  you  in  the  meantime,  or 
between  June  24  and  June  28,  that  resulted  in  his  handing  you  this 

check  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  I say,  he  had  appointed  me  one  of  the  committee  to 
look  after  his  campaign,  and  he  expected  me  to 

The  Chairman.  I would  rather  have  a statement  as  to  what  he  said, 
because  what  he  expected  in  the  matter  he  only  can  testify  to. 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  I do  not  remember  just  what  he  said. 


JOHN  A.  VAN  CLEVE. 


141 


The  Chairman.  Can  you  remember  any  conversation  or  any  part 
of  a conversation  that  resulted  in  his  handing  you  checks  of  these 
amounts? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  All  I remember  is  that  he  appointed  me  a member 
of  this  committee,  and  a part  of  my  duty  was 

The  Chairman.  You  have  stated  that,  but  there  must  have  been 
some  conversation. 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  I say  I do  not  recollect  it. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  have  any? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  I do  not  recollect  it.  All  I know  as  a matter  of 
fact  is  that  he  gave  me  $2,000  for  that  purpose,  and  I transmitted  it 
to  Mr.  Puelicher. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose  did  he  give  it  to  you? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  For  campaign  expenses. 

The  Chairman.  What  expenses? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  All  kinds  of  campaign  expenses. 

The  Chairman.  Enumerate  some  of  them. 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Of  course,  a large  part  of  the  campaign  expenses 
were  in  advertising,  postage,  and  everything  of  that  kind. 

The  Chairman.  At  the  time  this  money  was  given  to  you,  was  it 
stated  to  be  for  advertising? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Why  did  Mr.  Stephenson  send  these  checks  through 
you  to  Mr.  Puelicher  instead  of  sending  them  direct? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  As  far  as  that  is  concerned,  he  might  have  sent 
them  directly  to  Mr.  Puelicher,  but  I was  a member  of  this  committee 
of  three.  My  office  is  right  next  door  to  his,  and,  of  course,  I was 
very  much  interested  in  the  campaign,  and  helped  him  all  I could  in 
the  county  there,  and  when  this  money  was  wanted  I would  go  into 
the  Senator’s  office  and  talk  matters  over,  and,  after  everything  had 
been  considered,  he  would  have  a check  drawn  for  whatever  amount 
was  asked  for. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  you  talked  matters  over.  What  was  said 
in  talking  matters  over? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  I can  not  remember  just  the  conversation  that  was 
had,  any  more  than  that  the  checks  that  were  given  me  would  indicate 
that  they  were  for  campaign  purposes,  of  course. 

The  Chairman.  Those  conclusions  are  not  testimony.  I want  to 
know  what  was  said  when  Senator  Stephenson  gave  you  that  first 
check  of  $2,000. 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  I say  that  I do  not  remember  just  what  was  said, 
except  that  I do  know  it  was  for  campaign  purposes. 

The  Chairman.  Aside  from  the  question  of  remembering  the  exact 
language,  can  it  be  possible  that  you  can  remember  everything  else 
as  to  this  matter,  and  not  remember  even  the  purport  of  the  conver- 
sation that  transpired  at  that  time  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  I say  that  was  the  purport — that  that  was  given  to 
me  for  campaign  purposes. 

The  Chairman.  What  campaign  purposes? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  I was  not  disbursing  the  money.  I did  not  dis- 
burse any  of  this  money  that  was  sent  down  here.  I simply  found 
out  that  it  was  needed,  and  the  Senator  gave  me  the  checks,  and  I sent 
them  down  here. 


142 


JOHN  A.  VAN  CLEVE. 


The  Chairman.  How  did  you  know  the  checks  were  to  be  sent  to 
Mr.  Puelicher? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Because  that  was  the  arrangement  we  had. 

The  Chairman.  With  whom? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  With  Mr.  Puelicher. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  “ the  arrangement  we  had.”  Whom  do 
you  mean  by  “ we  ”? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  The  way  that  was  organized  was  like  this:  Bight 
on  the  start,  after  the  campaign  opened,  the  Senator,  as  I say,  ap- 
pointed Mr.  Edmonds  his  campaign  manager,  and  Mr.  Puelicher; 
that  is,  Mr.  Edmonds,  of  course,  was  here  in  Milwaukee.  He  also 
appointed  Mr.  Puelicher  his  campaign  banker,  as  you  might  say, 
or  custodian,  as  he  called  himself  this  morning;  and  I being  at  home 
there  with  the  Senator,  I did  what  I could  there;  and  the  way  most 
of  those  checks  wTere  sent  down  was  something  like  this:  Mr.  Pue- 
licher, during  the  course  of  the  afternoon,  would  call  me  up  and  say 
that  more  funds  were  needed ; that  funds  had  got  to  be  secured  right 
off,  or  something  to  that  effect,  and  I would  go  into  the  Senator’s 
office  and  we  would  talk  matters  over,  and  the  result  of  the  conversa- 
tion would  be  that  he  would  ask  his  secretary  to  draw  a check.  I do 
not  know  for  sure  why  the  check  was  drawn  to  me,  any  more  than  that 
I was  a member  of  that  committee.  It  could  just  as  well  have  been 
drawn  to  Mr.  Puelicher  as  to  me,  but  as  a matter  of  fact  he  had  the 
checks  drawn  in  my  favor,  and  I indorsed  them  over  either  to  Mr. 
Puelicher  or  to  the  Marshall  & Ilsley  Bank  and  sent  them  to  Mr. 
Puelicher. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  make  any  effort  to  ascertain  for  what 
purposes  the  money  would  be  used  when  you  forwarded  it  to  Mr. 
Puelicher. 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  No,  sir;  that  was  not  a part  of  my  business. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  not  feel  any  interest  in  knowing  whether 
the  money  would  be  used  for  the  purpose  of  purchasing  voters,  or 
for  other  purposes? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  I knew  it  was  being  used  for  campaign  purposes, 
but  further  than  that  I did  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  What  do  you  mean  by  “ campaign  purposes”? 
What  do  you  include? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Of  course  campaign  organizing,  in  the  way  of  ad- 
vertising in  the  papers;  and  of  course  there  was  an  office  down  here, 
a headquarters,  15  or  20  girls  at  work  sending  out  literature,  and  all 
that  kind  of  thing.  Mr.  Edmonds  has  told  you  this  morning  how  he 
used  the  funds. 

The  Chairman.  You  sent  $12,000  down  here  within  a week? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  What  date  was  that  ? 

The  Chairman.  You  sent  $2,000  and  $10,000. 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  not  make  any  inquiry  as  to  why  they 
needed  so  large  a sum  of  money  for  campaign  purposes? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  No,  sir;  I did  not,  because  the  campaign  managers 
here  in  Milwaukee  were  attending  to  that  end  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  But  you  were  connecting  yourself  financially  with 
a matter  that  might  or  might  not  have  been  unlawful,  and  might  or 
might  not  have  made  you  responsible  under  the  law.  Did  you  make 


JOHN  A.  VAN  CLEVE.  143 

no  inquiry  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  whether  or  not  the  ex- 
penditures would  be  within  the  law  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  All  I know  about  that  is  that  the  Senator  had  ad- 
vised his  campaign  managers  here,  Mr.  Puelicher  and  Mr.  Ed- 
monds, to  keep  inside  of  the  law,  and  I of  course  presumed  that  they 
were  doing  so,  and  I think  now  that  they  did. 

The  Chairman.  On  August  20  there  was  a payment  of  $15,000. 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  A payment  of  $15,000  on  August  20. 

The  Chairman.  You  forwarded  that  to  Mr.  Puelicher,  did  you? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Yes,  sir;  in  the  same  way. 

The  Chairman.  Did  anyone  instruct  you  to  do  that  or  did  you  do 
it  under  the  general  understanding  that  you  had? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  I did  it  in  the  way  that  I have  just  tried  to 
explain. 

The  Chairman.  You  need  not  go  over  that.  My  question  compre- 
hends that.  Did  you  do  this  under  any  special  arrangement  or 
pursuant  to  the  general  plan  that  you  had  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  It  was  in  pursuance  of  the  general  plan. 

The  Chairman.  When  Mr.  Stephenson  gave  you  that  $15,000,  you 
say  he  made  no  statement  to  you  as  to  the  uses  to  which  you  were  to 
put  it? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  When  was  the  next  date? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  August  24 — $10,000. 

The  Chairman.  In  what  shape  did  you  receive  that  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  He  gave  me  a check  on  the  Corn  Exchange  Bank, 
of  Chicago,  in  my  favor,  for  $10,000,  which  I indorsed  over  to  the 
Marshall  & Ilsley  Bank  and  sent  to  Mr.  Puelicher. 

The  Chairman.  In  that  case  you  indorsed  it  to  the  bank  and  re- 
turned it  to  Mr.  Puelicher?  Is  that  the  only  case  in  which  you 
indorsed  a check  to  the  bank? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  No;  there  were  four  cases.  Four  of  the  checks 
were  indorsed  over  to  the  Marshall  & Ilsley  Bank. 

The  Chairman.  And  the  others  to  Mr.  Puelicher? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  The  others  to  J.  H.  Puelicher. 

The  Chairman.  Why  did  you  vary  your  custom  in  that  regard  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  I do  not  know.  I did  not  do  it  for  any  purpose. 
I will  tell  you  one  thing  that  perhaps  was  in  my  mind.  I thought 
Mr.  Puelicher  would  be  away  from  home  part  of  the  time.  He  goes 
down  to  Chicago  and  around  to  different  places,  and  I presumed  that 
he  had  an  arrangement  there  at  the  bank,  so  that  if  he  was  not  there 
the  very  day  the  check  got  there  the  people  in  the  bank  would  take 
care  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  the  next  date  on  which  you  received 
money  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  August  31 — $2,000. 

The  Chairman.  From  whom  did  you  receive  that  amount? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  In  what  shape  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  A check  on  the  Corn  Exchange  Bank. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  do  with  the  check? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  I indorsed  it  over  to  the  Marshall  & Ilsley  Bank 
and  sent  it  to  Mr.  Puelicher. 


144 


JOHN  A.  VAN  CLEVE. 


The  Chairman.  What  is  the  next  date  on  which  you  received 
money  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  September  3. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  the  day  after  the  primary  election,  was 
it  not? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Yes,  sir;  a day  or  two  after;  perhaps  the  day 
sfter,  maybe. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  the  amount  of  that  check? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  That  was  $13,500,  on  the  Corn  Exchange  Bank,  of 
Chicago,  which  I indorsed  over  to  the  Marshall  & Ilsley  Bank  and 
sent  to  Mr.  Puelicher.  That  $52,000  was  the  entire  amount  that  went 
through  my  hands  to  Milwaukee. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Let  me  understand  you.  The  first  payment 
was  $2,000  and  the  second  was  how  much  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  $10,000. 

The  Chairman.  There  was  a smaller  payment  made  by  Senator 
Stephenson  to  you  on  November  28 — $71.35.  What  was  that  for? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  That  was  sent  to  Charles  H.  Ross,  of  Cavour,  in 
Forest  County,  for  services  that  he  rendered  there  in  the  primary 
campaign. 

The  Chairman.  What  services? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  That  country  up  there  in  Forest  County  is  a 
sparsely  settled  country,  and  in  order  to  assist  voters  to  get  to  the 
polls  he  spent  some  money  that  way.  He  made  a regular  itemized 
bill  and  sent  it  to  me  and  I turned  it  over  to  the  legislative  committee. 
1 have  not  got  that  bill,  but  it  was  an  itemized  bill,  and  that  was  the 
exact  amount  of  it.  He  did  not  charge  anything  for  his  own  services, 
but  it  was  just  disbursements  that  he  made  for  teams  and  work  of 
that  kind.  Some  of  it,  I think,  was  for  railroad  fare. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  that  man’s  name? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Charles  H.  Ross. 

The  Chairman.  He  furnished  you  a written  statement  of  the 
items  of  expenditure  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  charge  something  for  his  own  services? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  He  paid  it  all  out  to  others? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  We  have  not  that  statement.  Did  you  interest 
yourself  at  all  to  ascertain  for  what  these  large  sums  of  money  were 
being  used  in  the  campaign?  Did  you  interest  yourself  at  all  to 
ascertain  the  purpose  for  which  they  were  being  used  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  I knew,  in  a general  way,  for  what  purpose  they 
were  being  used.  I did  not  have  anything  to  do  with  the  disbursing 
of  the  money. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  make  any  contracts  for  the  payment  of 
any  portion  of  this  money? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  you  knew  was  what  you  may  have  been  told 
by  your  associates? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  They  disbursed  the  money.  Those  six  checks, 
aggregating  $52,500,  came  down  here  to  Milwaukee  and  were  dis- 
bursed by  the  people  here — b}^  the  committee  and  those  who  were 


JOHN  A.  VAN  CLEVE. 


145 


here — and  I did  not  have  anything  to  do  with  the  disbursing  of  the 
money. 

The  Chairman.  You  were  at  the  legislature  when  it  was  in  ses- 
sion? You  were  in  attendance  at  the.  legislature  when  it  was  in 
session  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  At  the  time  of  the  election  of  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  No,  sir;  not  the  day  that  he  was  elected. 

The  Chairman.  Prior  to  that  time? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  I think  I was  out  there  once  or  twice;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Once  or  twice  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  participate  in  creating  a sentiment  in 
favor  of  the  election  of  Senator  Stephenson  at  that  time  when  you 
were  there,  or  at  those  times? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  No,  sir;  I was  not  there  for  that  purpose.  The 
way  that  I happened  to  be  there,  I guess,  was  because  I am  a member 
of  the  State  capitol  commission,  that  is  building  the  new  capitol, 
and  I went  there  on  business  connected  with  that.  I just  happened 
to  be  there.  I do  not  think  I spoke  to  a member  while  I was  there, 
except  our  local  man,  maybe. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  furnish  any  money  for  the  purpose  of 
paying  the  expenses  of  Stephenson’s  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Myself? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  No;  not  to  speak  of. 

The  Chairman.  And  did  not  pay  out  any  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Not  anything  to  speak  of.  I may  have  expended 
a few  dollars ; not  more  than  $25  or  $50. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  pay  out  any  money  yourself  other 
than  what  you  sent  to  Mr.  Puelicher  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Yes.  I paid  out  $792.75  for  our  campaign  ex- 
penses in  Marinette  County. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  keep  an  account  of  the  persons  to 
whom  that  was  paid? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Yes;  I kept  an  exact  account  of  it  and  turned  each 
statement  over  to  Harry  J.  Brown,  the  cashier  of  our  bank,  and  he 
gave  me  a check  for  it  after  the  campaign  was  over. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  has  become  of  that  statement  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  The  statement  was  filed  with  the  legislative  com- 
mittee, but  I have  a copy  of  it  in  my  pocket,  if  you  would  like  to 
see  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Will  you  leave  that  here  with  us? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  make  the  copy? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  I made  a copy  from  the  book. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  have  compared  it,  so  that  you  know  it  is 
a copy? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Yes;  it  is  an  exact  copy. 

Mr.  Black.  Senator,  you  will  find  a copy  of  that  at  page  1152, 
being  Exhibit  81,  in  the  testimony  before  the  joint  committee. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  had  some  hesitation  about  giving  this 
to  the  legislative  committee,  I believe,  had  you  not? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  About  what? 

15235°— vol  1—11 10 


146 


JOHN  A.  VAN  CLEVE. 


Senator  Pomerene.  I say  you  hesitated  about  giving  this  informa- 
tion to  the  legislative  committee  when  they  were  investigating  it? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Yes.  I will  tell  you  the  reason  I hesitated.  I 
did  not  hesitate  to  give  them  the  figures,  but  of  course  this  money 
had  been  paid  out  to  a lot  of  my  friends  up  there  and  I did  not  care 
to  give  the  names  to  the  committee,  but  the  committee  finally  insisted 
upon  it  and  I gave  them  the  names. 

Senator  Pomerene.  As  a member  of  the  committee  having  in 
charge  the  senatorial  campaign,  you  knew  that  the  law  required  that 
an  account  be  filed  giving  the  names  of  the  persons  to  whom  the 
money  was  paid  and  the  amounts  paid  and  the  purpose  for  which 
paid,  did  you  not? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Yes;  and  I gave  them  that  statement. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  did  later? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  knew,  of  course,  that  you  could  not  avoid 
making  that  public? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Well,  there  was  a question  about  it.  This  paper 
which  I hand  you  now  is  what  I wanted  to  give  them — at  least  what 
I proposed  to  give  them.  I wanted  to  give  them  a statement  showing 
what  I paid  out  in  each  precinct.  Of  course,  the  amounts  are  all 
comparatively  small,  and  I thought  it  was  unnecessary  to  give  the 
names. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I will  ask  the  reporter  to  mark,  as  an  exhibit, 
the  statement  which  Mr.  Van  Cleve  has  given  of  his  disbursements 
in  Marinette  County. 

(The  paper  referred  to  was  marked  “ Exhibit  Van  Cleve  1,”  and  is 
as  follows :) 


Disbursements  by  J.  A.  Van  Cleve  in  Isaac  Stephenson's  1908  primary  campaign 
in  Marinette  County,  Wis. 


1908. 


Aug.  19.  Postage $2.25 

26.  Ink  pad • 10 

25.  H.  Shoemaker  (German  paper) 1 25.  00 

27.  E.  P.  Gustafson 1.  00 

27.  J.  B.  Wood 25.  00 

27.  Postage 2.00 

28.  William  Suelflolm 25.00 

29.  Postage 2.  00 

29.  Herman  Sewald 5.  00 

29,  Robert  Behnke 5.00 

29.  J.  L.  Gray 5.  00 

29.  Gus  Felmer 5.  00 

29.  D.  C.  Taylor 10.  00 

29.  Mathias  Martens 5.  00 

29.  Charles  Wunderlich 10.  0C 

29.  Samuel  Grochowski 5.  00 

29.  M.  Zieghan 5.  00 

29.  P.  Tobison 5.  00 

29.  Thomas  F.  Malony 5.  00 

29.  John  P.  Anderson ' 5.  On 

29.  Hugh  Baylert 10.  00 

29.  William  Wood 5.  00 

29.  G.  L.  Forsen  (Scandinavian  paper) 1 25.  00 

29.  George  E.  Bogrand 1 15.  00 

29.  J.  F.  Slight 1 9.  00 

31.  Joseph  Cota  Marek 1 20.  00 


Cheek  made  to  Elmer  Grimmer. 


JOHN  A.  VAN  CLEVE. 


147 


1908. 

Sept.  1.  Fred  Hutchinson $20.  00 

2.  Philip  Wood 5.  00 

2.  John  Westberg 5.  00 

3.  Charles  Hawn 5.  00 

3.  Joseph  Rondeau 6.  00 

3.  Alexander  Lindsay • 5.  00 

3.  Ralph  Skidmore 1 8.  50 

3.  M.  K resky 5.  00 

3.  John  Cox 2.  00 

4.  Joseph  Younger 5.  00 

4.  A1  Holquist 5.  00 

4.  Leo  La  Comb 10.  ()0 

4.  Andrew  Christoplierson 10.  00 

4.  Hans  Johnson 5.  CO 

4.  Fred  Ilubbel 5.  00 

4.  H.  Rydahl 10.  00 

4.  August  Johnson 5.  00 

4.  Adolph  Behnke 5.  00 

4.  Holquist  Livery 1 21.50 

4.  Gregory  & Race 1 ■ 90 

4.  S.  D.  Woodward 1 1 3.  00 

5.  Elmer  Grimmer 1 15.  00 

5.  D.  F.  Po\  er 1 15.  00 

5.  William  Suelflohn 5.  00 

14.  H.  J.  Place  Livery 5.  00 

14.  Lawrence  Barrett  (Peshtigo  Times) 25.00 

14.  F.  E.  Noyes 200.  00 

14.  Antone  Larson 5.  00 

14.  Walter  Nichols 5.00 

14.  E.  P.  Gustafson 4 00 

14.  Eagle  Printing  Co 1 65.  00 

14.  Brown  Livery 1 28.  50 

15.  Fred  Clantier 15.  00 

15.  Fred  Le  Roy 10.  00 

15.  Eugene  King 5.00 


792.  75 


Paid  by  check,  amount 284.  40 

Cash  disbursements 508.  35 


792.  75 

Senator  Pomerene.  Your  subsequent  statement  contains  all  the  in- 
formation except  the  names  of  the  persons  to  whom  the  money  was 
paid? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Yes;  it  shows  the  disbursements  in  each  precinct. 
Here  are  all  of  the  precincts  in  the  county,  from  here  down.  It 
shows,  for  instance,  the  largest  amount  paid  out  in  any  one  precinct, 
$35.  Some  of  them  were  only  $25  and  some  $30. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Of  course  you  knew  that  did  not  comply  with 
the  law  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  I did  not  think  anything  about  it  at  the  time. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  have  anything  to  do  with  the  em- 
ployment of  the  assistants  about  the  headquarters? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Down  here? 

Senator  Pomerene.  Yes. 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Who  employed  Mr.  Sacket? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  I do  not  know,  except  that  I presume  Senator 
Stephenson  did. 


1 Check  made  to  Elmer  Grimmer. 


148 


JOHN  A.  VAN  CLEVE. 


Senator  Pomerene.  When  you  made  out  the  statement  of  your 
expenditures,  to  whom  did  you  give  it? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  To  Mr.  Brown,  the  cashier  of  our  bank. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  did  he  do  with  it,  if  you  know  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  He  gave  me  a check  for  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  did  that  statement  remain  then  in  the 
hands  of  the  bank? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Until  it  was  turned  over  to  the  legislative  com- 
mittee ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  It  was  not  then  turned  over  to  Senator  Steph- 
enson ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  I do  not  think  it  was.  I do  not  know  for  sure. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Was  a duplicate  or  a copy  of  it  turned  over 
to  him? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  I do  not  know  for  sure. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Was  your  expense  account  at  any  time  sub- 
mitted to  him,  or  anyone  for  him,  to  audit  it  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Well,  Mr.  Brown,  of  course,  was  Mr.  Stephen- 
son’s son-in-law,  and  I presume  likely  he  showed  it  to  him. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  is  Mr.  Brown’s  first  name? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Harry  J.  Brown. 

Senator  Pomerene.  When  it  came  to  the  filing  of  the  expense  ac- 
count with  the  secretary  of  state  did  you  assist  in  the  preparation  of 
that  account? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Were  you  consulted  about  it? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Were  you  present  at  any  time  when  that  mat- 
ter was  talked  over? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  ever  talk  with  the  Senator  about  it? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Not  that  I recollect  now. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Do  you  know  of  any  other  funds  that  were 
paid  out  by  Mr.  Brown  in  connection  with  this  election  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I note  that  you  state  you  paid  out  $52,500. 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  That  was  in  the  six  checks  that  were  sent  down 
to  Mr.  Puelicher. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  wTas  sent  to  Mr.  Puelicher? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Yes;  six  checks. 

Senator  Pomerene.  J.  H.  Puelicher? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  He  had  in  bank  $50,000,  did  he  not  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  I do  not  know. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  learned  of  $50,000  being  in  the  Marshall 
& Usley  Bank  here? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  All  I know  about  it  is  what  I have  heard  about  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  that  that  represented  the  amount  of  the 
loan  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  I say  I do  not  know  it  as  a matter  of  fact;  I 
have  heard  it. 


JOHN  A.  VAN  CLEVE. 


149 


Senator  Pomerene.  Assuming  there  were  $50,000,  then  with  your 
$52,500  it  would  make  $102,500. 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  There  was  $10,000  of  that  in  a check  on  that 
$50,000  fund.  That  was  the  only  check  on  that  fund — the  second 
check  for  $10,000.  That  was  sent  here  July  6,  and  was  on  the 
Marshall  & Ilsley  Bank. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  $10,000  check  on  the  Marshall  & Ilsley 
Bank  you  include  in  the  $52,500? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Yes;  that  July  6 check  came  out  of  the  $50,000. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  is  a matter  that  I did  not  understand 
from  comparing  the  figures  here  with  the  statement  which  Mr. 
Puelicher  gave  as  to  the  amount  that  he  had  received. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  It  made  an  apparent  discrepancy. 

Senator  Pomerene.  An  apparent  discrepancy;  yes.  Do  you  know 
of  any  other  funds  that  were  disbursed  in  the  matter  of  this  election, 
either  as  to  the  primary  or  the  general  election  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  No,  sir.  All  I know  about  is  the  $52,500  that  were 
sent  down  here  in  six  checks  that  you  have  just  enumerated,  and  the 
$792.75  that  I disbursed  in  Marinette  County,  and  the  $71.35  that  was 
sent  to  Charles  H.  Ross,  of  Cavour.  That  is  all  I know  about  in 
connection  with  this  campaign  which  had  anything  to  do  with  it  in 
any  shape  or  manner. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  did  Senator  Stephenson  say  to  you  about 
the  subject  of  the  expenditure  of  money  at  any  time  in  connection 
with  this  campaign? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  I will  tell  you  this  much,  that  when  these  requests 
came  from  Milwaukee,  usually  I Avould  be  called  up  in  the  afternoon 
by  Mr.  Puelicher,  and  he  would  tell  me  that  the  funds  were  getting 
low,  and  we  had  to  have  more,  etc.  I would  go  into  Senator  Steph- 
enson’s office  and  talk  the  matter  over.  He  was  very  much  opposed 
to  giving  any — — 

Senator  Pomerene.  Just  tell  us  what  was  said. 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  I do  not  remember  his  exact  remarks. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Give  the  substance  of  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Take,  for  instance,  the  first  conversation  of 
that  character  that  you  had  with  him.  If  you  can  not  give  the  con- 
versation, give  it  in  substance. 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  The  substance  was  that  he  thought  they  were  ex- 
pending too  much  money  down  here ; he  did  not  want  to  “ put  up,” 
as  you  might  say,  he  did  not  want  to  send  as  much  as  they  were  ask- 
ing for.  He  was  very  much  opposed  to  doing  it.  The  campaign 
cost  him  I think  two  or  three  times  as  much  as  he  ever  had  any  idea  it 
would. 

Senator  Pomerene.  When  he  would  speak  in  the  manner  that  you 
have  indicated,  what  did  he  finally  do? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  I would  go  in  in  the  afternoon,  and  go  back 
again  in  the  evening,  maybe,  and  would  canvass  the  matter  over 
from  every  side.  The  want  of  money  seemed  to  be  verjr  urgent,  and 
of  course  he  got  into  the  campaign  very  late.  Then  he  would 
finally  make  up  his  mind  he  had  better  send  it,  and  would  call  on  his 
secretary  to  make  out  a check  for  Van  Cleve,  and  I would  take  it  to 
the  post  office  and  send  it  down. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Always,  after  these  objections,  he  did  “cough 
up,”  did  he? 


150 


JOHN  A.  VAN  CLEVE. 


Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Well,  you  might  put  it  that  way,  if  you  want  to. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  More  or  less  of  a cough. 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Well,  I tell  you  he  did  not  want  to  do  it.  He  did 
not  do  it  willingly. 

Senator  Pomerene.  During  this  time  did  he  ask  as  to  what  was 
being  done  with  this  money? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  He  did  not  ask  me,  because  I did  not  have  any- 
thing to  do  with  the  disbursing  of  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  he  ever  indicate  to  you  he  wanted  to  know 
what  was  being  done  with  it? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  I do  not  recollect  that  he  ever  said  anything  to  me 
about  it  in  particular.  Of  course  I had  charge  of  the  Marinette 
County  campaign,  for  which  $792.75  was  expended.  He  talked 
about  that  once  in  a while  and  wanted  to  know  what  was  going  on, 
and  so  forth;  but  the  Milwaukee  disbursements  were  made  by  his 
managers  down  here. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  were  here  at  the  head  of  his  bank,  and 
when  you  expended  $792.75,  that  was  of  sufficient  importance  be- 
tween you  and  him  to  talk  about  the  details  of  it? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Well,  he  did  not  bother  me  very  much  about  the 
details.  Of  course  he  left  that  campaign  matter  to  me,  because  he 
had  the  State  on  his  hands;  he  had  much  larger  things  to  think  of; 
but  the  detail  of  the  Marinette  County  campaign  he  left  to  me. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  you  were  one  of  the  State  managers? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  I did  not  look  at  it  in  that  way.  I was  one  of  a 
committee  that  was  kind  of  helping  out  on  the  campaign.  I was 
not  a State  manager. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Does  it  not  occur  to  you  as  strange  that  he 
would  discuss  in  detail  this  $792.75  matter  for  your  county,  and  not 
discuss  in  detail  the  $107,000  or  $108,000  paid  for  the  State  cam- 
paign ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  No,  sir;  because,  as  I say,  he  left  all  that  to  Mr. 
Puelicher  and  Mr.  Edmonds  and  Mr.  Sacket,  and  his  friends  down 
here — that  is,  the  disbursement  of  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Do  you  mean  that  he  was  a little  more  par- 
ticular in  discussing  details  with  you,  who  was  at  the  head  of  bis 
bank,  than  he  was  in  discussing  the  details  with  Mr.  Edmonds  ? He 
was  not  associated  in  business  with  him  here  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  He  did  not  discuss  with  me  at  all  the  disburse- 
ments of  this  money  down  here. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Do  you  know  of  his  discussing  it  with  any- 
body ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  No,  sir;  except  that  I supposed  he  discussed  it, 
of  course,  with  Mr.  Puelicher  and  Mr.  Edmonds. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I think  that  is  all. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  With  reference  to  the  discussion  of  the  details  of 
disbursements  in  Milwaukee,  as  between  yourself  and  Senator  Ste- 
phenson— Mr.  Van  Cleve,  I understand  that  you  reside  in  Marinette? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  you  were  in  Milwaukee  during  the  cam- 
paign ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  To  any  extent? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Two  or  three  times. 


JOHN  A.  VAN  CLEVE. 


151 


Mr.  Littlefield.  Yon  would  come  down  and  go  back  the  same  day  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  I think  so,  or  the  day  after.  I would  not  be  here 
more  than  a day  or  two. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Were  you  here  enough  so  that  you  were  familiar 
with  the  details  of  what  was  going  on  here? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Only  in  a general  way.  I was  up  in  the  office 
there,  in  the  Wells  Building,  once  or  twice. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Were  you  down  here  on  business  connected  with 
the  campaign  when  you  were  here  during  that  period? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Not  directly,  as  I know  of.  Of  course  I was  very 
much  interested  in  the  campaign,  and  talked  with  everybody  who  was 
identified  with  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  substantially  you  were  in  Marinette  during 
the  whole  campaign? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I suppose  Senator  Stephenson  knew  that,  did  he 
not? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  He  knew  you  had  no  knowledge  of  these  details 
down  here? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  recollect  for  what  purpose  you  did 
come  down  from  Milwaukee  during  the  two  or  three  visits  you  say 
you  did  make  during  that  period  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Yes;  I think  I came  down  on  other  business.  I 
am  a trustee  for  the  Wells  estate,  and  I come  down  quite  frequently 
on  that  account,  and  I think  it  was  in  reference  to  something  in  con- 
nection with  that.  I did  not  come  down,  I know,  for  that  purpose. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  say  you  did  not  come  down  for  “ that  pur- 
pose.” When  you  say  “ that  purpose  ” to  what  do  you  refer,  the 
campaign  up  there? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  The  campaign  up  there;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  to  say,  you  did  not  make  any  trip  down 
here  for  the  purpose  of  looking  after  the  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  I understand  that  it  was  the  original  under- 
standing or  arrangement  between  yourself  and  the  Senator  that,  so 
far  as  the  details  of  the  State  campaign  were  concerned,  those  were 
matters  to  be  taken  care  of  by  Mr.  Edmonds  and  Mr.  Sacket  and 
the  people  here? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Absolutely. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  any  money  expended  in  this  campaign,  to 
your  knowledge,  for  improper  purposes? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Were  any  votes  purchased  by  money  that  you 
disbursed  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  ever  have  any  information  from  any 
reliable  source,  anywhere,  at  any  time,  in  connection  with  the  cam- 
paign, that  votes  were  purchased  or  money  was  corruptly  expended 
in  the  interest  of  Senator  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Never. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  all 


152 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


TESTIMONY  OF  RODNEY  SACKET. 

Rodney  Sackett,  having  been  previously  sworn,  was  examined  and 
testified  as  follows: 

The  Chairman.  What  is  your  place  of  residence,  Mr.  Sacket? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Berlin,  Wis.,  is  my  legal  residence,  but  I am  actually 
residing  in  Washington,  D.  C.,  most  of  the  time. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  Senator  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  Mr.  Sacket  state  his  present  business? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  State  what  occupation  you  are  engaged  in. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I am  one  of  the  clerks  of  the  United  States  Senate* 
The  Chairman.  What  clerk  are  you? 

Mr.  Sacket.  An  executive  clerk. 

The  Chairman.  How  long  have  you  occupied  that  position? 

Mr.  Sacket.  About  nine  years. 

The  Chairman.  You  know  Senator  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do. 

The  Chairman.  What  connection  had  you,  if  any,  with  the  cam- 
paign of  Senator  Stephenson  in  1908? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I assisted  Mr.  Edmonds  in  the  general  management 
of  the  campaign  in  the  Milwaukee  office. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  go  to  Wisconsin  that  year? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  latter  part  of  June. 

The  Chairman.  Why  did  you  go? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  is  my  custom  to  go  there  after  the  adjournment  of 
Congress. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  here  then  during  the  recess  of  Congress? 
Mr.  Sacket.  Generally,  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  part  did  you  perform  in  connection  with 
the  campaign  of  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  a little  of  everything,  particularly  looking  after 

the  business  of  the  office,  the  buying  of  supplies 

The  Chairman.  What  office  and  where? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  office  of  the  headquarters  in  Milwaukee,  in  the 
Wells  Building. 

The  Chairman.  Who  engaged  you  to  perform  those  duties  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  When? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  latter  part  of  June;  I can  not  give  you  the  exact 
date. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  he  first  speak  to  you  in  regard  to  the 
matter? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Some  time  in  the  latter  part  of  June. 

The  Chairman.  Where? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Over  the  telephone  first,  from  Marinette  to  Berlin. 
The  Chairman.  How  far  is  that  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  In  a direct  line,  I think,  about  125  miles. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  from  Marinette  to  Berlin  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  Senator  Stephenson  say  to  you  over  the 
phone  ? 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


153 


Mr.  Sacket.  He  said  he  had  become  a candidate  for  the  Senate, 
and  asked  me  to  come  to  Marinette  and  talk  to  him  about  it. 

The  Chairman.  Anything  more  than  that  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  asked  me  to  come  to  Marinette  by  way  of  Mil- 
waukee, and  to  ask  Mr.  Puelicher  to  come  up  with  me. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  comply  with  that  request? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did ; yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  reach  Marinette  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  One  of  the  last  days  in  June. 

The  Chairman.  Who  was  present  at  the  meeting  with  Senator 
Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Mr.  Puelicher  and  Senator  Stephenson  and  I were 
alone. 

The  Chairman.  Where  did  you  meet? 

Mr.  Sacket.  At  Senator  Stephenson’s  house. 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  in  the  city  or  town  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  is  in  the  city  of  Marinette. 

The  Chairman.  What  time  of  day  did  you  meet? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Some  time  in  the  evening ; late  in  the  evening. 

The  Chairman.  How  long  did  the  meeting  last  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Oh,  we  talked  in  Senator  Stephenson’s  house  for 
several  hours. 

The  Chairman.  What  arrangement,  if  any,  was  there  made  with 
reference  to  the  management  of  his  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Senator  Stephenson  asked  me  to  do  what  I could  to 
get  the  nomination  papers,  to  get  out  the  vote,  and  promote  his 
interests  generally,  with  specific  instructions  to  keep  within  the  law, 
whatever  I did. 

The  Chairman.  Was  that  statement  made  in  the  general  terms  in 
which  you  have  expressed  it,  or  was  the  law  considered,  and  the  ques- 
tion as  to  what  would  be  “ keeping  within  the  law  ” discussed  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  used  the  words,  if  I remember  correctly,  “ Keep 
within  the  law  whatever  you  do.” 

The  Chairman.  Was  the  question  as  to  what  the  law  was  con- 
sidered ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Not  to  my  recollection;  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  It  was  confined  to  that  general  statement  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  As  I understand  it ; yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  promise  to  keep  within  the  law  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  familiar  with  the  law? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Not  professionally.  I am  not  a lawyer. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  familiar  with  the  law  referred  to  by 
Senator  Stephenson  within  which  you  were  to  keep  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I thought  I had  a general  understanding  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  take  any  measures  to  make  yourself 
thoroughly  acquainted  with  it  before  entering  on  your  duties? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No  more  than  to  read  the  law  carefully. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  read  it  carefully? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did. 

The  Chairman.  Before  you  entered  upon  the  duties  you  had 
undertaken  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Before  I did  anything  except  to  rent  and  furnish 
offices. 


154 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


The  Chairman.  Then  you  were  fully  advised  as  to  the  law  when 
you  were  acting  in  the  capacity  you  were  for  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I advised  myself  to  the  best  of  my  ability. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  you  claim  no  immunity  by  reason  of  not 
knowing  the  law  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  ever  you  did,  you  accept  the  responsibility 
for  it  as  being  within  the  law  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  the  nature  of  the  first  duty  that  you 
undertook  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  To  open  up  headquarters  here  in  Milwaukee. 

The  Chairman.  What  do  you  mean  by  opening  up  headquarters? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Renting  and  furnishing  an  office  and  employing 
stenographers. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  do? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  that. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  do? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I rented  an  office. 

The  Chairman.  Where? 

Mr.  Sacket.  In  the  Wells  Building. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  of  an  office? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  it  was  room  1320,  an  office  containing  two 
large  rooms,  to  start  with.  Then  I rented  the  furniture  and  engaged 
assistance. 

The  Chairman.  How  many  clerks  did  you  employ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  At  the  start  I had  the  assistance  of  the  messenger 
to  Senator  Stephenson’s  committee,  Arthur  Lambeck,  and  I em- 
ployed two  stenographers. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  afterwards  open  other  offices? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Not  at  that  time.  I proceeded  then  to  send  out 
blanks  on  which  to  get  signatures  to  the  nomination  papers,  as  I 
would  call  them,  which  are  required  by  law,  in  order  to  get  Senator 
Stephenson’s  name  on  the  ballot;  and  possibly  before  then  I made 
an  effort  to  get  a list  of  the  names  of  persons  to  whom  to  send  those 
blanks. 

The  Chairman.  You  commenced  paying  out  money  for  Senator 
Stephenson  for  campaign  purposes  on  July  6,  did  you? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember  the  date  exactly. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  a statement  which  you  prepared,  or  a 
copy  of  a statement  which  you  prepared,  with  reference  to  the  dis- 
bursements through  you  or  through  the  office? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  not,  but  I believe  it  is  contained  in  Exhibit  49. 

The  Chairman.  I would  like  to  have  a copy  of  that  handed  to  the 
witness. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Shall  I hand  it  to  him,  Mr.  Chairman  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  There  is  one  account  here  on  page  475,  Ex- 
hibit 47. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I am  not  familiar  with  that. 

Mr.  Black.  Exhibit  49  is  the  statement  in  its  final  form. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  page  is  that  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Page  588  of  the  proceedings  before  the  joint 
committee  of  the  Wisconsin  Legislature. 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


155 


The  Chairman.  I will  first  direct  your  attention  to  the  statement 
that  was  given  in  connection  with  your  testimony  before  the  legis- 
lative committee,  that  is,  at  page  475.  Perhaps  it  would  be  the  better 
order  to  commence  with  that  statement.  You  on  June  6 paid  E.  H. 
McMahon,  for  organizing,  $50.  Who  was  E.  H.  McMahon  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  A man  employed  by  me  to  do  work  in  the  way  of 
organizing  throughout  the  State  for  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  What  do  you  mean  by  “ organizing?  ” 

Mr.  Sacket.  His  instructions  were  to  travel  around  the  State,  get 
the  names  of  influential  persons  who  were  favorable  to  Senator 
Stephenson,  to  whom  we  could  send  letters,  nomination  papers,  and 
request  for  assistance,  and  to  create  as  much  sentiment  as  possible 
in  favor  of  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  To  electioneer  for  him? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  How  long  was  he  engaged  in  that  work? 

Mr.  Sacket.  During  almost  the  entire  campaign,  as  I remember  it. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  pay  him  other  sums  beside  the  $50? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  did  you  pay  him  in  the  aggregate? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I don’t  remember.  I have  no  account  of  the  aggre- 
gate. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  approximate  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I should  think  possibly  $450. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  his  business? 

Mr.  Sacket.  As  I remember,  he  had  no  business;  he  was  out  of 
work. 

The  Chairman.  Where  did  he  live? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  lived  in  Milwaukee,  I believe. 

The  Chairman.  Was  he  not  engaged  in  any  business  or  occupation 
when  you  employed  him? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  is  my  recollection  of  the  circumstance. 

The  Chairman.  How  old  a man  was  he  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I should  think  about  25. 

The  Chairman.  He  was  a young  graduate  of  the  college  here, 
was  he  not  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I so  understood  it. 

The  Chairman.  He  had  had  no  political  experience  whatever  prior 
to  that  time,  had  he  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  None  that  I know  of. 

The  Chairman.  It  was  his  first  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  so. 

The  Chairman.  After  becoming  a voter  and  after  leaving  college? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  sent  him  out  to  organize  the  political 
lines  for  Senator  Stephenson,  and  paid  him  about  $400.  How  many 
days  was  he  absent  from  Milwaukee  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I could  not  tell  you. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  that  he  was  absent  at  all? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  How  do  you  l^now  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Because  he  sent  me  his  expense  account  and  wrote 
me  letters  from  outside  places. 

The  Chairman.  Now,  where  is  that  expense  account? 


156 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Mr.  Sacket.  I left  it  with  the  legislative  committee  at  Madison ; I 
have  not  heard  of  it  since,  or  seen  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  was  this  young  man’s  name? 

Mr.  Sacket.  E.  H.  McMahon. 

The  Chairman.  Was  he  employed  after  August  3 in  what  you  call 
organizing  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I could  not  say  positively.  I do  not  remember. 

The  Chairman.  In  the  start  out  of  this  examination  let  us  reduce 
that  question  of  recollection  or  memory  down  to  a useful  basis. 
When  you  say  you  do  not  remember,  do  you  mean  that  you  can  not 
remember  or  recall  the  circumstances,  or  that  you  have  not  had 
occasion  to  do  so  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I mean  that  I can  not  at  this  time  recall  the  date  on 
which  he  went  out  and  the  dates  on  which  he  staid  in. 

The  Chairman.  I have  not  asked  you  the  dates  on  which  he  went 
out.  I have  asked  you  the  general  question  as  to  whether  or  not  his 
engagement  and  work  extended  after  the  beginning  of  August;  in 
other  words,  after  the  time  when  it  was  no  longer  necessary  or  proper 
to  get  petitions  or  signers? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  was  employed  in  one  capacity  or  another  during 
the  entire  campaign ; possibly  not  around  the  State,  organizing  at  all 
times ; he  did  do  some  work  in  the  office. 

The  Chairman.  Was  there  an  agreed  amount  that  he  was  to  receive 
for  his  services? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  $75  a month. 

The  Chairman.  How  many  months  was  he  employed? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Two  months. 

The  Chairman.  June  and  July? 

Mr.  Sacket.  July  and  August. 

The  Chairman.  He  appears  to  have  been  employed  first  on  the 
6th  of  July.  July  and  August  he  was  employed? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  So  you  paid  him  $150  as  personal  compensation  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  was  the  agreement. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  pay  it  to  him? 

Mr.  Sacket.  We  paid  him  that  and  more. 

The  Chairman.  Was  any  part  of  the  excess  over  $150  for  his 
salary  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Paid  him  for  salary? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  How  much? 

Mr.  Sacket.  $300  in  all  for  salary. 

The  Chairman.  You  doubled  his  salary? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Paid  him  $150  a month  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  That  leaves  $150  of  the  total  amount  you  paid 
him  to  account  for.  What  did  he  do  with  that  money  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  As  I remember  it  he  used  it  in  traveling  expenses, 
to  go  about  the  State ; possibly  employed  men  to  circulate  nomination 
papers. 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


157 


The  Chairman.  You  say,  “ possibly.”  Unless  you  have  some 
knowledge  of  that,  it  would  be  better  for  you  not  to  say  it. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I would  not  have,  without  his  expense  account  be- 
fore me.  He  rendered  an  account  of  all  of  the  money  he  expended, 
and  I approximated  that  at  $150.  I could  not  even  say  positively 
that  that  was  the  correct  amount. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  where  Mr.  McMahon  is  now  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not. 

The  Chairman.  Now,  we  will  take  J.  C.  Miller;  he  is  designated 
as  an  organizer,  to  whom,  on  the  6th  of  July,  you  paid  $50.  Who  in- 
structed you  to  pay  him  that  money  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  think  anyone  did. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  meet  Mr.  Miller  in  the  headquarters’ 
office  here  in  Milwaukee? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  come  to  you  a stranger? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I never  had  known  Mr.  Miller  before  he  came  to  the 
office. 

The  Chairman.  How  old  a man  is  Mr.  Miller  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I should  think  about  32. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  his  business? 

. Mr.  Sackett.  I do  not  think  he  was  engaged  in  any  business  at  that 
time. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  where  he  is  now,  or  whether  he  is 
now  engaged  in  any  business? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not. 

The  Chairman.  Where  did  he  reside? 

Mr.  Sacket.  If  I remember  correctly  his  residence  was  Madison  at 
that  time. 

The  Chairman.  Upon  what  representation  did  you  pay  him  $50  on 
that  day  and  emplo}^  him? 

Mr.  Sackett.  He  was  recommended  by  some  one. 

The  Chairman.  By  whom? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  think,  if  this  were  an  inquiry  of  you  from 
your  principal,  Senator  Stephenson,  as  to  how  you  expended  this 
money,  that  your  memory  would  be  as  defective  as  it  is  under  these 
circumstances? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  The  responsibility  under  which  you  would  rest  to 
a principal  whose  money  you  had  handled,  you  think,  would  not  make 
a stronger  impression  upon  you  than  that  of  this  committee  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  think  anything  would  make  me  remember 
what  I have  actually  forgotten. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  make  a memorandum  at  the  time  of  the 
facts  and  circumstances  that  transpired  when  you  paid  this  money? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I made  no  memorandum  of  the  name  of  the  person  who 
recommended  Mr.  Miller. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  make  any  memorandum  with  reference  to 
the  employing  of  these  men  at  the  time  you  employed  them  ? 

Mr.  Sackett.  Yes,  feir. 

The  Chairman.  Where  is  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Destroyed. 


158 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


The  Chairman.  Destroyed!  Who  destroyed  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did. 

The  Chairman.  When? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Shortly  after  the  conclusion  of  the  campaign. 

The  Chairman.  What  do  you  mean  by  u shortly  ” ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Possibly  within  a week  or  10  days. 

The  Chairman.  Who  told  you  to  destroy  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Nobody. 

The  Chairman.  You  had  been  expending  and  handling  thousands 
of  dollars  for  a principal,  and  destroyed  the  memoranda  representing 
the  transactions,  without  any  instructions,  or  without  the  consent  of 
the  principal? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not  destroy  the  memoranda  accounting  for  the 
money;  but  the  memoranda  showing  what  Miller  was  to  receive,  the 
agreement  with  him,  was  destroyed  after  my  settlement  with  him. 

The  Chairman.  With  whom? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Miller. 

The  Chairman.  Miller  was  the  man  employed  by  you  for  what  you 
call  organizing? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  paid  money,  under  the  license  of  a law  of 
the  State,  for  campaign  expenses,  and  you  made  a memorandum  at  the 
time  as  to  the  purpose  for  which  you  paid  this  money,  and  what  was 
to  be  given  as  a consideration  for  this  money,  and  then  you  destroyed 
that  memorandum;  is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Sacket.  A memorandum  as  to  the  agreement  between  Miller 
and  me — what  he  was  to  receive. 

The  Chairman.  You  talk  about  the  agreement.  I suppose  the 
agreement  set  out  what  was  to  be  done,  did  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  My  memorandum  shows  that  Miller  was  to  receive  a 
certain  compensation  and  his  expenses. 

The  Chairman.  And  what  he  was  to  do  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  For  doing  what  he  was  told  to  do  from  time  to  time. 

The  Chairman.  Only  what  he  was  told  to  do  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  In  a general  way ; yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  not  the  memoranda  indicate,  at  least  in  part 
if  not  entirely,  what  he  was  to  do? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  recall  the  circumstance  or  the  language 
of  a memorandum  such  as  you  made  at  that  time? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Do  so. 

Mr.  Sacket.  “ J.  C.  Miller,  $300  a month  and  expenses ; to  render 
expense  account  weekly.”  I think  that  was  all  that  was  on  the  card. 

The  Chairman.  It  did  not  say  what  this  $300  a month  was  for  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Did  I say  $300  a month?  I meant  $150  a month. 

The  Chairman.  Did  it  say  what  it  was  for? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Whether  it  was  for  manual  labor  or  as  an  artisan  ? 
Just  simply  said  “ J.  C.  Miller,  $150  a month,  expense  account  to  be 
rendered  ” ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  It  did  not  say  that  it  was  in  connection  with  the 
Stephenson  campaign? 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


159 


Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  it  say  he  received  it  over  your  name  in  the 
memorandum  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not  put  my  own  name  on  my  own  memorandum; 
no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Would  that  be  improper?  If  you  were  to  write 
a receipt  you  would  probably  put  your  own  name  in  the  receipt  of 
the  party  from  whom  the  money  was  received,  would  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  If  some  one  else  were  to  sign  it. 

The  Chairman.  You  would  not? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I would  if  some  one  else  were  to  sign  it.  Mr.  Miller 
did  not  sign  my  memorandum. 

The  Chairman.  He  did  not  receipt  for  the  money  then? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  This  was  a memorandum  in  your  own  handwrit- 
ing, for  your  own  use? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  there  to  indicate  as  to  who  had  paid 
him  the  money,  or  who  would  pay  him? 

Mr.  Sacket.  As  I paid  him  money  I put  on  that  card  the  amounts. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  indicate  when  you  put  the  amount  on  the 
card  what  it  was  for,  what  services  he  was  performing? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  how  much  of  the  sum  paid  was  for  those 
services  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  services  were  paid  for  all  at  one  time,  if  I re- 
member correctly  now. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  pay  him  the  full  amount  in  advance? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  paid  him  $50  when  you  made  the  arrange- 
ment, did  you  not? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir,  and  that  was  to  be  used  for  expense  money, 
traveling. 

The  Chairman.  Then  this  $50  was  not  any  part  of  his  compensa- 
tion? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  But  it  was  for  expense  money.  But  the  item  of 
$300  paid  him  was  for  his  compensation,  was  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  If  I remember  correctly  he  was  paid  $300  at  the 
close  of  the  campaign — two  months’  salary. 

The  Chairman.  You  paid  him  his  expense  account  in  addition  to 
that  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  I find  on  page  478  where  you  paid  him,  on 
August  18,  $50,  and  at  other  points — those  items  were  for  expenses? 

Mr.  Sacket.  For  expenses;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  report  to  you  in  writing  what  he  had  done? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  where  is  that  writing? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  writing,  I am  afraid,  is  destroyed. 

The  Chairman.  You  feel  apprehensive  of  that,  do  you? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I am  quite  certain  that  it  was  destroyed. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  destroy  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Shortly  after  the  close  of  the  campaign. 


160 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


The  Chairman.  At  whose  instance? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No  one’s;  upon  my  own  motion  entirely. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  copy  it  into  any  book  before  destroy- 
ing it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  make  an  entry  indicating  the  payment  of 
the  money  in  any  book? 

Mr.  Sacket.  1 made  entries  or  memoranda  of  mine  indicating  the 
payment  of  all  moneys. 

The  Chairman.  You  kept  books  of  account  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I kept  an  account;  no  book. 

The  Chairman.  How  did  you  keep  the  account? 

Mr.  Sacket.  On  a card  index. 

The  Chairman.  That  is,  an  account  between  you  and  the  fund 
which  was  at  your  disposal? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Where  is  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  exhibit  on  page  475  is  a copy  of  it. 

The  Chairman-  Where  is  the  original? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  original  is  destroyed? 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  destroy  that? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Very  soon  after  the  end  of  the  campaign,  and  part 
of  it  before  the  end  of  the  campaign. 

The  Chairman.  Why? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Because  the  cards  were  cumbersome,  very  much  soiled, 
and  the  writing  on  them,  which  was  made  with  a lead  pencil  in  a 
great  many  cases,  was  practically  obliterated. 

The  Chairman.  Was  this  card  index  in  a single  case? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  that  I had  two  or  three  boxes.  I am  not 
positive  about  that,  though. 

The  Chairman.  And  the  60  days  of  use  had  destroyed  them? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  made  them  almost  illegible,  in  some  cases;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Were  the  entries  made  in  ink  or  pencil? 

Mr.  Sacket.  In  pencil,  in  almost  every  case. 

The  Chairman.  Being  handled  constantly,  were  they,  and  worn 
out? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The}^  were  very  hard  to  read.  I would  not  say  they 
were  worn  out. 

The  Chairman.  Who  made  the  entries  on  those  cards? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I made  most  of  them;  I think  all  of  them. 

The  Chairman.  After  you  had  made  an  e^itry  on  a card  what  occa- 
sion would  you  have  to  handle  that  card  again  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  To  make  another  entry  on  the  same  card,  to  handle  it 
over  to  reach  another  card. 

The  Chairman.  They  were  arranged  alphabetically  according  to 
the  name  of  the  person  or  the 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  name  of  the  person  or  the  locality,  as  the  case 
might  be. 

The  Chairman.  How  many  of  these  cards  were  there? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember. 

The  Chairman.  And  it  was  a matter  of  convenience,  then,  that 
prompted  you  to  destroy  them? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


161 


The  Chairman.  They  represented  the  payment  of  $98,083.72,  did 
they  not? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  so. 

The  Chairman.  A little  transaction  like  that  you  did  not  deem  of 
sufficient  importance  to  preserve  the  memoranda  indicating  pay- 
ments? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I made  copies  of  the  cards  before  I destroyed  them. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  copies  of  the  cards  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  nothing  except  this  [referring  to  printed  vol- 
ume of  senatorial  investigating  committee  proceedings]. 

The  Chairman.  This  is  merely  an  enumeration  of,  for  instance, 
“ Sundries,  $50,”  “ Sundries,  $20,”  and  so  on.  That  indicates  nothing. 
What  do  you  mean  when  you  say  “ sundries  ” here  ? I find  on  one 
page,  496,  that  the  word  “ sundries  ” is  used  a great  many  times,  and 
I find  it  elsewhere  in  the  account.  What  do  you  mean  by  u sundries  ” ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  might  mean  a great  many  things. 

The  Chairman.  No.  What  does  it  mean? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I can  not  now  tell  you  what  any  one  of  these  items 
would  mean. 

The  Chairman.  Would  the  cards  have  indicated? 

Mr.  Sacket.  They  would  not. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  not  make  a statement  on  the  cards,  when 
you  noted  the  expenditure  of  money,  that  would  advise  you  or  anyone 
else  as  to  what  the  expenditure  was  for  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  In  some  cases  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Why  did  you  vary  from  the  rule? 

Mr.  Sacket.  In  some  cases  I had  more  time  than  others;  some 
cases  referring  to  this  schedule  in  which  you  find  so  many  “ sundries.” 
Here  is  one  for  $1.50,  and  a great  many  other  small  items.  I did  not 
give  the  small  items  as  much  attention  as  I would  the  larger  ones, 
and  sometimes  I did  not  have  time  to  give  the  larger  items  the  atten- 
tion which  they  might  have  deserved. 

The  Chairman.  Then  it  wTas  a matter  of  convenience  whether  or 
not  you  indicated  the  purpose  of  the  expenditure,  was  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  On  page  478,  August  19,  you  say,  “ General  organ- 
izing, $300.” 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  any  memoranda  that  would  show  what 
that  was  made  up  of? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Possibly  in  Exhibit  49. 

The  Chairman.  Where  is  Exhibit  49? 

Mr.  Sacket.  In  this  same  book  [referring  to  senatorial  primary 
investigation]. 

The  Chairman.  I suppose  I have  Exhibit  49.  Just  turn  to  it  now 
and  tell  me 

Mr.  Sacket.  Page  588. 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  I have  the  exhibit.  Turn  to  that  item  of 
August  19  and  see  where  is  the  corresponding  item  of  $300. 

Mr.  Sacket.  General  organizing — I have  it  here — “ E.  A.  E.,  $200,” 
carried  out  to  “ $300.” 

The  Chairman.  What  does  that  mean  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  “E.  A.  E.”  means  that  it  was  a personal  check  of  E.  A. 
Edmonds  for  $200,  or  that  it  was  given  to  Mr.  Edmonds ; the  $200  is 
15235°— vol  1—11 11 


162 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


chargeable  to  Mr.  Edmonds,  and  I don’t  know  what  that  was  for. 
The  other  hundred  was  for  general  organizing,  paid  somebody  for 
services  performed,  not  in  any  one  locality,  but  generally,  in  two  or 
more  counties,  I should  suppose. 

The  Chairman.  What  services  were  performed  on  August  19  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  It  was  not  circulating  petitions? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I should  not  think  so. 

The  Chairman.  The  petitions  had  been  filed.  What  organizing 
was  being  done  on  August  19? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I could  not  tell  you  what  organizing  was  being  done 
under  that  item,  of  my  own  knowledge ; I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Under  any  item? 

Mr.  Sacket.  They  might  have  been  getting  lists  of  names  for  us 
to  send  circulars  to;  they  might  have  been  employing  men  to  work 
at  the  polls  with  their  teams. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  was  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I can  not  tell  you,  under  that  item;  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Could  you  have  told  had  you  not  destroyed  the 
memorandum  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Then  you  did  not  keep  such  accounts  as  would 
enable  you  to  know  whether  or  not  you  were  keeping  within  the  law, 
did  you? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I presumed  I was. 

The  Chairman.  But  unless  you  could  refer  to  the  item  of  ex- 
penditure you  would  not  be  able  to  answer  to  a charge  of  violating 
the  law,  would  you? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  believe  I exactly  understand  you. 

The  Chairman.  In  the  absence  of  memorandum  how  would  you 
establish  the  fact  that  you  had  kept  within  the  law  should  the  ex- 
penditure be  questioned? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not  understand  the  law  to  require  me  to  keep 
such  an  account. 

The  Chairman.  You  were,  for  instance,  forbidden  by  the  law  to 
purchase  a man’s  vote  or  bribe  him ; in  the  absence  of  a memorandum 
showing  for  what  you  expended  money  how  would  you  expect  to 
defend  against  a charge  that  the  money  was  expended  for  that  pur- 
pose? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not  suppose  anyone  would  bring  such  a charge. 
The  idea  of  such  a charge  never  entered  my  head. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  not  giving  any  attention  to  the  ad- 
monition to  “ keep  within  the  law  ” ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  attention  were  you  giving  to  it;  what  was 
the  character  of  the  attention? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I was  instructing  every  man  whom  I employed  to 
keep  within  the  law. 

The  Chairman.  I am  now  inquiring  as  to  what  you  did,  not  as  to 
what  instructions  you  gave.  You  have  expended  the  money;  it  has 
passed  through  your  hands.  What  evidence  is  there  that  you  did 
not  use  it  for  that  purpose,  in  the  absence  of  memoranda  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  bank’s  cashier’s  checks  would  show  to  whom  I 
paid  the  money. 


RODNEY  SACKET.  163 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  only  pay  out  money  by  a bank  cashier’s 
checks  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I paid  some  in  currency,  but,  as  a general  rule,  I 
kept,  as  much  as  possible,  to  cashier’s  checks  and  bank  drafts. 

The  Chairman.  How  did  you  expect  to  be  able  to  answer  a pos- 
sible charge  that  you  had  furnished  the  money  to  these  men  whom 
you  term  “ organizers,”  to  be  used  for  bribing  voters ; how  did  you 
expect  to  be  able  to  meet  that  kind  of  a charge? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I never  expected  such  a charge  to  be  made. 

The  Chairman.  You  knew  the  law  puts  the  affirmative  upon  a 
man  who  uses  money  during  a campaign  when  the  use  is  challenged, 
did  you  not? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  The  law  requires  the  filing  of  an  account  which 
shall  state  not  merely  that  you  paid  out  money,  but  shall  state  the 
purpose  for  which  you  paid  it  out  and  that  it  was  applied  to  that 
purpose;  did  you  know  that? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not  so  understand  the  law. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  you  read  the  law? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  a law  in  the  absence  of  any  special  stat- 
ute, is  it  not  ? If  you  pay  out  money  to  be  used  by  the  party  to  whom 
you  pay  it  for  purchasing  votes  or  bribing  electors,  do  you  not  know 
that  you  would  be  responsible  under  the  law  of  any  State  in  the 
Union? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I presume  I would,  if  it  were  proven. 

The  Chairman.  Then  did  it  not  occur  to  you  that  this  memoranda 
which  you  were  destroying,  even  before  the  primaries  and  afterwards, 
made  the  basis  of  your  defense  against  such  a charge? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I never  thought  of  such  a charge.  But  the  destroying 
of  the  memoranda  left  me  in  no  worse  condition  than  before,  because 
I made  a copy  of  it  before  I destroyed  it. 

The  Chairman.  Now  your  memory  seems  to  have  emphasized  the 
misfortune  of  losing  the  memoranda,  because  you  say  you  are  not 
able  to  remember  what  use  was  made  of  this  money. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I know  what  use  I instructed  the  person  to  make  of 
it,  where  I made  that  memorandum  to  start  with. 

The  Chairman.  I understood  you  to  say  a few  minutes  ago  that 
you  did  not  know  what  instructions  you  gave  them,  that  you  could  not 
remember  what  instructions  you  gave  them  as  to  the  use  to  which 
this  money  was  to  be  applied. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember  making  such  a statement.  I did 
not  intend  it  in  that  way. 

The  Chairman.  Then  we  will  just  go  right  to  the  items  and  see 
whether  or  not  now  you  can  state  what  you  said  to  them.  Take  the 
item  August  20,  of  $400  to  G.  W.  Dart;  what  did  you  tell  him  to 
do  with  that  money? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not  tell  him  anything. 

The  Chairman.  You  gave  him  $400,  did  you  not? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  on  page  592. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  the  item  here  [referring  to  senatorial  primary 
investigation]. 


164 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


The  Chairman.  Who  did? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  in  the  account  which  you  rendered.  Explain 
the  item. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I had  no  dealing  with  Mr.  Dart.  Some  one  else  did. 

The  Chairman.  Who  did? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I presume — you  want  me  to  presume? 

The  Chairman.  No;  I want  you  to  tell  me  why  you  put  the  item 
in  this  account  which  you  rendered. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Because  I found  it  on  my  account,  my  card,  from  which 
I copied  this  account. 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  one  of  the  cards  you  destroyed  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Who  made  the  entry  on  the  card  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did. 

The  Chairman.  Why  did  you  make  it  if  you  did  not  know  anything 
about  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Because  the  check  probably  passed  through  my  hands, 
and  as  it  passed  through- 

The  Chairman.  Who  signed  the  checks? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  was  a cashier’s  check,  signed  by  some  officer  of  the 
Marshall  & Ilsley  Bank. 

The  Chairman.  Who  procured  the  cashier’s  check  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose  did  you  procure  a check  for 
$400,  to  pay  G.  W.  Dart  that  sum  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Probably  on  the  order  of  Mr.  Edmonds. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  was  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  must  have  been,  because  I had  no  dealings  with 
Mr.  Dart. 

The  Chairman.  That  emphasizes  the  misfortune  of  the  destruction 
of  your  memoranda,  does  it  not?  Now  you  say  in  the  absence  of 
that  memorandum  you  can  not  remember  anything  about  the  $400. 
It  may  have  been  used  to  purchase  votes  in  violation  of  the  law,  may 
it  not? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  knowledge,  one  way  or  the  other. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  a payment  of  this  money,  passing  through 
your  hands  as  the  representative  of  the  candidate,  may  have  been 
used,  so  far  as  you  can  state,  for  an  illegal  purpose  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know  whether  it  was  or  not? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not. 

The  Chairman.  Now  go  down  to  the  case  of  Harry  Bowman, 
August  21,  $150;  for  what  did  you  pay  Harry  Bowman  $150? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I had  no  agreement  with  Harry  Bowman ; I made  no 
arrangements  with  him. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  pay  that  money  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  If  I did,  it  was  on  the  order  of  some  one  else. 

The  Chairman.  I want  to  know  whether  or  not  you  paid  him 
$150,  it  being  in  the  statement  of  your  own  expenditures. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I either  paid  him,  or  gave  the  check  or  cash  to  Mr. 
Edmonds  to  pay  him ; I could  not  say  which. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  whether  he  expended  that  money 
for  the  purpose  of  bribing  the  electors  ? 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


165 


A#.  Sacket.  I do  not. 

The  Chairman.  You  can  not  state,  then,  that  it  was  expended  for 
legitimate  purposes  under  the  law  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I can  not. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  have  destroyed  the  memoranda  made  at 
the  time? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have. 

The  Chairman.  Now  I desire  to  call  your  attention  to  the  item  on 
August  27,  a week  before  the  election,  or  less  than  a week,  “ K.  E. 
Orton,  $300.”  For  what  did  you  pay  Orton  $300  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Probably  Mr.  Edmonds  asked  me. 

The  Chairman.  Who  was  Orton  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  have  a conversation  with  Mr.  Edmonds 
in  regard  to  it,  in  which  conversation  he  asked  you  to  pay  Orton  that 
money  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember  any  such  conversation. 

The  Chairman.  Then  how  do  you  know  that  you  had  a conversa- 
tion, or  that  he  asked  you  to  do  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I know  that  Mr.  Orton  is  not  a man  that  I made  any 
deal  with.  I know  that  I would  not  have  gotten  that  draft  except 
on  Mr.  Edmonds’s  order. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know  what  Orton  did  with  the  $300? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not. 

The  Chairman.  He  may  have  used  it  for  bribery  and  corruption, 
may  he  not  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  What  entry  was  made,  with  reference  to  that  pay- 
ment, on  the  card  that  you  destroyed  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Nothing  more  than  appears  here. 

The  Chairman.  Nothing  more  than  what? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Nothing  more  than  appears  here. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  keep  an  account  of  the  money  that  you 
paid  out  of  the  campaign  fund  of  Senator  Stephenson,  as  his  repre- 
sentative, in  which  the  purpose  of  such  payment  appeared? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  a recollection  of  the  purpose  of  the  payment  in 
all  cases  where  I made  the  arrangement. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  you  have  a recollection? 

Mr.  Sacket.  In  all  cases  where  I made  the  arrangement.  I had 
no  knowledge  in  other  cases. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  know  then,  in  all  cases  where  you  made 
the  arrangement  to  pay  out  money,  for  what  it  was  expended  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I know  for  what  purpose  I directed  it  to  be  ex- 
pended. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  that  you  do  know  and  can  testify  as  to 
what  directions  you  gave  in  regard  to  all  sums  that  you  paid  out  or 
that  passed  through  your  hands;  is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Sacket.  All  sums  that  I made  arrangement  for  the  payment 
of.  Money  passed  through  my  hands  on  the  order  of  Mr.  Edmonds 
that  I knew  nothing  of,  except  that  he  had  ordered  it. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  separate  the  payments  in  this  expense 
account  of  yours,  that  were  made  out  of  the  $5,000  which  Senator 
Stephenson  gave  to  you  personally? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I can  not. 


166 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


The  Chairman.  Senator  Stephenson  did  give  you  $5,000,  did  he 
not? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  mingle  that  $5,000  with  some  other  fund  ? 
Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  fund? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  fund  that  was  then  in  the  Marshall  & Ilsley 
Bank. 

The  Chairman.  You  received  that  by  a check? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  indorsed  the  check  to  whom? 

Mr.  Sacket.  To  the  Marshall  & Ilsley  Bank  and  left  it  there. 
The  Chairman.  And  to  whose  credit  did  you  place  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I placed  it  with  the  fund  that  we  were  drawing 
from,  the  Stephenson  campaign  fund,  held  by  the  paying  teller  of 
the  bank. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Was  that  the  check  of  August  27? 

The  Chairman.  Was  that  the  check  of  August  27? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  that  is  about  the  date. 

The  Chairman.  On  the  day  you  received  that  check  you  paid 
G.  E.  Doe  $200.  You  paid  that  personally;  did  you  not? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Will  you  please  give  me  the  name  and  the  amount. 
The  Chairman.  That  is  the  day  you  received  the  $5,000  from 
Senator  Stephenson.  You  paid  G.  E.  Doe  $200,  and  had  a personal 
interview  with  him;  did  you  not? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  On  what  page  does  the  chairman  find  that? 
“ Chippewa  Falls,”  is  that  it? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not  pay  G.  E.  Doe. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  not  meet  Mr.  Doe  on  that  day? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  meet  him? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember  ever  having  met  him. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Is  he  a brother  of  Richard  Roe? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I can  not  say. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  not  know  which  side  of  the  “ versus  ” lie 
is  on  ? 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  what  that  $200  was  paid  out  for? 
Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not. 

The  Chairman.  On  the  same  day  you  paid  R.  E.  Orton  $300.  Do 
you  know  anything  about  that  payment? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not. 

The  Chairman.  Who  was  Orton? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  hear  of  him? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  hear  of  him  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I simply  heard  his  name  mentioned  in  the  campaign. 
The  Chairman.  In  connection  with  what? 

Mr.  Sacket.  With  the  campaign  generally.  I could  not  remember 
more  specifically. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  he  do? 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


167 


Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  What  services  did  he  perform  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  he  one  of  the  men  you  made  an  arrange- 
ment with? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  was  not. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  pay  that  on  the  order  of  Mr.  Edmomls? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  pay  money  on  the  order  of  any  person 
other  than  Mr.  Edmonds  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Not  to  my  recollection. 

The  Chairman.  When  Mr.  Edmonds  gave  you  an  order,  such  as  is 
indicated  by  that  payment,  did  he  give  it  to  you  in  writing? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Not  necessarily. 

The  Chairman.  How  did  he  give  it  to  you  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  told  me  that  he  wanted  a check  for  $300  for  Mr. 
II.  E.  Orton. 

The  Chairman.  Was  it  a verbal  communication? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Then  you  would  get  the  check  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  would  you  make  a memorandum? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I would. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  inquire  of  Edmonds  what  the  money  was 
to  be  used  for  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Not  in  all  cases. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  in  this  case? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  no  recollection  about  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know  whether  it  was  to  be  used  for 
purchasing  votes,  or  for  what  purposes  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I had  no  knowledge  of  my  own  whatever. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  not  feel  it  incumbent  upon  you  to  know 
for  what  the  money  that  you  paid  out  was  to  be  used  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  money  that  I paid  out  on  Mr.  Edmonds’ 
order;  no. 

The  Chairman.  You  think  you  would  be  relieved  of  responsi- 
bility if  the  money  was  to  be  paid  out  for  an  unlawful  purpose 
merely  because  Mr.  Edmonds  told  you  to  pay  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  think  you  would  be  relieved? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  would  not  undertake  to  assert  that  if  an 
associate  were  to  ask  you  to  violate  the  law  you  would  be  justified  in 
doing  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Then  how  do  you  account  for  your  answer  that  if 
you  believed  if  Mr.  Edmonds  told  you  to  pay  this  money  out  for  an 
unlawful  purpose  that  Mr.  Edmonds  and  not  you  would  be  re- 
sponsible ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I felt  that  when  Mr.  Edmonds  asked  for  money  I 
was  under  obligations  to  give  it  to  him.  I was  Mr.  Stephenson’s 
manager. 


168 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


The  Chairman.  You  were  giving  him  money,  were  you,  and  not  he 
giving  you  money  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I was  getting  it  for  Mr.  Edmonds  from  the  bank. 

The  Chairman.  When  you  went  to  the  bank  and  got  this  money, 
if  you  did,  which  was  paid  to  Mr.  Orton  on  the  27th  of  August,  $300, 
did  you  get  a cashier’s  check  payable  to  Mr.  Orton  or  to  yourself? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Payable  to  Mr.  Orton. 

The  Chairman.  And  did  Mr.  Orton  cash  that  or  did  you  cash  it 
for  him? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I never  cashed  it  for  him. 

The  Chairman.  Who  procured  the  cash  for  Mr.  Orton? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Was  he  known  at  the  bank  so  that  he  could  go  and 
cash  a check  without  identification? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  not  concern  yourself  about  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir;  if  the  cashier’s  check  was  satisfactory  to 
him  I did  not  care  whether  he  ever  got  it  cashed  or  not. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  in  any  instance  ever  go  to  the  bank  and 
cash  these  cashier’s  checks  for  men  who  needed  identification  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  anyone  in  your  office  or  anyone  who  was  con- 
nected with  you  do  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Not  to  my  knowledge. 

The  Chairman.  In  no  instance  did  you  ever  go  to  the  bank  and 
convert  the  cashier’s  check  into  money  for  the  convenience  of  any- 
one; did  you? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Not  that  I remember;  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Then  you  never  handled  any  money,  did  you  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I tried  not  to. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  did  you? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Oh,  yes ; I drew  currency  in  some  instances. 

The  Chairman.  How  much? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know.  It  would  be  hard  for  me  to  state. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  draw  $5,000  in  currency  altogether  during 
that  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I should  think  so. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  draw  a great  deal  more  than  that  in 
currency  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I should  think  not  a great  deal  more. 

The  Chairman.  Approximate  it  more  nearly. 

Mr.  Sacket.  If  I can  look  over  this  statement  a few  minutes 

The  Chairman.  No;  it  is  not  necessary  to  indulge  in  that.  If  you 
can  not  approximate  it,  we  will  take  $5,000  as  the  amount. 

What  kind  of  obligations  did  you  pay  in  currency  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  salary  of  the  office  help,  small  current  office  ex- 
penses which  took  considerable  money,  from  time  to  time. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  pay  any  of  these  items  in  currency  where 
men  were  employed  to  organize? 

Mr.  Sacket.  In  the  items  you  first  mentioned,  to  McMahon  and 
Miller,  my  recollection  of  that  is  that  they  were  given  their  expense 
money  in  currency,  $50  t«  each. 

The  Chairman.  Who  gave  it  to  them? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did. 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


169 


The  Chairman.  What  other  items  can  you  remember? 

Mr.  Sacket.  C.  M.  Hambright,  $50 ; E.  H.  McMahon,  another  fifty ; 
J.  R.  Keyes,  $25. 

The  Chairman.  That  Dane  County  item;  was  that  in  currency  or 
check  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  “ Dane  County,  organizing,”  I think,  was  in  currency. 

The  Chairman.  $200? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir.  “ C.  M.  Hambright,  $50.” 

The  Chairman.  That  was  in  currency? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  so. 

The  Chairman.  Was  the  Sexton  item  in  currency? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir;  that  was  in  the  form  of  a Chicago  draft. 

The  Chairman.  Is  it  not  true  that  you  can  determine  by  inspec- 
tion which  of  these  items  were  paid  in  currency  and  which  by  draft, 
and  that  those  paid  by  draft  had  the  number  of  the  cashier’s  check 
stated  after  the  item? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  that  would  determine  it. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  all  these  items  that  are  not  accompanied 
by  the  cashier’s  check  number  were  paid  in  money,  were  they  not  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Generally  speaking,  yes.  * 

The  Chairman.  In  that  item  of  August  6,  to  J.  T.  Kelley,  $500, 
there  is  no  cashier’s  check  number.  So  that  was  paid  in  currency* 
was  it  not? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  so. 

The  Chairman.  The  item  to  J.  W.  Stone,  on  August  12,  for 
$2,500,  was  paid  in  cash,  was  it  not? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  says  cash  here. 

The  Chairman.  Such  items  as  that  of  August  21,  Peter  Deidrich, 
and  the  item  under  the  head  of  “ General  ” were  paid  in  cash.  Wo 
may  take  that,  then,  as  a rule  for  determining  which  of  these  items 
were  paid  by  cashier’s  check,  may  we  not  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  it  would  be  nearly  right. 

The  Chairman.  I think  you  will  now  probably  want  to  modify 
your  statement  as  to  the  amount  of  cash  that  you  handled,  if  you 
will  look  through  the  list. 

In  the  cases  where  you  handled  the  cash,  you  say  you  told  the 
people  to  whom  you  delivered  it  that  they  were  to  keep  within  the 
law,  did  you? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  tell  them? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I told  them  nothing,  unless  I made  the  arrangement 
with  them. 

The  Chairman.  But  where  you  handed  the  cash  to  them  that  was 
making  the  arrangement,  was  it  not? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not  consider  it  so ; no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  refer  to  a contract  other  than  that,  then,  as 
the  arrangement? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  But  you  were  given  the  responsible  position  of 
dealing  out  the  cash.  When  you  handed  cash  to  these  men,  did  you 
admonish  them  in  regard  to  the  character  of  the  expenditure  that 
they  were  authorized  to  make? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not. 


170 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


The  Chairman.  Did  you  know  how  they  would  expend  this 

money  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  not  know  how  Stone  would  expend  that 
$2,500,  did  you? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  have  any  conversation  with  him  about  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I remember  none  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  But  you  handed  him  the  money;  did  you  not? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  so  far  as  you  know,  then,  he  might  have 
intended  to  expend  it  for  the  purpose  of  bribing  somebody,  might  he 
not  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  That  is,  you  do  not  know  whether  he  might  have 
done  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know  whether  he  might  or  not ; no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  not  a complete  answer.  I think  the  sub- 
committee will  have  to  insist  on  a little  more  direct  answer.  That  is 
not  candid.  That  is  rather  evading  the  question,  because  you  do 
know  whether  a man  might  have  done  a thing,  in  your  judgment. 

Mr.  Sackett.  I will  say  yes,  he  might,  if  that  suits  the  sub- 
committee better. 

The  Chairman.  Now,  without  going  into  all  of  these  items,  there 
are  classes  that  we  may  group  them  under.  We  find  on  pages  597, 
598,  599,  and  600  a large  number  of  items  for  organization,  with  no 
indication  that  they  were  paid  by  cashier’s  check,  and  that  come 
within  the  class  that  you  say  may  be  taken  to  have  been  paid  in 
cash.  Did  you  make  those  payments? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Who  did? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  They  are  in  your  statement;  are  they  not?  How 
did  they  get  in  that  statement? 

Mr.  Sacket.  They  are  under  the  heading  “ Expenses  in  Milwaukee 
County  as  reported  by  W.  R.  Knell.” 

The  Chairman.  Did  Mr.  Knell  make  those  payments? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  made  this  statement  to  me,  and  I included  it  in 
my  statement  for  his  account,  for  the  money  for  which  I gave  a 
receipt  for  him.  I know  nothing  about  the  items. 

The  ChairMx^n.  Who  did  disburse  that  money? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I know  nothing  about  the  items. 

The  Chairman.  Why  did  you  include  it  in  your  account? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I included  it,  quoted  as  his  statement. 

The  Chairman.  You  actually  paid  out  the  money,  did  you  not? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I gave  the  bank,  or  Mr.  Puelicher,  a receipt  for  the 
money  which  Mr.  Knell  used.  He  handed  me  this  account,  as  ac- 
counting to  me  for  what  money  he  got  and  disposed  of. 

The  Chairman.  This  was  your  agent,  then,  who  paid  out  this 
money — your  representative;  was  it  not? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I should  not  want  to  pass  on  the  legal  status  of  the 
matter. 

The  Chairman.  Pass  upon  the  question  of  fact.  Who  told  him  to 
pay  it  out?  Who  authorized  him? 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


171 


Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not  authorize  him. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Well,  if  you  know,  who  did? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I presume  Senator  Stephenson  did. 

The  Chairman.  Then  he  was  not  acting  in  connection  with  your 
office  here? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  If  the  Senator  will  pardon  me,  I think  it  has 
repeatedly  appeared  that  the  Milwaukee  campaign  was  handled 
entirely  independent  of  the  general  campaign. 

The  Chairman.  I had  supposed  that  was  so  until  I found  it  in 
the  statement.  It  is  in  the  Edmonds  statement. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  This  witness  included  the  statement  as  rendered 
to  him  by  the  Milwaukee  manager. 

The  Chairman.  Edmonds  testified  that  Mr.  Sacket  made  up  that 
statement,  I think. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  and  so  he  did. 

The  Chairman.  I want  to  be  perfectly  candid  and  fair  with  this 
witness. 

In  your  statement,  on  page  498,  you  include  it  in  the  summary — 
that  is  the  item  of  $11,600;  is  it  not? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  that  is  the  Knell  item. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  not  consider  yourself  responsible  for  the 
manner  of  that  expenditure? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  who  would  be  responsible? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  items  does  the  chairman  refer  to,  please? 
I lost  the  connection  for  a moment. 

The  Chairman.  I was  referring  to  the  group  of  items  summarized 
on  page  498,  under  “ Milwaukee  County,  $11,600.” 

I want  to  know  out  of  what  fund  that  money  came. 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  money  came  out  of  the  $98,083.72. 

The  Chairman.  And  that  was  the  gross  fund  for  which  you  and 
those  associated  with  you  at  headquarters  were  responsible,  was  it 
not? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  if  any  person  whom  you  authorized  to 
draw  against  that  fund  and  expend  money,  made  a wrongful  expen- 
diture, one  in  violation  of  the  law,  it  is  chargeable  to  those  who  are 
responsible  for  the  manner  of  the  expense,  is  it  not  ? 

I want  you  to  understand  the  distinction.  You  said  you  did  not 
pay  this  money  out  by  items ; that  you  paid  it  out  in  bulk.  That  is 
to  say,  you  turned  it  over  to  the  credit  of  somebody  else,  who  dis- 
bursed it;  did  you  not? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  disclaim  any  responsibility  for  the 
manner  of  its  use ; is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir;  I had  no  control  over  its  use.  I made  no 
arrangement  with  the  man  before  paying  him.  I did  it  on  the  order 
of  somebody  else. 

The  Chairman.  I was  calling  attention  to  this  frequently  repeated 
item  of  sundries.  Some  items  are  small  and  some  are  large.  What 
is  meant  by  sundries?  Was  that  drinks  and  cigars  in  the  saloons? 


172 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Mr.  Sacket.  I think  not. 

The  Chairman.  What? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Not  in  my  statement;  no,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  page  does  the  Chairman  have  in  mind? 

The  Chairman.  Take  page  496.  Take  almost  any  of  those  pages 
and  you  will  find  that  class  of  items.  For  instance,  there  is  an  item 
“ sundries,  $16 ; ” “ sundries,  $20 ; ” “ sundries,  $33 ; ” “ water,  $2.” 
Would  that  be  within  your  class  of  expenditures  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  was  probably  water  used  in  the  office. 

The  Chairman.  Then  there  are  three  items  of  sundries  on  the  5th, 
6th,  and  8th,  and  on  the  15th  $250  for  sundries.  That  is,  you  say,  in 
the  Milwaukee  account;  is  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir;  that  is  in  the  Milwaukee  headquarters’  ac- 
count; not  the  Milwaukee  County  account. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  what  I refer  to;  the  Milwaukee  head- 
quarters acount. 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  Stfate  account? 

The  Chairman.  There  is  quite  a considerable  amount  of  sundries 
contained  on  those  three  pages,  494,  495,  and  496,  in  items  running 
from  $250  down. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  There  is  one  item  of  $1.50. 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  and  perhaps  even  less. 

I should  like  to  know,  Mr.  Sacket,  whether  or  not  you  were  cog- 
nizant at  the  time  that  such  expenditures  were  being  made  out  of 
the  fund  for  which  you  were  responsible? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir;  they  covered  incidental  expenses  in  the 
office.  They  might  have  included  beer  and  cigars,  as  you  suggested, 
in  some  cases,  but  they  were  not  put  in  to  cover  that  up  in  any  way. 
They  are  just  what  they  say,  as  I remember  them,  sundries,  small 
items. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  it  necessary  to  cover  beer  and  cigars  in  Mil- 
waukee ? 

The  Chairman.  I am  not  inclined  to  be  very  technical  about  that 
class  of  expenditures,  but  I was  asking  the  questions  more  to  test 
your  knowledge  then  and  now  as  to  the  class  of  expenditures  which 
you  countenanced  under  your  responsibility  as  the  custodian  of  the 
fund.  That  was  the  purpose  in  calling  your  attention  to  it. 

Was  your  attention  called  to  the  fact  at  the  time  these  expenditures 
were  being  incurred  and  paid  out  of  the  fund  for  which  you  were 
responsible  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I undoubtedly  knew  of  these  expenditures  at  that 
time. 

The  Chairman.  When  your  attention  was  called  to  an  expenditure 
of  $130  or  $140  for  sundries,  did  you  inquire  whether  or  not  that 
was  a lawful  expenditure  under  the  laws  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I undoubtedly  knew  that  it  was  a perfectly  lawful 
and  proper  expenditure  before  I paid  it. 

The  Chairman.  But  you  did  not  pay  it  out;  did  you? 

Mr.  Sacket.  These  small  sundry  items  I did  attend  to  mostly 
myself. 

The  Chairman.  You  paid  the  sundry  items  mostly  yourself? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir;  that  is,  I paid  them  myself,  or  reimbursed 
somebody  else  who  did  pay  them. 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


173 


The  Chairman.  In  this  case  I infer  you  reimbursed  a man  who 
had  been  dispensing  some  money. 

Were  you  in  Madison  at  the  time  of  the  senatorial  election  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  You  mean  on  the  day 

The  Chairman.  I mean  during  the  time  that  the  matter  was 
before  the  legislature. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I was  a witness  before  the  joint  committee  during 
that  session  of  the  legislature. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  there  in  January  when  the  houses  voted 
separately  on  the  question  of  the  election  of  a Senator? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I was  not  in  Madison  on  that  day ; no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  there  upon  a subsequent  day  when  they 
voted  in  joint  session? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I was  there  on  several  days. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  there  on  the  particular  day  when  the 
vote  in  joint  session  was  taken? 

Mr.  Sacket.  When  Senator  Stephenson  was  declared  elected;  do 
you  mean? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir;  I was  not. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  there  the  day  before? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  leave  Wisconsin  after  the  Stephen- 
son contest  in  1908  and  1909? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Does  the  chairman  mean  after  the  close  of  the 
primary  election? 

The  Chairman.  I mean  to  include  the  primary  and  the  general 
election. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I could  not  give  the  exact  date. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  not  know  when  you  went  to  Washington? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I say  I could  not  give  the  exact  date. 

The  Chairman.  Give  it  approximately. 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  was  probably  very  shortly  after  the  1st  of  Novem- 
ber. If  I remember  correctly,  I stayed  and  voted  and  then  went  to 
Washington  within  a very  few  days. 

The  Chairman.  You  made  up  this  summary  on  page  498,  did  you, 
specifying  the  expenditures  that  had  been  made  under  your  direc- 
tion? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I made  that  statement;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  From  what  did  you  make  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  From  the  items  in  the  account  preceding  that;  on 
the  pages  preceding  that. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  merely  a summing  up  of  the  items? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  have  any  cards  or  memoranda  showing 
that  you  had  already  done  that,  or  made  that  statement,  that  you 
destroyed  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  believe  I understand  you. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  had  you,  prior  to  classifying  this  previous 
statement  here,  classified  it  as  to  items  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Iihad  not ; no,  sir. 


174 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


The  Chairman.  Then  this  is  the  first  time  that  you  undertook  to 
analyze  the  account,  is  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  testified  that  a great  many  of  these  people 
who  are  stated  to  be  organizers  and  to  be  paid  for  organizing  were 
employed  in  obtaining  signatures  to  the  nomination  papers.  Is  that 
correct  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember  making  the  statement,  but  some 
of  them  did  attend  to  the  matter  of  getting  signatures,  to  my  cer- 
tain knowledge. 

The  Chairman.  Will  you  just  tell  me  at  this  point,  Mr.  Sacket, 
who  does  know  about  these  things.  Things  do  not  happen  without 
somebody  knowing. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I know  about  some  of  them. 

The  Chairman.  Who  knows  about  those  that  you  do  not  know 
about? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I presume  Mr.  Edmonds  does. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  present  this  morning  when  that  gentle- 
man was  on  the  witness  stand 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  testified  that  he  did  not  know,  and  that  you 
were  the  one  who  would  know? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember  noticing  any  such  thing  in  his 
testimony. 

The  Chairman.  He  testified  in  effect  that  you  were  the  person  who 
would  know  the  detailed  facts  i?i  regard  to  the  purposes  for  which 
the  money  was  expended.  Now,  do  you  know  the  facts? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Just  a moment,  if  the  subcommittee  please.  Is 
the  chairman  quite  certain  that  Mr.  Edmonds  applied  that  statement 
to  the  arrangements  he  himself  made  ? My  recollection  is — of  course 
the  chairman  may  be  right — that  Mr.  Edmonds  undertook  himself 
to  state  as  to  the  arrangements  that  he  made,  what  the  purposes 
were,  and  what  instructions  he  gave,  and  that  as  to  the  arrangements 
that  Mr.  Sacket  made,  Mr.  Sacket  would  have  the  information. 
Of  course,  I may  be  wrong  about  this  and  the  chairman  may  be 
right,  but  that  is  my  recollection. 

The  Chairman.  My  statement  did  not  go  so  far  as  to  say  that  Mr. 
Edmonds  said  that  Mr.  Sacket  would  know  about  those  things  as  to 
which  he  had  given  information. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I misapprehended  the  statement. 

The  Chairman.  We  are  seeking  now  only  for  the  margin  beyond 
which  Mr.  Edmonds  went. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  I got  the  wrong  impression  from  your 
question. 

The  Chairman.  I want  this  witness  to  tell  us  who  knows  the  details 
in  regard  to  the  expenditure  of  these  sums  of  money,  and  I will  ask 
the  witness  to  take  up,  first,  the  summary  statement  which  he  pre- 
pared, and  I will  go  over  it,  and  then  we  will  proceed  to  the  general 
statement  and  find  out  where  the  knowledge  rests.  Now,  there  is  an 
item  of  general  expenses  in  organizing  the  State,  $46,052.29.  Those 
are  the  items,  are  they,  which  in  this  statement  you  term  “organ- 
izing ” ? For  instance,  the  several  items  at  the  top  of  page  480 — $200, 
$150,  and  $300 — and  others  below. 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


175 


Mr.  Sacket.  Those  items  would  undoubtedly  be  included  in  that 
$46,000. 

The  Chairman.  Very  well.  Now,  that  does  not  include  the  procur- 
ing of  names  to  the  petition  for  the  primary  nomination,  does  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  might  include  some  of  those  expenditures. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  does  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  it  does. 

The  Chairman.  You  made  it  up. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  it  does. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  of  it  is  in  that  class? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I could  not  say. 

The  Chairman.  In  your  summary  you  have  here  “nomination 
papers,  $40.86.”  What  item  is  that? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  is  a number  of  bills  that  were  sent  to  our  office 
by  men  to  whom  we  sent  blanks  by  mail;  men  who  sent  in  and  de- 
manded payment  for  their  services  in  circulating  those  papers;  so 
that  that  item  is  clearly  for  nomination  papers  and  nothing  else.  A 
great  many  of  our  organizers  also  attended  to  the  getting  of  nomina- 
tion papers.  The  money  given  to  them  would  be  charged  in  this 
$46,000  item. 

The  Chairman.  I notice  that  all  of  these  items  for  organizing — and 
the  greater  part  of  them  are  for  organizing — are  after  the  time  when 
you  had  filed  the  petitions  with  the  signatures  on  them. 

Mr.  Sacket.  My  idea  of  organizing,  as  I used  it  in  this  statement, 
might  include  circulating  of  petitions,  or  any  other  work  to  perfect  the 
organization  which  we  hoped  to  use  for  the  election  of  Senator 
Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  Would  it  include  the  distribution  and  payment  of 
money  to  men  who  were  to  work  at  the  polls? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Would  it  include  the  payment  of  money  to  men 
who  were  to  induce  other  men  to  vote  for  Senator  Stephenson,  without 
any  limitation  being  placed  upon  the  manner  of  inducement  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  would  include  money  expended  in  that  way;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  It  might  include  money  expended  in  purchasing 
votes,  might  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  might. 

The  Chairman.  Did  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Not  to  my  knowledge. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  say  it  did  not. 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir ; not  of  my  own  knowledge. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  no  memorandum  that  would  even  guide 
you  to  a conclusion,  have  you  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  think  I would  be  able  to  keep  one. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  never  made  a memorandum  that  would? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is,  a memorandum  that  would  show  the  pur- 
chase of  a vote? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I suppose  not. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  “ organizing  ” after  August  2 does  not  in- 
clude the  obtaining  of  signatures  to  the  petitions? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  items  entered  after  the  2d  of  August  might  be 
payment  for  services  rendered  earlier. 


176 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


The  Chairman.  Will  you  turn  to  Exhibit  47,  on  page  476,  and  tell 
me  what  the  items  on  August  4 of  $1,000  to  Douglas  County,  $1,300 
to  La  Crosse,  and  $1,300  to  Vilas,  Oneida,  and  Lincoln  Counties  were 
for?  What  were  they  paid  for? 

Mr.  Sacket.  From  that  statement  I could  not  tell. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  any  memoranda  from  which  you  can  tell  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  subsequent  exhibit,  49,  would  throw  some  light 
on  that  subject. 

The  Chairman.  J ust  transfer  that  light  to  us,  please. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Turn  on  the  light.  That  is  the  statement  begin- 
ning on  page  588. 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  I have  it.  Which  one? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  August  4. 

Mr.  Sacket.  That,  I believe,  shows  the  check  numbers,  and  the 
persons  to  whom  the  amounts  were  paid. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  On  the  bottom  of  page  589. 

The  Chairman.  That  merely  shows  that  you  paid  it  by  cashier’s 
check  with  a given  number  to  S.  S.  Perrin. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Now,  that  was  for  organization  prior  to  the  time 
of  the  filing  of  the  petitions,  so  that  would  include  any  expense  for 
getting  the  petitions,  would  it  not? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  absolute  personal  knowledge  of  these  items 
that  you  refer  to.  I did  not  make  the  arrangements  with  any  of 
these  gentlemen. 

The  Chairman.  Who  did? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Mr.  Edmonds. 

The  Chairman.  George  Gordon  received  $1,300  on  the  same  day 
for  some  purpose.  What  purpose  was  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Who  would  know? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Mr.  Edmonds. 

The  Chairman.  Is  Mr.  Edmonds  in  the  court  room? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  He  was  here  a few  moments  ago,  but  he  stated  to 
me  that  he  was  just  going  out. 

The  Chairman.  I requested  him  to  remain  here  until  he  was  ex- 
cused. The  importance  of  complying  with  that  request  is  obvious 
at  this  time.  The  sergeant  at  arms  will  call  Mr.  Edmonds  into  the 
court  room.  He  was  instructed  to  go  over  this  statement  and  point 
out  certain  items. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I think  what  he  was  trying  to  give  to  the  com- 
mittee was  a statement  of  what  portions  of  these  sums  were  paid  for 
services.  That  is  my  recollection. 

The  Chairman.  He  was  also  to  furnish  information  as  to  items  of 
which  he  had  personal  knowledge.  I will  pass  these  items  until  Mr. 
Edmonds  has  checked  them  up.  Mr.  Sacket,  will  you  go  through 
this  statement  of  yours  between  now  and  the  meeting  of  the  com- 
mittee to-morrow,  and  pick  out  the  items  of  which  you  have  personal 
knowledge  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  In  regard  to  the  purpose  for  which  the  expendi- 
ture was  made ; or  rather,  to  put  it  more  plainly,  of  which  you  have 
knowledge  as  to  the  nature  of  the  expenditure  that  was  made. 


SOLON  S.  PERRIN. 


177 


Mr.  Sacket.  Would  you  consider  that  I had  knowledge  of  the 
nature  of  it  if  I had  directed  a man  to  expend  it  in  a certain  way, 
and  not  in  certain  other  ways? 

The  Chairman.  The  way  to  answer  that  is  to  give  such  informa- 
tion as  you  have.  If  you  have  no  more  knowledge  than  that,  per- 
haps we  will  have  to  be  content  with  it;  but  if  you  have  more  knowl- 
edge, it  would  be  to  your  advantage  to  give  it.  The  committee  will 
take  a recess  for  five  minutes. 

(At  4 o’clock  and  10  minutes  p.  m.  the  committee  took  a recess 
until  4 o’clock  and  15  minutes  p.  m.) 

AFTER  RECESS. 

At  the  expiration  of  the  recess  the  subcommittee  reassembled. 

The  Chairman.  If  Mr.  Solon  S.  Perrin  is  present  he  will  come 
forward  and  be  sworn. 

TESTIMONY  OF  SOLON  S.  PEEKIN. 

Solon  S.  Perrin  responded  to  his  name  and  was  sworn  by  the 
chairman. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Perrin,  having  been  sworn  as  a witness,  you 
will  remain  in  attendance  during  the  sessions  of  the  committee,  and 
you  will  be  heard  as  early  as  possible.  Now,  Mr.  Littlefield,  I under- 
stand you  to  say  that  you  will  have  Mr.  Edmonds  make  up  that  state- 
ment of  the  items  of  which  he  has  personal  knowledge. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes.  Perhaps  I ought  to  explain  that  Mr.  Ed- 
monds had  my  copy  of  this  printed  testimony  before  the  State  com- 
mittee, and  was  at  work  in  my  room  last  evening  going  over  these 
items,  in  accordance  with  the  suggestion  of  the  chairman.  I think 
he  had  checked  in  Exhibit  49  all  of  the  items  as  to  which  he  made  the 
arrangements  and  gave  any  directions  or  instructions.  Since  that 
time  I have  taken  that  copy  back  to  my  room,  so  that  if  I am  cor- 
rect the  memorandum  of  his  notations  is  in  my  room. 

Senator  Sutherland.  He  was  to  go  over  the  accounts  and  come  in 
this  morning  prepared  to  testify  as  to  the  items  of  which  he  had 
personal  knowledge. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  He  was  doing  that.  I do  not  know  whether  he 
has  completed  it  or  not.  My  understanding  is  that  he  has,  and  that 
he  has  checked  it  up  in  the  copy  which  I have  in  my  room.  Mr. 
Sacket  is  doing  the  same  thing  on  the  copy  which  he  has. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  it  almost  completed. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Mr.  Sacket  can  proceed  with  that  to-night  if  you 
would  like  to  have  him  do  it. 

The  Chairman.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  witness  is  going  over 
the  statement  for  the  purpose  of  making  his  examination  more  expe- 
ditious, the  committee  will  stand  adjourned  until  10  o’clock  to- 
morrow morning. 

(At  4 o’clock  and  21  minutes  p.  m.  the  subcommittee  adjourned 
until  to-morrow,  Wednesday,  October  4,  1911,  at  10  o’clock  a.  m.) 

15235°— vol  l—ll 12 


178 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


WEDNESDAY,  OCTOBER  4,  1911. 

Federal  Building, 

Milwaukee , W is. 

The  subcommittee  met  at  10  o’clock  a.  m. 

Present:  Senators  Heyburn  (chairman),  Sutherland,  and  Pome- 
rene. 

Present  also:  Mr.  C.  E.  Littlefield,  Mr.  W.  E.  Black,  and  Mr. 
H.  H.  J.  Upham,  counsel  for  Senator  Isaac  Stephenson. 

TESTIMONY  OF  E.  A.  EDMONDS— Resumed. 

The  Chairman.  The  chair  will  ask  Mr.  Edmonds  to  resume  the 
stand. 

Mr.  Edmonds  resumed  the  stand. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Edmonds,  on  Monday  you  were  requested  to 
look  over  the  account  rendered  by  you  or  Mr.  Sacket,  or  jointly,  and 
tell  the  committee  as  to  which  particular  items  in  that  account  you 
had  personal  knowledge  of,  as  to  the  purpose  of  the  expenditures. 
Have  you  gone  through  the  accounts  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  At  what  page  in  the  report  have  you  the  accounts? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Page  588. 

The  Chairman.  I wish  you  would  specify  which  items  in  that 
account  were  expended  under  your  personal  knowledge  and  direction, 
and  in  connection  with  that  statement  state  whether  or  not  you  know 
for  what  purpose  the  money  was  furnished  or  expended. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  and  may  I make  the  explanation  in  making 
my  checkings  that  some  of  these  I know  more  about  than  I do  about 
others?  For  instance,  in  Dane  County,  as  to  the  organizing,  I could 
not  say  positively  that  that  was  money  paid  to  Mr.  Ames. 

The  Chairman.  Let  us  take  them  in  their  order,  so  that  the  record 
will  be  orderly.  Which  is  the  first  item  of  which  you  have  personal 
knowledge  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  July  18,  Dane  County  organizing,  $200. 

The  Chairman.  To  whom  was  that  money  paid? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  was  the  explanation  that  I was  giving. 

The  Chairman.  But  I want  you  to  repeat  your  explanation  as  an 
answer  to  my  question.  To  whom  was  that  money  paid? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  There  is  nothing  here  to  indicate 

'the  Chairman.  I do  not  care  about  that,  Mr.  Edmonds;  I want 
your  knowledge  on  the  subject. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  I will  make  it  plain  to  you  so  that  we  will  not 
have  to  repeat  it.  Either  you  or  Mr.  Sacket  were  represented  as 
having  knowledge  in  regard  to  the  purpose  for  which  the  money 
was  paid,  and  the  manner  in  which  it  was  used.  The  testimony 
of  each  of  you  together  should  cover  every  item  in  this  account. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  May  I make  this  statement,  in  explanation,  that  the 
time  has  been  long  since  this  money  was  expended,  and  the  report 
was  made 

The  Chairman.  We  are  aware  of  that. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  This  report  is  not  clear,  and  simply  says  “ Dane 
County  organizing,”  giving  no  names.  I have  no  reason  to  doubt 


E.  A.  EDMONDS.  179 

that  that  was  paid  to  the  man  who  did  the  organizing  in  that  county, 
but  I could  not  swear  to  it. 

The  Chairman.  Let  us  start  out  with  a fair  understanding.  Your 
reasoning  in  regard  to  it  is  not  testimony  or  evidence.  If  you  will 
confine  yourself  as  nearly  as  possible  to  stating  the  facts  without 
drawing  conclusions,  leaving  that  to  the  committee,  the  committee 
will  be  obliged,  and  the  committee  will  take  notice  of  the  lapse  of 
time  and  perhaps  of  a difficulty  which  may  be  found  in  accurate 
recollection.  But  we  want  your  recollection.  Take  the  item  of  July 
18,  $200.  To  whom  was  that  money  paid  ? Do  you  know  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Who  directed  its  payment? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  was  it  paid? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  was  it  expended? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  last  know  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think  I ever  knew. 

The  Chairman.  You,  then,  never  knew  anything  about  the  item  of 
July  18  for  organizing  Dane  County,  $200? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  As  to  this  particular  item  I do  not  know  that  I ever 
did;  I do  not  remember. 

The  Chairman.  Pass  now  to  the  first  item  of  which  you  have 
knowledge. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  The  item,  “ General  organizing,  Edmonds’s  check, 
$150.” 

The  Chairman.  To  whom  was  that  money  paid  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  money  was  paid  to  me. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  do  with  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I am  unable  to  recall  the  exact  things  I did  with  it, 
but  it  was  paid  undoubtedly  for  my  expenses  at  the  hotel. 

The  Chairman.  I do  not  want  any  speculation  in  regard  to  it. 
Unless  you  know,  do  not  speculate  in  respect  to  it. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  no  knowledge  as  to  what  use  you  made 
of  that  $150? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No  knowledge  as  to  that  particular  $150. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  have  no  knowledge  as  to  the  use  you 
made  of  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  remember  what  I did  with  it ; no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  The  money  was  paid  to  you,  was  it  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Take  the  next  item  of  which  you  have  knowledge. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  is  on  the  next  page. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Give  the  date. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  July  22,  J.  W.  Wypszinski,  $50. 

The  Chairman.  To  whom  was  that  money  paid  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  To  the  man  whose  name  is  given  there,  and  it  was 
done  by  my  instructions. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  present  when  it  was  paid  to  him? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  have  a conversation  with  him? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 


180 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


The  Chairman.  What  was  the  conversation? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall  now,  but  he  was  to  go  out  into  the 
different  parts  of  the  State  to  see  the  people  of  his  nationality. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  he  to  do  when  he  saw  these  people? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Endeavor  to  enlist  them  in  the  interests  of  Senator 
Stephenson’s  election. 

The  Chairman.  What  do  you  mean  by  “enlist”  them? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Talk  with  them  and  tell  them  the  qualities  of  Sen- 
ator Stephenson  and  make  him  the  ideal  candidate  for  the  United 
States  Senate. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  pay  that  same  man  any  other  sum  of 
money  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I have  no  recollection  unless  I find  it  later  in  this 
report. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  personally  pay  him  the  money? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Who  did? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Mr.  Sacket. 

The  Chairman.  In  your  presence? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  How  do  you  know  that  he  received  that  money? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think,  perhaps,  that  is  not  a fair  statement  for 
me  to  make,  that  I know  that  Mr.  Sacket  gave  it  to  him.  He  was 
instructed  to  do  it. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  no  personal  knowledge  in  regard  to  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  had  a conversation  with  the  man  who  re- 
ceived the  money? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Before  or  after  he  received  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Before. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  tell  him  to  do  as  a consideration  for 
the  receipt  of  that  money  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  To  see  different  people  of  his  nationality  in  such 
localities  as  he  would  pick  out  and  endeavor  to  interest  them  in  the 
campaign. 

The  Chairman.  Where  is  that  man  now? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  last  see  him? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  that  he  came  in  later,  but  I am  not  sure. 
I never  saw  him  more  than  once  or  twice. 

The  Chairman.  Had  you  any  knowledge  of  him  prior  to  giving 
him  the  $50  on  July  22? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No;  I think  he  was  sent  to  me  by  somebody  who 
knew  him. 

The  Chairman.  If  you  have  no  actual  knowledge  on  the  subject, 
say  so.  Did  you  have  any  knowledge  of  this  man  prior  to  the  time 
when  you  gave  him  or  instructed  that  he  be  given  $50  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  If  the  chairman  will  excuse  me,  of  course  the 
Chair  does  not  undertake  to  exclude  the  witness  from  giving  his  best 
recollection. 

The  Chairman.  The  Chair  does  not.  The  witness  was  not  at- 
tempting to  give  his  best  recollection. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


181 


Mr.  Littlefield.  I did  not  want  any  misunderstanding  between 
the  chairman  and  the  witness. 

The  Chairman.  There  is  no  misunderstanding  about  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I have  not  said  there  was  a misunderstanding, 
but  I simply  wanted  the  witness  to  understand,  of  course,  that  he 
might  give  his  best  recollection.  There  is  a technical  and  a finical 
way  in  which  a man  may  give  his  answer  categorically  to  the  ques- 
tions that  are  propounded.  If  he  is  giving  his  best  recollection, 
of  course,  I suppose  that  is  a perfectly  proper  and  competent  thing 
to  do. 

The  Chairman.  The  Chair  advised  the  witness  that  we  wanted 
only  testimony  in  regard  to  matters  that  he  recollected.  If  he  does 
not  recollect,  it  is  proper  to  say  so.  We  do  not  want  anything  but 
testimony  of  what  the  witness  does  recollect. 

To  resume,  Mr.  Edmonds,  had  you  any  knowledge  of  this  man 
before  the  occasion  on  which  you  paid  him  $50,  or  instructed  that 
$50  be  paid  to  him  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No  personal  knowledge  except  through  information. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  have  information  in  regard  to  him? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  My  recollection  is  that  I did. 

The  Chairman.  From  whom? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall  now. 

The  Chairman.  In  writing,  or  otherwise? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  say  not  in  writing. 

The  Chairman.  By  phone? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  remember. 

The  Chairman.  Where  did  this  man  reside? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  know  then,  when  you  paid  him  the 
money  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  so. 

The  Chairman.  Was  he  a young  man  or  an  old  man? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  My  recollection  is  that  he  was  perhaps  30  or  35 
years  old. 

The  Chairman.  The  committee  would  like  to  know  or  have  such 
information  as  would  enable  it  to  bring  this  man  before  it.  Can  you 
give  the  committee  such  information? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  By  making  inquiries  I think  I can  find  him;  yes. 
I have  never  seen  him  since. 

The  Chairman.  Will  you  undertake  to  furnish  the  committee  with 
the  present  address  of  this  man? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Without  any  further  attention  on  the  part  of  the 
committee  we  will  rely  on  your  furnishing  the  committee  with  his 
address.  Do  you  know  what  county  he  was  from  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No;  I do  not. 

The  Chairman.  I notice  on  July  24  you  paid  to  the  same  man 
$25.  Did  you  make  that  payment  in  person? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall. 

The  Chairman.  Do  yon  know  whether  you  did  or  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Who  would  know  for  what  purpose  that  money 
was  given  to  this  man  on  the  24th? 


182 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Who  should  know  under  the  system  that  obtained 
in  the  headquarters? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Mr.  Sacket  should  know. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  make  any  memoranda  when  you  gave  in- 
structions for  the  payment  of  money  to  these  various  people,  or  any 
of  them,  as  to  the  services  they  were  to  perform  in  consideration  of 
receiving  this  money  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  no  written  statement;  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  you  did  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No  written  statement;  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  jmu  make  any  memoranda  at  any  time  in 
regard  to  the  purposes  for  which  the  money  you  ordered  paid  was 
to  be  used  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall  any. 

The  Chairman.  Endeavor  to  recall  it  now,  Mr.  Edmonds. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir;  I will. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  recall  any  instance  in  which  you  made 
a memorandum  as  to  the  purpose  for  which  the  money  was  paid, 
either  by  you  or  under  your  instructions,  during  this  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I can  not  recall  any  instance ; no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  no  books  of  account  in  which  such  items 
will  appear? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Absolutely  not. 

The  Chairman.  You  made  no  record  either  in  a book  or  otherwise 
as  to  the  purpose  for  which  you  paid  or  directed  that  money  to  be 
paid  during  the  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  To  the  very  best  of  my  recollection,  none. 

The  Chairman.  Why  did  you  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I did  not  feel  it  was  necessary. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  acquainted  with  the  provisions  of  the 
statutes  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin  with  reference  to  the  filing  of 
an  expense  account  by  those  who  were  candidates  for  nomination  or 
election  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  I think  so;  reasonably  well. 

The  Chairman.  Are  we  to  understand  that  with  that  knowledge 
you  did  not  make  any  attempt  to  lay  the  foundation  for  compliance 
with  that  law  in  the  expenditure  or  payment  of  the  large  sums  of 
money  that  you  disbursed  during  the  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I did  not,  because  it  was  done  by  another  person 
in  the  office. 

The  Chairman.  Who? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Mr.  Sacket. 

The  Chairman.  Suppose  it  transpired  that  it  was  not  done  by  Mr. 
Sacket,  then  did  Mr.  Sacket  disobey  any  instructions  which  you  had 
given  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  Mr.  Sacket  had  his  instructions  from  others 
before  I came  and  took  charge. 

The  Chairman.  You  were  the  manager  of  the  campaign,  were  you 
not  ? That  was  the  term  used  as  to  yourself? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  is  the  term  that  has  been  given  me ; yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  It  was  the  designation  at  that  time,  was  it  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  so. 

The  Chairman.  How  did  you  regard  yourself  in  that  respect? 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


183 


Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  I regarded  myself  as  manager  of  the  cam- 
paign. 

The  Chairman.  And  so  regarding  yourself,  you  made  no  attempt 
to  lay  the  foundation  for  making  a statement  that  would  comply 
with  the  law  in  the  event  it  became  necessary  to  file  an  expense 
account  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir.  Owing  to  the  conditions  that  existed  when 
I went  there,  I felt  that  that  was  being  done  and  so  continued  during 
my  service. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  not  feel  that  you,  as  manager  of  the 
campaign,  had  any  responsibility  for  the  observance  of  the  law  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Certainly. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  you  did  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Certainly,  I did. 

The  Chairman.  You  did? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Feeling  that  responsibility,  I repeat  the  question: 
Why  did  you  not  take  some  steps  that  would  enable  you  to  meet  the 
responsibility  when  the  occasion  arose  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Because  the  office  manager,  who  had  in  charge  that 
work,  was  doing  the  work  satisfactorily,  so  far  as  I knew. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  inquire  as  to  the  manner  in  which  he  was 
doing  the  work  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know  that  I inquired,  but  at  times  I saw 
what  he  was  doing. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  examine  the  accounts  that  were  being 
kept  by  Mr.  Sacket? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think  so ; no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Never? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  remember  that  I ever  did ; no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  inquire  as  to  the  manner  of  the  keeping 
of  those  accounts  of  Mr.  Sacket,  or  of  any  person  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know  that  I ever  inquired.  I saw  what  he 
was  doing. 

The  Chairman.  But  did  you  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  say  you  saw  what  he  was  doing? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I saw  what  he  was  doing,  so  it  was  not  necessary  to 
inquire. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  you  saw  it.  Did  you  purposely  look  at 
it,  or  did  you  see  it  incidentally  to  some  other  transaction? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  remember  ever  having  gone  in  to  make 
an  examination  of  what  he  was  doing. 

The  Chairman.  How  did  you  come  to  see  it;  under  what 
circumstances  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  His  office  adjoined  mine;  I was  often  in  his  office; 
he  was  in  mine ; and  I saw  him  there  nearly  every  day. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  see? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I would  notice  that  he  had  a record  where  he  kept 
track  of  what  he  was  ordering — getting  from  the  bank. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  examine  that  record  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  form  was  the  record  in? 


184 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Mr.  Edmonds.  My  recollection  is — no;  I can  not  say;  I do  not 
know ; in  some  book  or  paper  that  he  had  on  the  desk. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  think  you  had  a recollection  when  you 
started  to  answer  that  your  “ recollection  is  ” ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I did  not  want  to  guess  at  it.  I wanted  to  say 
exactly  what  I remembered. 

The  Chairman.  The  subcommittee  does  not  desire  that  you  should 
guess.  You  saw  some  book  or  paper  that  contained  an  account  or 
memorandum  of  the  transactions,  did  you  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  To  my  best  recollection,  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  kind  of  a book  was  it  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know,  and  yet  remember  seeing  the 
book  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  My  statement  was  that  I saw  him  making  a record 
in  some — on  some  paper  or  book  on  his  desk. 

The  Chairman.  Which  was  it,  paper  or  book  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall ; something  that  he  was  writing  on. 

The  Chairman.  How  do  you  know  it  was  either  a book  or  a paper 
if  you  have  no  recollection? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  is  barely  possible  that  he  was  writing  on  the  top 
of  his  desk,  but  I do  not  think  so.  I think  he  had  something  on 
which 

The  Chairman.  You  desire  that  answer  to  stand,  do  you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  As  indicating  the  frame  of  mind  in  which  you  are 
receiving  and  replying  to  these  questions — that  he  might  have  been 
writing  on  the  top  of  his  desk  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  think  that  measures  up  with  the  responsibil- 
ity that  you  have  as  a witness  in  this  investigation  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I am  making  the  best  answers  that  it  is  possible  for 
me  to  make,  Senator.  I am  withholding  nothing.  If  I could  recall, 
I would  tell  you  frankly. 

The  Chairman.  I will  give  you  another  opportunity  to  answer  that 
question.  Was  he  writing  in  a book  or  on  loose  paper? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Yet  you  remember  seeing  him  write? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir ; that  is  my  best  recollection. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  the  occasion  on  which  you  saw  him 
write  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall  the  particular  occasion. 

The  Chairman.  How  do  you  recall  that  you  saw  him  write  if  you 
can  not  give  any  intimation  of  the  occasion  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I have  no  answer  to  give  to  that  question. 

The  Chairman.  Why  have  you  no  answer  to  give  to  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  it  that  you  do  not  know  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I understand,  Senator,  that  you  want  me  to  answer 
questions  as  to  which  I know,  and  that  you  do  not  want  me  to  guess, 
and  I am  trying  not  to  do  that. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  already  stated  that  you  saw  him  writing 
on  a book  or  paper,  or  the  top  of  a desk,  you  have  said,  in  perhaps  a 
flippant  manner.  On  what  occasion  was  it  you  saw  him  so  writing? 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


185 


Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  How  can  you  remember  you  saw  him  write  if  you 
can  not  remember  an  occasion? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I will  have  to  answer  again  that  I do  not  know. 
It  is  impossible  for  me  to  answer  the  questions  that  have  been  put 
to  me  in  that  manner. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  mean  that  it  is  impossible  or  it  is  dan- 
gerous ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  is  impossible;  not  at  all  dangerous.  There  is 
not  a thing  that  you  can  ask  me  that  I will  not  answer  fully  and 
freely,  if  I can. 

The  Chairman.  You  realize  that  you  are  responsible  for  the 
manner  of  the  expenditure  of  this  money,  do  you  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  so,  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  never  made  any  effort  to  ascertain  in 
what  manner  the  accounts  were  being  kept;  is  that  true? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I state  again  that  I saw,  at  different  times,  and 
talked  with  Mr.  Sacket,  and  knew  in  a general  way  what  he  was 
doing;  that  he  was  keeping  the  account.  I never  made  an  examina- 
tion and  never  instructed 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  of  any  single  item  of  which  you  had 
knowledge  as  to  Mr.  Sacket’s  keeping  an  account  of  it  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall  any  now.  I think  he  kept  them  all. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  you  think  it.  On  what  do  you  base 
your  thought  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  From  the  fact  that  he  has  made  this  detailed  state- 
ment, and  if  he  had  not  kept  something  he  could  not  have. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  anything  about  the  destruction  of 
the  memoranda  or  cards  or  card  index  upon  which  he  says  he  had 
kept  certain  accounts? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Absolutely  nothing. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  know  that  they  were  being  destroyed  or 
that  they  were  going  to  be  destroyed  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  ever  in  consultation  with  reference  ta 
the  destruction  of  the  papers  and  memoranda  kept  by  Mr.  Sacket? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Never. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  first  know  that  they  had  been 
destroyed  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Just  now. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  suppose  they  were  still  in  existence? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I did  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  You  knew  that  was  testified  to  before  the  legis- 
lative committee,  did  you  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  never  read  the  testimony  that  was  taken 
before  that  committee? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Never. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  hear  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  not  hear  Mr.  Sacket  testify? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I did  not. 


186 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


The  Chairman.  Where  were  you  at  the  time  the  testimony  was 
being  taken? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall  now.  I was  in  Madison  part  of  the 
time,  all  the  time  when  I was  testifying,  and  as  soon  as  I could  get 
home  I went  home. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  pay  any  attention  at  all  to  the  testimony 
given  by  your  associate,  Mr.  Sacket,  before  that  committee? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I was  present  at  different  times  during  the  testi- 
mony of  different  members.  I do  not  recall. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  present  and  did  you  hear  the  testimony 
of  Mr.  Sacket  before  that  committee? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think  I heard  any  of  it.  I am  not  positive. 
I may  have  heard  a little. 

The  Chairman.  Wrhy  did  you  not  hear  it ; were  you  excluded  from 
the  room? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Your  sense  of  responsibility  did  not  impel  you  to 
acquaint  yourself  with  the  testimony  of  those  who  were  associated 
with  you,  did  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir.  I had  no  reason  to  think  that  there  was 
anything  in  Mr.  Sacket’s  testimony  or  in  the  testimony  of  any  other 
person  in  connection  with  this  investigation  that  would  in  any  way 
injure  the  chances  of  Senator  Stephenson  in  his  election. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  what  you  had  in  view,  was  it?  You  had 
in  view  only  the  chances  of  Senator  Stephenson  in  his  election  ? Did 
you  have  no  concern  or  interest  in  the  integrity  of  the  proceedings 
that  would  result  in  his  election? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I would  like  that  question  again. 

The  Chairman  (to  the  reporter).  Head  it. 

(The  reporter  read  as  follows:) 

That  is  what  yon  had  in  view  was  it?  You  had  in  view  only  the  chances  of 
Senator  Stephenson  in  his  election?  Did  you  have  no  concern  or  interest  in  the 
integrity  of  the  proceedings  that  would  result  in  his  election? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  is  not  true  that  I had  no  other  thought  in  mind 
than  the  chances  of  the  election  of  Senator  Stephenson.  But  I had 
no  reason  to  believe  that  in  the  testimony  of  any  of  these  witnesses 
there  would  be  anything  of  a dangerous  character,  anything  incrim- 
inating to  them  or  to  him.  There  was  no  reason  why  I should  listen 
to  the  testimony.  Had  I been  there  I would  have  listened.  But 
when  I wTas  through  with  my  testimony  I was  glad  to  go  home. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  not  regard  it  as  rather  an  unusual  and 
serious  situation  that  was  disclosed  by  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Sacket 
showing  the  expenditure  of  a very  large  sum  of  money  in  connection 
with  the  campaign  of  a candidate  for  the  Senate? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir.  I regarded  the  whole  matter  of  that  in- 
vestigation as  a political  deal  here  in  the  State. 

The  Chairman.  I am  not  speaking  of  the  investigation;  I am 
speaking  of  the  condition  that  was  disclosed  there  and  admitted 
here.  Did  you  not  regard  it  as  rather  a serious  question,  to  be  care- 
fully considered,  that  a candidate  should  expend  so  much  money  at  a 
primary  election? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  I certainly  did  not. 

The  Chairman.  You  thought  that  was  a natural  result  from  the 
condition,  did  you? 


E.  A.  EDMONDS.  187 

Mr.  Edmonds.  The  natural  result  of  the  primary  election  law 
under  which  this  election  was  held  and  this  campaign  was  held. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  present  when  Senator  Stephenson  testi- 
fied before  the  joint  committee? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I was  there  that  day,  but  I did  not  hear  his  testi- 
mony, or  all  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  Why  did  you  not  listen  to  his  testimony  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  The  Senator’s  back  was  toward  the  people  in  the 
room  where  I was  standing,  and  it  was  not  possible  for  us  to  hear 
all  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  endeavor  to  hear  the  testimony  given  by 
Senator  Stephenson  on  that  occasion  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I am  quite  certain  I was  there  when  he  started, 
because  I was  to  be  the  next  witness,  I believe. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  endeavor  to  hear  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall. 

The  Chairman.  Not  at  all? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  recall;  is  that  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  talk  over  the  expenditures  of  this 
campaign  with  Mr.  Sacket? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  There  was  an  attempt  to  talk  it  over;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  When? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  When  this  report  was  being  prepared. 

The  Chairman.  Not  before? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  at  the  time.  You  say  “not  before”;  it  might 
have  been  a few  hours  before. 

The  Chairman.  During  the  campaign  did  you  and  Mr.  Sacket 
confer  at  any  time  in  regard  to  the  propriety  of  the  expenditures 
that  were  being  made? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Not  with  regard  to  the  propriety  of  expenditures; 
no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  On  no  occasion? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think  on  a single  one. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  confer  during  that  time  as  to  whether 
or  not  expenditures  would  be  made? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know  that  I get  just  the  meaning  of  your 
question,  Senator.  I do  not  think  that  I ever  discussed  with  him  the 
propriety  of  a large  or  small  expenditure,  or  of  any  particular 
amounts  of  any 

The  Chairman.  You  evidently  comprehend  the  question.  You 
went  through  about  two  months  of  the  campaign  together  in  those 
offices,  did  you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Six  or  seven  weeks,  I believe;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  were,  each  of  you,  charged  with  a sepa- 
rate as  well  as  a dual  responsibility  for  the  conduct  of  the  cam- 
paign ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  think  that  expresses  it ; yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  yet  you  never  conferred  with  reference  to 
what  expenditures  should  be  made ; is  that  true  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  My  answer  was  more  as  to  discussion  of  the  policy. 

The  Chairman.  I am  talking  about  the  expenditure  of  money. 


188 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Mr.  Edmonds.  Policy  of  expenditure  of  money.  But  as  to  indi- 
vidual instances  where  money  was  expended,  certainly  I told  him 
about  what  I had  arranged  for  the  expenditure  of,  and  in  matters  of 
advertising,  etc.,  he  consulted  with  me;  so  we  talked  those  matters 
over. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  you  did  confer  with  reference  to  the  pur- 
pose for  which  these  items  of  expenditure  were  made? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir.  I did  not  answer  your  question  properly 
if  that  is  what  you  meant  before. 

The  Chairman.  Now,  just  refer  to  the  item  on  July  22,  the  third 
item  from  the  top  of  page  589.  Did  you  confer  with  regard  to 
whether  or  not  that  expenditure  should  be  made  to  Mr.  Wypszinski? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think  so.  My  best  recollection  is  that  I 
did  not.  * 

The  Chairman.  You  just  directed  him  to  pay  the  money,  did  you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  is  my  best  recollection ; yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  the  one  who  had  the  conversation  with 
Mr.  Wypszinski  regarding  his  employment? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I believe  that  to  be  the  case ; yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  had  agreed  definitely  as  to  his  employ- 
ment and  as  to  its  scope,  had  you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  convey  those  facts  to  Mr.  Sacket  when 
you  instructed  him  to  pay  the  money? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  My  best  recollection  is  thal?  I simply  asked  him  to 
pay  the  money  to  Sir.  Wypszinski ; that  I had  made  arrangements 
for  him  to  work  for  the  organization. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  of  that  money  was  to  be  paid  for 
salary  or  compensation  to  Mr.  Wypszinski? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  My  best  recollection  is  that  he  was  to  receive  $50 
for  the  services  that  he  was  to  render  during  the  campaign. 

The  Chairman.  Altogether? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Then  why  did  you,  on  the  24th,  two  days  after- 
wards, give  him  another  $25? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  was  for  services  that  I refer  to.  These  other 
items  should  be  expense  that  he  might  have  had. 

The  Chairman.  The  $25  was  for  expenses,  was  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  You  made  the  contract  with  him? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  is  true;  but  1 do  not  recall  whether  part  of 
this  $50  was  to  be  expense  and  part  salary,  or  just  how  it  was  to  be 
arranged;  but  I believe — my  recollection  is  that  $50  was  all  he  was 
to  receive  for  compensation. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is,  you  do  not  now  recollect  how  the  items 
were  divided? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  that  was  the  last  time  you  ever  saw  Mr. 
Wypszinski  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  I did  not  say  so. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  see  him  last? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  At  sometime  during  the  campaign;  that  is  my  best 
recollection;  either  once  or  twice. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


189 


The  Chairman.  This  was  during  the  campaign;  it  was  the  24th 
of  J uly  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  But  later  during  the  campaign;  once  or  twice,  my 
recollection  is. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  pay  him  other  sums  of  money  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I would  not  recall  unless  the  report  states.  He  was 
not  a man  I knew  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  no  recollection  on  the  subject,  then? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Sacket,  then,  will  not  know  for  what  pur- 
pose this  man  was  employed ; that  is  your  knowledge,  or  within  your 
recollection  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  render  an  account  of  his  expenditures? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  He  was  merely  an  electioneering  agent,  was  he  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Perhaps  that  might  be  a good  name  to  give  him. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  said  that  those  were  his  duties — to 
present  the  claims  of  Senator  Stephenson  to  voters  and  recommend 
him? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  particular  class  of  voters? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Members  of  his  nationality. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  that — a Russian  name  or  Polish? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  it  is  Polish.  I am  not  positive  now. 

The  Chairman.  Where  was  he  to  operate? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  remember. 

The  Chairman.  Was  it  not  agreed  between  you  that  his  operations 
should  be  in  some  particular  part  of  the  State  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  so,  at  the  time;  but  I do  not  now  recall 
where  they  were.  I think  it  was  understood  then  by  me  as  well  as 
by  him. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  not  recall  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Now  we  pass  on  to  the  next  item,  “ G.  Peterson, 
$25.”  Did  you  make  the  arrangement  under  which  he  was  paid  $25  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  is  an  item  checked  [referring  to  Exhibit  49]. 
I remember  the  $200  was  given  to  me,  but  I do  not  remember  the 
name  of  G.  Peterson.  I do  not  know  whether  I made  any  arrange- 
ment with  him  or  not.  I can  not  recall  him  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  You  can  not  recall  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir.  I have  checked  that  item  because  I re- 
member the  $200. 

The  Chairman.  But  you  did  receive  $200  for  stamps  at  that  time? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I have  no  recollection  of  it  except  as  it  is  made 
plain  by  this  statement. 

The  Chairman.  That  “ E.  A.  E.”  represents  your  name  there  [page 
589],  does  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  The  item  is  $225,  $200  of  which  is  said  to  be  for 
stamps  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 


190 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


The  Chairman.  Stamps  for  the  headquarters? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  purchase  and  send  out  to  any  other 
branch  of  the  organization  any  postage  stamps? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Not  to  my  knowledge. 

The  Chairman.  Then  all  of  the  stamp  items  here  are  in  connec- 
tion with  the  management  of  the  city  office  here  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Of  the  State  office  and  the  county  organization 

office. 

The  Chairman.  And  the  county  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know  whether  in  this  report  those  items  of 
stamps  are  separated  or  not. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  have  no  recollection  of  Peterson? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  As  to  where  he  lived  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  I do  not  recall  now. 

The  Chairman.  Or  who  he  was. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  would  not  be  able  to  tell  the  committee 
where  he  could  be  found  at  this  time  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  The  next  item  is  $200  for  general  organizing,  pay- 
able to  you.  You  received  that  money,  $200,  did  you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I have  no  definite  recollection  of  having  received 
it  at  that  time,  but  I have  no  reason  to  doubt  I did. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  do  with  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know,  except  that  as  those  amounts  were 
received  that  are  charged  to  me  they  were  used  by  me  me  to  pay 
hotel  bills  and 

The  Chairman.  Whose  hotel  bills? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  My  own  and  those  that  I had  invited  to  come  down, 
had  taken  to  dinner,  etc.,  other  expenditures  of  that  kind,  my  per- 
sonal expenditures. 

The  Chairman.  Was  all  of  the  $200  used  for  hotel  bills? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  From  the  amount,  I should  say  probably  not ; but  I 
do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  At  that  time — pass  your  mind  back  to  that  date  or 
about  it — did  you  give  an  entertainment  at  the  hotel,  to  others,  for 
which  this  money  was  paid,  in  whole  or  in  part? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall.  At  different  times  during  the  cam- 
paign I had  anywhere  from  one  to  half  a dozen  or  a dozen  men 
eating  with  me,  men  who  were  interested  in  the  campaign. 

The  Chairman.  At  the  expense  of  the  campaign  fund? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  make  any  memorandum  at  the  time  of 
the  expenditure  of  this  money  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  keep  no  running  account  or  itemized 
account  of  the  sums  of  money  which  you  expended  personally  during 
the  campaign? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Why  did  you  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I never  had  been  in  the  habit  of  doing  that  in  my 
personal  expenses,  and  I considered  this  in  the  same  way.  When  I 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


191 


drew  a hundred  dollars  from  the  bank  from  my  personal  account,  I 
used  it  for  my  personal  expenditures,  and  when  it  was  gone  I got 
more,  and  in  this  instance  my  business  methods,  or  my  usual  custom, 
was  carried  out. 

The  Chairman.  You  were  aware  of  the  fact  that  you  would  have 
to  file  an  expense  account  under  the  law,  were  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think  it  occurred  to  me  that  I would  have 
to  go  into  details  in  that  way.  I am  sure  it  did  not,  or  I would  have 
done  so. 

The  Chairman.  Was  the  question  never  raised  as  to  the  filing  of 
an  account  during  the  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  How  is  that  ? 

The  Chairman.  Was  the  question  as  to  the  filing  of  an  account 
never  raised  during  the  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  As  to  these  items  of  expenditure  by  me  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  neither  during  the  campaign,  nor  at  the 
time  of  that  investigation.  The  question  what  I had  used  that  money 
for  was  never  raised. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  suppose  the  purpose  of  the  statute 
was  that  required  an  expense  account  to  be  filed  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I am  afraid  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  not  consider  it  at  all  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir ; it  never  occurred  to  me  that  that  would  be 
necessary  to  do. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  not  realize  that  you  were  apt  to  jeop- 
ardize the  interests  of  Senator  Stephenson,  who  was  employing  you, 
or  in  whose  interests  you  were  engaed,  by  failing  to  comply  with  the 
law  in  regard  to  the  keeping  of  an  expense  account  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Not  of  my  personal  expenditures;  no,  sir.  That 
never  occurred  to  me. 

The  Chairman.  Why  would  you  differentiate  between  your  per- 
sonal expenses  and  the  expenses  which  3^011  incurred  for  any  other 
purpose  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think  it  ever  occurred  to  me  to  question 
that.  If  I had  thought  any  question  would  ever  be  raised  as  to  those 
expenditures  I would  have  kept  that  in  an  itemized  statement  and 
rendered  it  to  Senator  Stephenson.  I thought  he  had  confidence 
enough  in  me  to  believe  that  I would  not  knock  down  on  expenditures. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  not  realize  that  that  was  not  a question 
of  Senator  Stephenson’s  confidence  in  you,  but  one  of  conforming  to 
a statute? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  I did  not  realize  that. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  first  receive  that  thought  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know  that  I ever  received  it  until  now. 

The  Chairman.  Right  now  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  never  has  been  questioned  before.  I was  on  the 
witness  stand  before  the  other  investigating  committee  nine  times,  I 
believe,  and  it  never  was  brought  up  before. 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  item  included  in  the  expense  account  that 
was  filed  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  With  this  investigating  committee?  This  is  the 
itemized  account. 


192 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


The  Chairman.  I am  reading  the  item  from  the  statement,  Ex- 
hibit 49.  Is  that  item  included  in  the  statement  of  expenses  filed 
by  Senator  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  chairman  means  now  the  return  made  to 
the  Secretary  of  State. 

The  Chairman.  The  item  I am  inquiring  about  is  his  expenses. 
The  item  is  on  July  23,  and  it  reads  “ General  organizing,  E.  A.  E.,” 
which  the  witnes  says,  his  initials  being  there,  indicates  that  the 
money  was  paid  to  him.  I am  inquiring  about  that  item  of  $200, 
and  I want  to  know  whether  that  $200  appears  anywhere,  or  rather 
whether  it  is  included  in  the  Stephenson  statement  filed  to  conform 
to  the  statute. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Certainly,  every  dollar  of  this. 

The  Chairman.  Point  out  that  item  in  that  statement.  Will  you 
turn  to  the  statement 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Either  let  us  have  the  exhibit  or  something  to 
show  exactly  what  it  is. 

Mr.  Black.  Page  88. 

The  Chairman.  The  statement  that  I refer  to  is  the  statement  of 
election  expenses  filed  under  the  law.  Have  you  a copy  of  it  there? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  it  is  on  page  88  of  the  printed  testimony 
of  the  previous  investigation. 

The  Chairman.  I will  ask  the  witness  to  point  it  out. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  question  is  whether  he  can  find  that  item  of 
$200  in  the  general  statement. . 

The  Chairman.  No;  that  is  not  the  question.  The  question  is 
whether  it  is  included  in  the  general  statement ; and,  if  so,  where  it  is. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I do  not  think  the  chairman  localized  quite  as 
well  as  that  before,  but  it  has  been  done  now. 

The  Chairman.  In  what  item  is  that  $200  included? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I believe  in  the  item  of  $53,729.56. 

The  Chairman.  That  item  reads:  “To  C.  M.  Hambright,  John  C. 
Miller,  E.  H.  McMahon,  E.  J.  Rogers,  U.  C.  Keller,  and  others  for 
services  tendered  in  organizing  outside  of  Milwaukee  County,  $53,- 
729.56.”  You  think  that  item  includes  the  item  of  $200  paid  on  July 
23  to  you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I believe  that  to  be  the  case. 

The  Chairman.  Why  was  your  name  not  mentioned  in  that 
enumeration?  You  are  one  of  the  “ and  others,”  are  you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  I am  one  of  the  others  whose  names  are  not 
mentioned. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  have  anything  to  do  with  the  making 
up  of  the  return  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I believe  I suggested  the  form  of  this  statement  of 
election  expenses.  It  was  taken  from  the  form  of  the  statement  sub- 
mitted by  the  present  Gov.  McGovern. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  He  was  then  a candidate  for  the  primary  elec- 
tion? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  I understand  by  that  that  this  return  in 
substance  was  predicated  on  the  return  filed  by  Mr.  McGovern,  who 
was  also  a candidate  for  the  Senate  at  the  primary  election? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  I think  you  will  notice  the  resemblance  to  it. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS.  193 

The  Chairman.  Proceed.  That  is  the  nearest  that  you  can  iden- 
tify that  item  in  the  account? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  that  money,  that  $200,  expended  for? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  is  the  same  $200  you  referred  to  before? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  General  organizing. 

The  Chairman.  I want  you  now  to  state  for  what  that  money  was 
expended. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I can  not  recall. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  mean  to  say  you  do  not  know  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I knew  at  that  time. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  last  know  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  When  the  expenditure  was  being  made.  I did  not 
keep  track  of  my  personal  expenses,  so  I could  not  tell.  I could  not 
have  told 

The  Chairman.  All  of  that  sum  represented  your  personal  ex- 
penses, did  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  When  I say  “ personal  expenses  ” I mean  money 
spent  by  me  for  such  purposes  as  I thought  necessary  in  conducting 
the  campaign ; not  for  expenditures  for  my  personal  benefit. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  necessary  for  the  committee  to  think  on  that 
subject,  so  that  the  committee  wants  a little  more  definite  information. 
For  what  purposes  did  you  expend  that  money?  State  whether  or 
not  you  remember  it. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  now  remember  it. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  last  know  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I doubt  if  I could  have  told  definitely  a week  after 
the  money  was  expended  what  each  dollar  went  for. 

The  Chairman.  Now,  are  we  to  understand  that  you  made  no 
memoranda  of  any  kind,  either  in  a book  or  upon  cards  or  paper, 
of  any  of  that  expenditure  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Absolutely  none. 

The  Chairman.  With  the  full  knowledge,  which  you  say  you  did 
possess,  that  under  the  law  you  would  be  expected  to  file  an  itemized 
expense  account? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Perhaps  I should  say  “general  knowledge”  rather 
than  “ full  knowledge.” 

The  Chairman.  My  recollection  is  that  you  said  that  before  enter- 
ing upon  your  duties  you  did  investigate  the  law. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  It  was  Mr.  Sacket  who  said  that,  not  Mr. 
Edmonds. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I did  not  make  a statement  of  that  kind.  I think 
the  nearest  I came  to  that  was  that  I had  a general  knowledge. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  use  the  term  “ general  ” ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Possibly  not.  I am  sure  I did  not  use  the  word 
“ full.” 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  content  to  enter  upon  so  responsible  a 
duty  with  only  a general  knowledge  of  the  law,  or  did  you  advise 
yourself  as  to  what  the  law  was  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think  I read  the  law  at  that  time,  or  even 
looked  it  over. 

The  Chairman.  Had  you  read  it  prior  to  that  time? 

15235°— vol  1—11 13 


194 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know  that  I ever  read  it. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  read  it  during  the  campaign? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall  having  done  so. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  hear  it  read? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall  having  done  so. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  discuss  it  with  anyone,  as  to  what  the 
law  was? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I have  no  definite  recollection  of  any  person  with 
whom  I discussed  it,  though  I knew  what  the  law  was,  I think,  in  a 
satisfactory  manner. 

The  Chairman.  You  did? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  think  so. 

The  Chairman.  Remember  that  you  have  given  that  answer,  that 
jmu  knew  what  the  law  was 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  In  a manner  satisfactory  to  yourself. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  satisfactory  to  myself. 

The  Chairman.  Now,  knowing  that,  you  knew  you  would  be 
required  to  file  an  itemized  expense  account,  did  you  not,  under  the 
laws  of  Wisconsin  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Well,  perhaps — I will  answer  that  yes. 

The  Chairman.  And  with  that  knowledge  you  made  expenditures 
and  kept  no  account  of  them  as  the  basis  for  making  such  statement  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I believed  that  the  report  that  was  made  of  my 
expenditures  would  come  within  the  law. 

The  Chairman.  What  report  do  you  refer  to  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Of  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  mean  that  a statement  of  the  mere  fact 
that  you  had  expended  the  money  would  comply  with  the  law? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  The  law  does  not  provide  that  any  one  except  the 
person  expending  the  money,  that  is  the  candidate,  shall  make  the 
report. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  consider  the  question  as  to  how  the 
candidate  could  possibly  make  an  itemized  statement  of  his  ex- 
penditures unless  those  who  were  his  agents  in  expending  the  money 
furnished  him  with  the  data  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I am  afraid  I did  not  give  it  very  much  con- 
sideration. I do  not  think  I gave  it  very  much  consideration ; no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  afraid  now  that  you  did  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  like  to  change  the  word  “ afraid,”  because 
I was  not  afraid  of  anything;  but  I think  I did  not  give  it  con- 
sideration in  full. 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  true  of  every  item  contained  in  this  state- 
ment? Is  it  just  as  true  of  the  other  items? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Every  one;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Then  we  will  proceed  to  find  out  which  items  you 
personally  contracted  for  and  of  which  you  have  knowledge  as  to 
the  purpose  of  the  expenditure.  The  last  item  was  July  23.  Now, 
will  you  indicate  the  next  item? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  The  next  item  is  July  24,  $100. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  paid  to  T.  F.  Reynolds,  for  advertising. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  knowledge  of  that? 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


195 


Mr.  Edmonds.  I have  knowledge  of  sending  T.  F.  Reynolds  $100. 

The  Chairman.  In  what  shape  did  you  send  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I am  not  certain.  My  recollection  is  it  was  sent  by 
mail. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  indicated  here,  according  to  the  rule  you  have 
stated,  that  that  was  drawn  from  the  bank  by  certificate  or  cashier’s 
check.  Who  drew  it,  you  or  Mr.  Reynolds? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  My  best  recollection  is  that  that  item  of  $100  was 
sent  to  Mr.  Reynolds  by  me  in  a letter,  and  I think  it  has  been  re- 
ferred to  here  as  a cashier’s  check.  That  would  be  my  judgment  as 
to  what  it  was. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose  did  you  send  that  to  Mr.  Rey- 
nolds on  July  24? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Mr.  Reynolds  was  a man  who  had  been  associated 
with  me  in  business  in  Oconto  County,  and  I sent  it  to  him  and  asked 
him  to  use  it  in  the  interests  of  Senator  Stephenson  in  Oconto 
County  or  in  Oconto  Falls. 

The  Chairman.  In  what  way  did  you  tell  him  to  use  it  for  Senator 
Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I am  sure  I did  not  give  him  any  instructions,  be- 
cause I knew  that  he  knew  how  to  use  the  money  to  the  best  ad- 
vantage. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  he  use  the  money  for? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  ask  him? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  use  it  to  buy  votes? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  How  do  you  know,  if  you  do  not  know  for  what 
purpose  he  used  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Because  I am  personally  acquainted  with  him. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  It  is  quite  obvious  that  when  money  goes  into 
the  hands  of  another  man  the  witness  can  not  know  personally  what 
the  other  man  used  it  for. 

The  Chairman.  It  was  the  witness  who  used  the  word  “ person- 
ally.” 

Mr.  Littlefield.  All  I want  is  that  the  witness  give  a coherent 
answer. 

The  Chairman.  I want  that  concise  and  coherent  answer  in  the 
record.  You  sent  him  the  $100,  Mr.  Edmonds,  and  you  do  not  know 
for  what  he  expended  it.  Is  that  true? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  never  made  any  report.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know  for  what  he  expended  any  part 
of  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No.  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  keep  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Or  did  he  pay  it  out? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  tell  him  the  money  was  for  when 
you  sent  it  to  him? 


196 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Mr.  Edmonds.  My  best  recollection  is  that  I wrote  him  and  asked 
him  to  use  this  money  for  the  furtherance  of  Senator  Stephenson’s 
candidacy.  I can  not  recall  the  words. 

The  Chairman.  You  knew  at  that  time  that  Mr.  Reynolds  was  a 
candidate  for  the  legislature? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  This  is  another  man.  This  is  not  the  man  who 
was  a candidate  for  the  legislature. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  This  was  not  the  candidate  for  the  legislature.  This 
man  was  from  Oconto  Falls.  The  other  Mr.  Reynolds  was  from  Door 
County. 

The  Chairman.  Then  this  is  not  the  Mr.  Reynolds  who  was  in  the 
legislature? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  the  name  of  the  Mr.  Reynolds  who  was 
in  the  legislature? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Thomas  Reynolds,  the  same  as  this  man,  but  I do 
not  remember  the  middle  initial  of  his  name. 

The  Chairman.  What  does  this  Mr.  Reynolds  do,  the  one  to  whom 
you  sent  this  money? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  is  the  cashier  of  the  State  Bank  of  Oconto  Falls. 

The  Chairman.  The  cashier  of  the  bank? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  and  he  had  formerly  been  in  my  employ. 

The  Chairman.  Is  he  there  now? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  In  what  part  of  the  State  is  Oconto  Falls? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  one  of  the  northern  counties,  south  of  Marinette. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Near  Appleton? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  North  of  Appleton;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  place  any  restrictions  upon  the  manner 
in  which  this  money  was  to  be  used  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  remember  having  done  so;  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  I shall  have  to  ask  you  to  be  a little  more  definite 
than  that.  I will  ask  you  to  say  whether  you  did  or  did  not  place 
any  restrictions  upon  the  manner  in  which  this  money  was  to  be 
expended. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  not. 

The  Chairman.  Now,  will  you  pass  to  the  next  item  of  which  you 
have  personal  knowledge? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  July  24,  $25. 

The  Chairman.  To  whom? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  J.  Wypszinski. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  already  testified  in  regard  to  that.  Is 
there  anything  that  you  have  to  say  in  addition  to  what  you  have 
said? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Nothing  further;  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  the  same  man  who  is  mentioned  in  the 
item  of  July  22? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Pass  to  the  next. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  The  next  item  is  July  27,  Dr.  Frank,  $150. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  was  that  expended? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  was  organizing.  He  was  the  man  who  was  ar- 
ranged with  to  organize  in  Clark  County. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


197 


The  Chairman.  For  what  was  this  money  paid  to  Dr.  Frank? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  remember. 

The  Chairman.  Who  paid  it  to  him  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I did. 

The  Chairman.  The  check  was  drawn  to  your  order,  was  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  You  will  pardon  me  for  saying  that  I paid  it.  I 
mean  I was  responsible  for  having  it  paid.  That  is  the  better  answer. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  one  of  those  items  for  which  you  were  di- 
rectly responsible? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  did  you  pay  that  to  Dr.  Frank? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I had  arranged  with  him — my  best  recollection  ‘is 
that  I did  so  on  this  day,  when  he  was  in  the  office  here  in  Milwau- 
kee— to  organize  for  Senator  Stephenson  in  Clark  County. 

The  Chairman.  What  organization  was  he  to  do  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Such  organization  as  he  thought  best,  to  get  out  the 
vote,  to  poll  the  vote  for  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  You  left  that  entirely  to  his  judgment? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  after  discussing  the  situation  with  him. 

The  Chairman.  Tell  me  what  was  said  between  you  and  Dr. 
Frank.  You  say  you  discussed  it. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  1 have  no  reason  for  not  telling  exactly  what  was 
said,  but  I can  not  remember. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  remember  any  part  of  the  conversation? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes.  I remember  that  Dr.  Frank  was  a man  who 
had  been  recommended  to  me  by  some  one  in  whom  I had  confidence, 
as  being  well  posted  in  Clark  County,  and  in  whom  we  might  have 
confidence,  and  I discussed  the  general  situation  in  Clark  County, 
of  which  county  I knew  very  little. 

The  Chairman.  Was  he  a stranger  to  you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Had  you  ever  seen  him  before  the  occasion  on 
July  27? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  If  that  is  the  date,  I first  saw  him  then. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  the  date  of  the  payment. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  The  first  day  I saw  him  I made  the  arrangement 
with  him. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  ever  seen  him  since  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I believe  he  was  in  headquarters  once  or  twice  after- 
wards. I am  not  certain. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  receive  any  other  sums  of  money? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I believe  so;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  make  a contract  with  him  for  personal 
compensation  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  My  recollection  is  that  he  was  to  receive  $150. 

The  Chairman.  You  paid  him  the  $150  on  that  day? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  was  paid  other  amounts  later.  That  will  appear* 
in  the  statement. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  he  paid  further  amounts  for? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  $150  or  $200 ; I do  not  recall.  He  was  to  receive  a 
certain  amount  for  compensation,  and  he  used  the  balance  of  it  for 
organizing. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  was  he  to  use  it? 


198 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Mr.  Edmonds.  In  any  way  that  he  considered  best  to  further  the 
interests  legally  of  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  admonish  him  not  to  use  it  in  violation 
of  the  law  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall  what  was  said  to  him  or  at  this  par- 
ticular time  remember  just  what  was  said.  I am  sure  I went  over 
the  situation  thoroughly  with  him,  because  I had  a long  talk. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  become  well  acquainted  with  him? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir.  As  I say,  I met  him  that  day  only  and 
once  later. 

The  Chairman.  Only  once  later? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  as  I recall. 

The  Chairman.  You  met  him  on  August  12  and  paid  him  $100, 
did  you  not? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  that  Hugo  Frank  that  the  chairman  has  in 
mind? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  This  is  another  man. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  it  is  another  man? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes ; but  there  are  other  items  later,  I am  quite  sure. 

The  Chairman.  I have  one  marked  bearing  this  same  name  on 
August  20,  of  $140.  What  was  that  paid  to  him  for  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  For  the  same  purpose,  as  a part  of  the  compensa- 
tion and  expense  that  he  would  be  put  to  during  the  campaign,  the 
arrangement  having  been  made  the  first  day. . 

The  Chairman.  What  county  does  he  live  in  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Clark  County. 

The  Chairman.  Where  is  Clark  County  with  reference  to  Mil- 
waukee ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  North  and  a little  west. 

The  Chairman.  How  far? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  About  the  center  of  the  State,  175  or  190  miles, 
perhaps. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  any  knowledge  as  to  the  manner  of  the 
use  of  that  money  by  Dr.  Frank? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  ask  him  how  he  used  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  ask  him  to  render  an  account  or  a 
statement  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  suggest  to  him  that  the  law  re- 
stricted the  manner  of  the  use  of  the  money  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  remember  ever  discussing  that  with  him. 
It  is  quite  possible  I did. 

The  Chairman.  You  just  paid  over  to  him  $290  in  two  items 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  there  was  a larger  amount  than  that.  I 
think  there  are  other  items  that  you  will  find,  though  I am  not 
positive. 

The  Chairman.  You  think  that  I will  find  another  item? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  so. 

The  Chairman.  You  paid  these  amounts  after  the  filing  of  the 
nomination  papers,  between  that  time  and  the  date  of  the  primary 
election.  That  money  was  to  be  used  by  him  to  influence  voters,  was 
it  not  ? 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


199 


Mr.  Edmonds.  Certainly. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  discuss  with  him  the  manner  in  which 
a voter  might  be  influenced  legitimately  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  is  quite  possible  I did,  but  I have  no  recollection 
of  having  done  so. 

The  Chairman.  If  you  can  not  say  that  you  did,  there  is  no  proba- 
bility about  it. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes ; there  is  a probability,  because  I discussed  that 
matter  more  or  less  with  all  of  the  people  with  whom  I talked. 

The  Chairman.  And  yet  you  have  no  memorandum  or  informa- 
tion as  to  how  he  expended  the  money  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Absolutely  none. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  last  know  how  he  expended  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I never  knew  how  he  expended  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  He  said  he  never  knew. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  that  is  a legitimate  answer.  You  never 
knew.  You  do  not  know  now  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not. 

The  Chairman.  You  paid  him  another  $100  on  the  20th,  four  days 
before  election.  What  did  you  pay  that  for? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall  the  particular  expenditure,  but  I 
should  say  it  was  because  it  was  a part  of  the  agreement  entered  into 
at  first.  I know  there  was  no  supplementary  agreement,  that  I 
recall. 

The  Chairman.  Just  recite  the  agreement  in  the  language  you 
entered  into  it  with  Dr.  Frank. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I can  not  do  it. 

The  Chairman.  Give  the  purport  of  it. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  After  considerable  talk  with  him,  in  order  that  I 
might  become  acquainted  with  him  and  what  he  knew  of  the  politi- 
cal situation,  and  believing  him  to  be  competent  to  organize  in  that 
county,  I asked  him  if  he  would  take  charge  of  the  organization  of 
that  county,  and  how  much  he  thought  it  would  be  necessary  to 
expend  there  in  order  to  get  out  a full  vote  for  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  Was  he  the  only  man  you  had  working  in  that 
county  to  whom  you  paid  money? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir.  I paid  another  man. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  his  name? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Mr.  Ring.  His  work  was  as  I recall  more  general. 
He  was  very  well  acquainted  all  over  the  State. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  his  name  is  M.  C.  Ring? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  M.  C.  Ring. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  money  did  you  pay  him? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  you  paid  him  on  August  18,  $850.  That  is 
found  on  page  592. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  something  like  $500.  That  is  my  recollec- 
tion. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  take  this  in  its  order  and  proceed  regu- 
larly. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Where  did  the  Chairman  find  that  last  item  of 
Mr.  Ring? 

The  Chairman.  It  is  the  first  item  at  the  top  of  page  592. 


200 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Mr.  Littlefield.  It  is  B-i-n-g  here.  I understand  that  that 
should  be  B-i-n-g. 

The  Chairman.  Yes.  That  is  a mistake  of  the  printer  evidently. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  It  should  be  Bing. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  the  next  item  of  which  you  have  knowl- 
edge after  the  item  of  $150  to  Dr.  Frank? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  The  same  date,  $100  that  we  discussed  on  yesterday, 
to  C.  C.  Way  land. 

The  Chairman.  Who  is  Mr.  Wayland? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  is  from  Appleton,  Outagamie  County. 

The  Chairman.  Does  he  live  there  now? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Where  does  he  live? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Milwaukee. 

The  Chairman.  Then  he  is  available  as  a witness? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  He  is  here. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  has  been  subpoenaed,  I believe. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes,  he  has  already  been  subpoenaed. 

The  Chairman.  When  you  gave  him  that  money  what  did  he  en- 
gage to  do  in  consideration  of  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I have  not  any  distinct  recollection  of  that  particular 
time.  I paid  him  at  different  times,  and  I saw  him  very  often.  He 
was  in  Appleton  where  I lived,  and  was  associated  with  me  in  busi- 
ness, and  I met  him  almost  every  time  I would  go  home  to  spend 
Sunday. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  He  is  the  gentleman  about  whom  you  testified  in 
detail  the  other  day? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  You  paid  him  a considerable  amount  of  money  in 
the  aggregate  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  I think  it  was  stated  here  yesterday  to  be 
$1,100 — about. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  any  knowledge  as  to  the  manner  in  which 
he  expended  any  part  of  the  money  that  you  gave  him? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No  personal  knowledge;  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  kind  of  knowledge  have  you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  The  only  knowledge  that  I have  is  from  having 
talked  with  him  a great  man}^  times  before  and  since. 

The  Chairman.  Give  us  the  substance.  What  did  he  say  he  was 
doing  with  the  money  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  was  spending  it  in  different  towns  of  the  county 
and  in  the  city. 

The  Chairman.  How  was  he  spending  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Well,  he  was  arranging  with  men  in  different  towns 
to  distribute  literature.  I say  literature,  and  I mean  the  posters,  and 
putting  them  up.  He  had,  I believe,  in  some  instances — and  I am 
only  saying  that  I believe,  because  I talked  with  him 

The  Chairman.  What  he  said  to  you  is  very  proper.  Tell  us 
that. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  had  gone  so  far  as  to  hire  men  in  certain  instances 
to  go  around  throughout  the  county  to  work  up  sentiment.  ^ 

The  Chairman.  What  county? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Outagamie,  where  Appleton  is. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


201 


The  Chairman.  Just  one  county? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  What  else  did  he  say  to  you  as  to  how  he  was  spend- 
ing this  money. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  had  arranged  in  some  of  the  localities  for  getting 
out  the  vote  by  hiring  teams. 

The  Chairman.  How  many  precincts  are  there  in  that  county  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall.  I am  not  very  well  acquainted  with 
the  politics  of  Outagamie  County  except  in  a general  way. 

The  Chairman.  Is  it  a large  county  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  it  is  one  of  the  large  counties  of  the  State. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  its  population  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir.  It  would  only  be  an  estimate  that  I could 
give. 

The  Chairman.  How  many  Republican  votes  did  it  cast  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  At  the  primary? 

The  Chairman.  At  the  general  election.  You  were  chairman  of 
the  State  central  committee  and  you  probably  would  know. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  but  I could  not  recall. 

The  Chairman.  Approximately,  how  many? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Perhaps  10,000;  possibly  15,000. 

The  Chairman.  Republican  votes? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Is  it  a Republican  or  an  adverse  county? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Usually  Republican. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Republican  or  opposition? 

The  Chairman.  What  was  the  Republican  vote?  I am  endeavor- 
ing to  find  out  what  this  man  was  paid  for.  I have  no  political 
curiosity  in  the  matter. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I can  not  tell  you.  I do  not  know  what  the  vote 
was,  but  my  best  judgment  would  be  possibly  7,000  or  8,000  Repub- 
lican votes. 

The  Chairman.  This  money  was  paid  for  getting  the  vote  out  at 
the  direct  primary? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Oh,  yes;  not  for  the  general  election. 

The  Chairman.  All  of  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  How  many  votes  did  you  get  out  at  the  direct 
primary  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  no  approximate  idea? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  I could  only  learn  that  from  looking  up 
the  records.  I have  not  the  slightest  idea  of  the  number  now. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  not  interest  yourself  as  manager  of  the 
Stephenson  campaign  to  know  how  many  votes  were  cast  for  him  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Most  assuredly  I did  at  that  time.  I knew  at  that 
time,  but  I do  not  now. 

The  Chairman.  Were  there  others  besides  Mr.  Wayland  engaged 
in  getting  out  the  votes? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  was  in  charge,  at  least,  and  expended  the  money 
to  get  the  vote  out. 

The  Chairman.  Where  did  Mr.  Wayland  vote — in  what  precinct? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  the  second  ward  in  Appleton,  though  I am 
not  positive. 


202 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


The  Chairman.  How  large  a place  is  Appleton? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  We  thought  we  had  20,000,  but 

The  Chairman.  Was  that  before  or  after  the  census? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Since  the  census  was  taken  we  find  that  we  have 
17,000. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  how  many  votes  were  cast  in  that 
town  at  the  primary? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Haven’t  you  any  list  as  to  the  votes  at  the  primary 
in  the  State? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  there  is  a printed  report  gotten  out  by  the 
State  showing  the  vote  in  each  precinct.  I have  not  got  it  here. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Would  the  chairman  like  to  have  that? 

Senator  Pomerene.  Is  it  a report  of  the  secretary  of  state? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I understand  the  Senator  would  like  to  have  the 
statement  of  the  votes  cast  in  that  primary  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I presume  we  can  get  that. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  There  is  an  itemized  statement,  I think,  published 
by  Mr.  Beck,  the  labor  commissioner. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  chairman  need  not  spend  any  more  time  on 
that.  Mr.  Black  says  that  he  can  find  it,  and  we  can  furnish  it  to  the 
committee. 

The  Chairman.  I presume  it  is  in  this  building.  I am  inquiring 
as  to  the  consideration  received  or  agreed  upon  for  the  money  paid 
to  Mr.  Wayland,  and  I am  inquiring  as  to  what  he  accomplished. 
For  that  reason  I inquire  as  to  the  vote.  Do  you  know  how  much 
you  paid  Mr.  Wayland  altogether  during  the  primary? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  1 could  only  get  that  from 

The  Chairman.  I want  to  know  if  you  know? 

Mr.  Eemonds.  I think  in  the  testimony  yesterday  it  was  brought 
out  that  I paid  him  $1,150. 

The  Chairman.  About  that.  Did  you  pay  him  all  of  that  money? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I believe  so. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  to  say,  it  was  a transaction  between  you 
and  Mr.  Wayland,  and  not  between  Mr.  Sacket  and  Mr.  Wayland? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes.  Mr.  Sacket  had  nothing  to  do  with  it. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  whatever  use  was  made  of  that  money 
was  made  under  the  arrangement  with  you  and  not  with  Mr.  Sacket  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  So  it  will  not  be  necessary  to  inquire  of  Mr. 
Sacket  as  to  the  use  made  of  that  money  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Not  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  Will  you  state  one  item  as  to  the  use  of  that  money 
by  Mr.  W ayland ; give  us  one  item. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Of  my  own  personal  knowledge  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  ever  tell  you?  You  say  you  talked  it  over 
with  him. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  he  tell  you  ? Give  me  one  item  that  he 
told  you  he  expended  that  money  for. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  expended  the  money  for  the  purpose  of  getting 
out  the  vote,  by  hiring  teams. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


203 


The  Chairman.  What  teams  did  he  hire? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Is  there  a statement  anywhere  of  the  expendi- 
tures made  by  Mr.  Wayland? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I believe  so,  which  this  special  investigating  com- 
mittee brought  out. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  examined  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  see  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  He  only  expended  it  in  the  one  county,  did  he? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  One  county,  I believe. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  we  do  not  need  to  inquire  as  to  anything 
outside  of  that  county  to  account  for  payments  and  expenditures, 
do  we?  He  does  not  claim  that  he  expended  it  anywhere  else? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I am  not  certain  as  to  that.  His  home  had  formerly 
been  in  Portage  County,  and  it  is  possible  he  had  gone  there,  but 
not  to  my  knowledge. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  your  contract  with  him — that  he  should 
expend  this  money  in  one  certain  county,  or  that  he  should  expend  it 
anywhere  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think  I had  any  contract  with  him. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  your  agreement. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  was  very  close  to  me  in  a business  way,  and 
I asked  him  to  do  different  things  which  I do  not  now  recall,  and 
whatever  I asked  him  to  do  I am  sure  he  did  without  compensation  to 
himself. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  I understand  you  to  say  that  Mr.  Wayland 
Avas  not  to  receive  any  compensation? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  was  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  did  he  receive  any? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir ; I do  not  know  that  he  received  a cent. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  that  you  do  not  knoAv  that  he  received  a 
cent.  Do  you  know  whether  he  received  any  compensation,  a cent 
or  otherwise? 

Air.  Edmonds.  I mean  to  say  that  he  received  no  compensation, 
to  the  best  of  my  knowledge  and  belief. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  willing  to  say  that,  and  yet  you  can  not 
enumerate  a single  item  of  expenditure  that  he  made  out  of  this 
$1,150? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  I have  the  most  thorough  confidence  in 
Mi-.  Way  land’s  integrity. 

The  Chairman.  I am  asking  you  for  facts.  Confidence  might  rest 
upon  friendships  and  not  upon  facts.  As  a business  proposition, 
and  as  a matter  of  fact,  can  you  account  for  a single  item,  a single 
dollar,  or  any  sum  that  Mr.  Wayland  paid  to  anybody? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  no  other  Avay  than  I have  stated. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  just  your  confidence? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Only  in  what  he  said  he  had  done. 

The  Chairman.  How  old  a man  is  Mr.  Wayland? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  About  35,  I should  think. 

The  Chairman.  Hoav  long  have  you  known  him? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  About  five  or  six  years. 


204 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


The  Chairman.  Then  you  had  known  him  for  about  a year  or  so 
before  the  campaign? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes ; perhaps  two  or  three  years. 

The  Chairman.  Where? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  There  in  Appleton,  and  I had  formerly  met  him. 
The  Chairman.  Where? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall  where  I first  met  him.  His  home 
at  that  time  was  in  Portage,  Columbia  County. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  have  anything  more  than  a passing 
acquaintance  before  the  campaign? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  we  were  in  business  together. 

The  Chairman.  Oh,  you  were  in  business  together  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  What  business  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  The  Badger  Portland  Cement  Co. 

The  Chairman.  Where? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  Appleton. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  associated  in  business  during  the  time 
of  this  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  When  had  you  severed  your  business  relations? 
Mr.  Edmonds.  You  asked  me  if  I was  in  business  with  him.  The 
relationship  still  existed.  He  was  the  secretary  of  the  company,  and 
1 was  the  president. 

The  Chairman.  At  the  time  of  the  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  during  all  the  time  you  paid  him  these  sums, 
amounting  to  $1,150? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  All  the  time. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  see  him  during  the  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Often? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  How  often? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  talked  with  me  every  time  I would  go  home. 
The  Chairman.  IIow  often  was  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  On  Sundays. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  talk  over  the  expenditures  that  he  was 
making  on  these  occasions  when  you  would  see  him  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  without  question  I did ; yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  willing  to  say  you  did  discuss  them  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  And  that  included  a discussion  of  the  character  of 
expenses  that  he  was  incurring,  of  the  use  that  he  was  making  of  the 
money  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  he  would  tell  me  where  he  had  been  and  what 
he  had  done  during  the  week. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  lay  aside  his  business  during  the  campaign? 
Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes ; there  was  not  much  business  during  that  year. 
The  Chairman.  And  he  devoted  his  time  to  going  about  in  the 
county  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  All  of  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  I should  say  all  of  it. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS.  205 

The  Chairman.  How  long  a period  of  time  would  that  represent — 
the  time  that  he  was  going  about? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Perhaps  six  weeks;  something  like  six  weeks,  I 
should  say. 

The  Chairman.  And  during  this  time  you  paid  him  $1,140.  How 
much  of  that  was  to  pay  for  personal  compensation  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  the  nature  of  a salary,  none  whatever. 

The  Chairman.  None? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  None. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  return  any  part  of  this  money  to  you  or 
any  person  in  connection  with  the  campaign  fund? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Not  to  my  knowledge. 

The  Chairman.  He  expended  the  exact  amount  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  So  far  as  I know.  Perhaps,  Senator,  if  I may  make 
an  explanation 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Outagamie  County  is  the  county  adjoining  Winne- 
bago County,  where  one  of  the  other  candidates  resided,  and  is  also 
close  to  Waupaca  County,  where  another  candidate  resided. 

Senator  Pomerene.  A senatorial  candidate? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes.  There  was  a good  deal  of  strife  in  that  county 
to  see  which  candidate  would  get  out  the  most  votes.  It  was  one  of 
the  battle  grounds  of  the  campaign. 

The  Chairman.  On  the  last  day  of  August,  that  is,  the  last  work- 
ing day  before  the  primaries,  you  paid  him  $300.  For  what  did  you 
pay  him  that  sum  of  money  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall.  I presume  he  called  for  it. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  call  for  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  You  had  paid  him  $500  the  week  before.  These 
payments  were  made  in  round  sums,  and  evidently  not  upon  itemized 
accounts  rendered  by  him? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  That  would  be  true,  would  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  his  statement  would  be  that  he  had  ex- 
pended so  much,  or  contracted  bills  for  so  much,  and  he  would  ask 
me  to  give  him  $500  or  $300,  and  I would  give  it  to  him. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  would  send  it  to  him  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  $800  you  gave  him  within  eight  or  ten 
days  before  the  election  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Where  was  he  on  election  day — I refer  now  to  Mr. 
Wayland? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know.  I think  he  was  at  Appleton. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  even  know  he  was  there  on  election 
day? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I have  no  idea  that  he  was  not  there.  I could  not 
swear  to  it  now.  I knew  at  the  time,  of  course. 

The  Chairman.  Then  we  will  have  to  leave  him  as  one  of  the 
parties  to  whom  you  gave  money,  for  no  part  of  which  you  can 
account. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No  part  of  it. 


206 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


The  Chairman.  You  did  not  inquire  either  during  the  campaign 
or  since  as  to  the  purposes  for  which  the  money  was  paid  out,  if 
paid  out  at  all,  by  Mr.  Wayland? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think  it  was  necessary  for  me  to  inquire, 
and  I do  not  think  I did. 

The  Chairman.  Regardless  of  the  necessity  in  respect  to  the  mat- 
ter, the  fact  is  that  you  did  not  do  it  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  believe  I did;  but  I am  certain  that  we 
talked  it  over  and  he  told  me  as  I saw  him. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  tell  any  one  thing  he  did  tell  you?  You 
say  he  told  you. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Oh,  yes;  I have  told  you  that  he  was  hiring  teams. 

The  Chairman.  Of  whom  did  he  hire  them?  That  is  the  im- 
portant thing. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think  he  told  me  the  names  of  the  persons 
of  whom  he  hired  them. 

The  Chairman.  The  statement  that  he  was  hiring  teams  is  not  an 
itemized  statement. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  did  not  make  any  itemized  statement  of  his 
expenditure. 

The  Chairman.  In  your  business  do  you  require  itemized  state- 
ments of  your  employees  or  those  connected  with  it  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Would  you  accept  as  an  itemized  statement  a 
statement  that  merely  recited  a class  of  business;  that  is,  the  hiring 
of  teams?  You  would  want  to  know  of  whom  the  man  hired  the 
teams,  would  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  If  I were  in  business,  and  employed  a man  to  do  a 
certain  amount  of  work  for  me  that  would  extend  over  perhaps  a 
week  or  ten  days,  and  I had  enough  confidence  in  him  to  intrust  him 
with  the  money  to  do  the  business  that  I wanted  him  to  do,  and  he 
came  back  and  he  said  that  he  required  so  much,  and  that  he  had 
expended  so  much,  I would  not  ask  him  for  an  itemized  statement; 
no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  require  an  itemized  expense  account 
of  any  person  to  whom  you  gave  money  to  transact  business  for  you  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I presume  I have ; but  I have  no  distinct  recollection 
of  any  instance. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  have  any  traveling  men  who  are  required 
to  render  expense  accounts? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  You  would  require  them  to  state  how  much  was 
paid  for  railroad  fare  and  hotel  bills,  would  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Just  the  gross  items  would  be  sufficient? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes.  This  is  what  I did 

The  Chairman.  We  will  say  a man  would  put  in  an  account  for  a 
trip  to  Mexico,  say,  expenses,  $300,  and  that  would  satisfy  you,  would 
it,  as  a business  man  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  it  would  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  were  going  to  say  what  you  did,  Mr. 
Edmonds. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  A traveling  man  would  be  employed.  He  would  be 
paid  his  salary  or  his  expenses,  and  after  each  trip,  as  a rule,  he 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


207 


would  come  in  and  make  a statement  that  his  expenses  were  so  much, 
$35  or  $60,  or  whatever  the  amount  was.  If  I had  confidence  enough 
in  him  to  send  him  out  to  sell  paper  for  the  company  that  I was 
working  for,  I certainly  did  not  believe  that  he  would  steal  from  the 
company  in  his  expense  account ; I do  not  employ  that  kind  of  men ; 
and  I did  not  in  the  campaign. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  send  anybody  out  in  whom  you  did 
not  have  confidence? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  applies  to  all,  and  you  did  not  require 
itemized  expense  accounts? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  never  did? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I may  have  in  instances,  but  that  is  not  my  rule. 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  still  associated  in  business  with  Mr.  Way- 
hmd? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir.  That  is,  he  is  still  secretary  of  the  com- 
pany, and  I am  president  of  the  company.  It  is  not  doing  business 
at  the  present  time.  He  has  moved  from  Appleton. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  was  the  business  of  the  company? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  The  Badger  Portland  Cement  Co. 

The  Chairman.  Did  Mr.  Wayland  make  speeches  during  the  cam- 
paign ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  I should  say  they  might  be  called  speeches. 
He  is  a pretty  good  talker. 

The  Chairman.  Street  corner  speeches? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  pass  now  to  the  item  of  July  28,  $50 — to 
C.  M.  Hambright.  Who  is  Mr.  Hambriglit? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Mr.  Hambright  was  one  of  the  men  who  was  em- 
ployed before  I came  down  here. 

The  Chairman.  Who  is  he?  Where  does  he  live,  and  what  does 
he  do? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  has  been  a member  of  the  assembly  and  is  very 
well  known  in  the  State.  He  lives  in  the  city  here  still. 

The  Chairman.  A member  of  the  assembly  that  elected  Senator 
Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir.  He  was  a member  several  years  ago. 

The  Chairman.  Then  he  was  an  ex-member. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  was  an  ex-member  at  that  time. 

The  Chairman.  He  is  still  living  in  the  city  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  money  did  you  pay  him  altogether  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know.  I did  not  make  the  arrangement 
with  him.  I do  not  know  just  how  much  he  received. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  say  you  did  not  make  the  arrangement  with 
him? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I did  not.  He  was  employed  when  I came. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  He  was  one  of  the  men  at  work  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  pay  him  any  money? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall  having  done  so,  though  I would  not 
be  positive  of  that,  because  at  different  times  in  two  or  three  instances 


208 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


the  boys  who  were  going  out  in  the  State,  if  they  ran  short,  came  to 
me  and  I advanced  $25  or  $50  from  money  in  my  pocket  at  the  time, 
so  it  is  possible  that  I did. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  he  do  for  you  that  you  paid  him  $50 
for  on  July  28? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Have  not  you  any  idea? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  was  one  of  the  men  who  was  sent  out  to  differ- 
ent parts  of  the  State  in  different  counties  to  look  up  men  in  those 
counties  early  in  the  campaign — men  who  would  be  satisfactory  men 
for  managers;  local  managers. 

The  Chairman.  This  money  was  paid  to  him  on  July  28.  That 
was  four  days  before  the  filing  of  the  nomination  papers,  was  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I believe  so. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  have  no  knowledge  of  the  purpose,  and 
you  did  not  make  the  arrangement  for  the  expenditure  of  that 
money  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  though  after  I took  charge  I directed  his 
movements. 

The  Chairman.  You  directed  his  movements? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Tell  us  what  his  movements  were. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  wTas  very  well  acquainted  in  the  southern  part 
of  the  State.  He  had  lived,  I believe,  for  several  years  in  Racine 
County,  and  I think  that  was  the  county  that  he  had  been  sent  from 
to  the  assembly.  Owing  to  his  large  acquaintance  I sent  him  to  such 
persons  as  he  thought  he  could  influence  by  talking  with,  to  deter- 
mine the  condition  of  affairs  in  the  various  counties  that  he  visited. 

The  Chairman.  He  was  rather  a political  scout.  Would  you  de- 
nominate him  such? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I would  be  willing  so  to  denominate  him,  unless 
he  would  object  to  that  term. 

The  Chairman.  Oh,  I do  not  mean  to  use  the  term  in  any  dis- 
creditable sense  at  all.  He  was  a man  sent  out  to  ascertain  things. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Then  the  $50  was  in  the  way  of  compensation  to 
Mr.  Hambright  and  not  a fund  out  of  which  he  was  to  pay  for  any 
purpose.  Is  that  right? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes.  I do  not  know  that  I quite  understood  that. 
That  may  have  been  compensation  or  expenses. 

The  Chairman.  It  was  for  compensation  and  not  expenses? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  may  have  been  either,  in  that  particular  instance. 
He  was  paid  a compensation. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  compensation  was  he  paid  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  My  recollection  is  $100  a month,  or  possibly  more. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you,  in  many  instances,  enter  into  monthly 
arrangements ; contracts  for  monthly  salaries  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  that  those  arrangements  were  made  before 
I got  there,  and  I think  there  were  not  to  exceed  half  a dozen. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Sacket  would  not  know  anything  about  that 
item,  then? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No;  I doubt  if  anybody  except  Mr.  Hambright 
would  know  anything  particularly  about  that  item,  because  he  was 


E.  A.  EDMONDS.  209 

paid  as  he  needed  the  money  for  expenses  and  salary.  He  undoubtedly 
went  to  Mr.  Sacket  for  the  money. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know  whether  he  used  that  money  for 
legitimate  purposes  or  not ; I suppose  you  have  no  personal  knowledge 
on  the  subject? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I have  no  personal  knowledge,  but  I am  very  sure 
he  did,  from  the  personal  character  of  the  man. 

The  Chairman.  I just  want  your  personal  knowledge  on  this  sub- 
ject. 

Take  the  next  item,  “ T.  J.  Sexton,  organizing,  $50.”  Did  you  pay 
that  money,  and  do  you  know  about  the  transaction  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I am  sure  that  I arranged  for  that. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  wThat  was  your  arrangement? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  was  one  of  the  men  who  was  a political  scout. 

The  Chairman.  I know,  but  what  was  your  arrangement  by  which 
you  paid  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  came  in,  and  I think  I sent  for  him,  having 
learned  of  him  from  some  one  else.  He  was  not  a man  with  whom 
I was  acquainted,  and  I sent  him  into  different  parts  of  the  State  on 
the  same  political  errand,  in  a general  way,  the  same  as  Mr.  Ham- 
bright  was  sent.  I do  not  recall  for  what  purposes. 

The  Chairman.  Where  did  you  send  him? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I can  not  just  tell.  I know  he  was  sent  out  a good 
many  times. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  state  as  to  any  one  place  to  which  you 
sent  him  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I believe  he  was  in  Dane  County. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  send  him  there? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I am  quite  sure  that  I did,  if  he  went,  yes;  because 
he  was  under  my  instructions. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose  did  you  send  him  there? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  To  learn  the  conditions  in  the  county  and  report  to 
me. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  tell  him  when  you  told  him  to  go 
there  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  you  do  not  recall.  Have  you  any  recol- 
lection on  the  subject? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  in  this  way 

The  Chairman.  Give  us  your  recollection. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  this  way,  that  my  instructions  to  him  were  that 
he  was  to  report  to  me  the  conditions  as  he  found  them. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  report? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Certainly. 

The  Chairman.  In  writing? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  conditions  did  he  report  as  existing  there? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  some  counties  good,  “ ” in  some  precincts 

good,  and  some  not  so  good. 

The  Chairman.  I am  referring  now  to  this  particular  county  that 
you  say  you  sent  him  to. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I can  not  recall  what  he  did  say. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know  what  his  report  was,  then? 

15235°— vol  1—11 14 


210 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Mr.  Edmonds.  Not  now. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  he  tell  you  that  he  had  done  with  the 
money  that  he  had  paid  out? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think — that  is,  my  recollection  is  that  Mr. 
Sexton’s  expenditure  of  money  was  simply  for  his  own  salary  and 
expenses  of  traveling,  and 

The  Chairman.  He  did  not  pay  out  any  money  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think  he  paid  any  to  anyone;  not  that  I 
know  of. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  make  any  promises  to  any  electors,  voters, 
in  regard  to  the  campaign? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I have  no  means  of  knowing.  I do  not  have  any 
idea  that  he  did. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ask  him  whether  or  not  he  had  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know  now  that  I did. 

The  Chairman.  Had  you  had  a conversation  of  that  kind,  in  re- 
gard to  the  violation  of  the  law,  you  would  have  remembered  it, 
probably,  would  you  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Certainly,  I should.  Certainly,  if  he  had  come  in 
and  made  a statement  that  he  had  done  something  that  was  contrary 
to  the  law,  as  I found  it  to  be  and  knew  it  to  be,  I certainly  would 
have  remembered  it  and  gone  after  him  to  the  best  of  my  ability. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  his  present  address? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know.  I think  he  could  be  located  at 
Madison,  though  I am  not  sure. 

The  Chairman.  What  business  is  he  in? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know.  He  was  not  a man  that  I knew. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  ever  seen  him  since  the  campaign? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall  ever — yes,  I think  I have  seen  him 
either  at  Madison  or  here  some  time  since,  but  not  within  two  years. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  long? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  say  it  is  two  years  since  I have  seen  him. 

The  Chairman.  You  had  no  acquaintance  with  him  prior  to  the 
campaign,  had  you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Now,  we  will  pass  to  the  next  item,  “ H.  Lewis, 
$200.”  Did  you  pay  that  money,  or  was  the  arrangement  made  by 
you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  The  arrangement  was  made  by  me,  as  I recall. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  that  for? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Mr.  Lewis  was  a soldier,  and  a very  warm  personal 
friend  of  Senator  Stephenson,  and  was  given  that  money,  and  pos- 
sibly other  amounts — I am  not  sure — for  the  purpose  of  doing  such 
work  as  he  saw  fit  to  help  Senator  Stephenson.  He  is  an  old  cam- 
paigner and  well  acquainted  with  political  matters  in  the  State. 

The  Chairman.  Where  does  he  live? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  his  home  is  in  Madison.  He  has  been  in 
Washington. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  know  him  before  you  met  him  on  the 
occasion  of  making  the  arrangement  with  him  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir;  I had  known  him  by  reputation  and  had 
met  him  several  times  before  during  the  past  9 or  10  years. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


211 


The  Chairman.  Is  he  still  living  at  Madison? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I believe  so. 

The  Chairt^an.  How  much  money  did  he  receive? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall.  He  was  one  of  the  men  that  if  he 
thought  he  needed  $400  or  $500  at  any  time  could  have  gotten  it  from 
me.  I had  great  confidence  in  him. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose  could  he  have  got  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  For  any  purpose  legitimate  in  the  campaign. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose  did  you  pay  him  his  money? 
What  was  to  use  it  for? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  any  manner  he  saw  fit  to  promote  the  interests 
of  Senator  Stephenson.  He  is  not  a man — — 

The  Chairman.  Without  any  restriction  whatever? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Absolutely  none. 

The  Chairman.  He  could  have  used  it  to  buy  voters,  had  he  seen 
fit  to  do  so,  could  he  not  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Not  with  my  consent;  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  But  you  did  not  place  any  restrictions  upon  him? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir  ; I certainly  did  not  tell  Capt.  Lewis  not  to 
spend  that  money  in  buying  votes,  because  I knew  he  would  not  do  it. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  you  have  not  taken  pains  to  advise  your- 
self whether  that  money  was  expended  legitimately,  have  you?  That 
is  what  I am  getting  at.  I am  not  charging  Capt.  Lewis  with  spend- 
ing the  money  for  that  purpose. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  there  was  no  means  of  my  knowing  unless 
I had  asked  him  to  make  a detailed  statement,  which  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  You  were  responsible  for  the  manner  of  expendi- 
ture of  this  money,  were  you  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  not  think  that  you  could  be  held  under  the 
law  responsible  for  the  unlawful  expenditure  of  this  money? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Without  his  knowledge? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  believe  so. 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  without  his  knowledge.  He  is  bound  to 
know. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  No 

The  Chairman.  The  law  does  not  permit  a man  to  hand  money  out 
for  a purpose  and  shut  his  eyes 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I should  like  to  put  upon  the  record  here  that  we 
do  not  by  our  silence  give  assent  to  the  legal  proposition  that  if 
Mr.  Edmonds  places  $100  in  the  hands  of  B,  and,  without  the  knowl- 
edge of  Mr.  Edmonds,  B unlawfully  expends  it,  Mr.  Edmonds  is 
responsible. 

The  Chairman.  The  chairman  does  not  take  that  position,  nor 
does  any  member  of  the  committee.  We  are  basing  these  statements 
upon  the  admitted  fact  that  Mr.  Edmonds  was  the  responsible 
representative  of  Mr.  Stephenson,  that  Mr.  Stephenson  was  furnish- 
ing this  money  and  Mr.  Edmonds  was  using  it,  and  he  is  bound  to 
know  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  used. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  If  it  came  down  to  the  statement  we  suggested — 
as  I got  the  impression  that  it  did — I simply  want  to  put  upon  the 
record  my  dissent  from  that  legal  proposition. 

The  Chairman.  I do  not  think  it  will  come  down  that  far. 


212 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Mr.  Littlefield.  It  sounded  to  me  as  though  it  did. 

The  Chairman.  For  the  purpose  of  fairly  stating  your  position 
in  regard  to  your  responsibility  for  the  use  of  this  money,  you  say 
that  you  would  have  paid  him  this  money  regardless  of  the  manner 
in  which  he  would  have  expended  it.  That  is  true,  is  it  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Haying  the  confidence  I did  in  him,  I should  say 
that  was  true;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  pursue  that  policy  throughout  of  intrust- 
ing the  integrity  of  the  expenditure  to  the  people  to  whom  you  gave 
the  money? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir;  very  largely. 

The  Chairman.  In  any  instance  did  you  pursue  any  different 
course  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Not  that  I recall;  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  we  may  take  it  as  your  statement  that  you 
paid  out  all  of  the  money  paid  out  by  you  in  this  manner  solely  in 
the  confidence  which  you  had  in  the  party  to  whom  you  paid  it, 
without  imposing  any  restrictions  upon  him  whatever  as  to  the  nature 
of  the  expenditure? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  is  perhaps  a true  statement  of  the  case,  with 
the  explanation  that  in  every  instance  when  they  were  employed  I 
had  conversations  with  them,  varying  in  length  as  to  conditions  and 
what  they  were  to  do.  Usually  it  was  their  suggestion  as  to  what 
wTas  going  to  be  done. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  Mr.  Sacket  will  not  know  about  the  $200  to 
Mr.  Lewis;  you  have  all  the  knowledge  that  is  obtainable  on  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir;  I think  so. 

The  Chairman.  In  other  words,  you  have  no  knowledge  as  to 
what  Mr.  Lewis  did  with  the  money? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  made  no  memorandum  as  to  what  he  was 
to  do  with  it  at  the  time  you  gave  it  to  him? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think  so ; no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  would  know  if  you  did? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  To  the  best  of  my  knowledge  and  belief,  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  destroyed  any  memoranda  or  books  or 
cards  that  were  kept  by  you  or  by  those  under  your  direction  during 
the  campaign? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir.  There  have  been  destroyed,  and  when 
I left  there  were  destroyed,  any  papers,  loose  papers,  or  anything 
that  may  have  been  on  my  desk.  I did  not  knowingly  destroy  any- 
thing that  I thought  would  be  of  value  to  anyone. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  anything  in  your  possession  now  that 
would  be  of  any  value  to  anyone? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Then,  you  did  not  pass  upon  the  question  whether 
they  would  be  valuable  to  anyone,  did  you  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Everything  that  I had  was  turned  over  to  this  com- 
mittee when  they  made  the  investigation. 

The  Chairman.  Would  anyone  presume  to  destroy  your  papers 
without  your  knowledge? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Most  assuredly  not,  I should  say. 

The  Chairman.  Then,  were  they  destroyed? 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


213 


Mr.  Edmonds.  As  I say,  when  I left  the  office  and  went  back  to 
Appleton  I left  my  desk  and  whatever  was  in  that  desk  that  was 
scrap  paper  or  paper  that  I did  not  consider  of  value  that  was  de- 
stroyed— put  in  the  waste  basket. 

The  Chairman.  Who  destroyed  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I did,  I assume. 

The  Chairman.  How  did  you  destroy  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I put  it  in  the  wastebasket. 

The  Chairman.  You  tore  it  up  and  put  it  in  the  wastebasket,  did 
you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know  that  I tore  it  up  even.  I put  it  in 
the  wastebasket,  turned  over  the  key,  and  went  home.  The  head- 
quarters were  still  open  when  I left  there. 

The  Chairman.  What  papers  did  you  destroy? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I have  not  the  slightest  idea. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  just  gather  them  up  regardless  of 
whether  they  might  or  might  not  be  of  value  and  destroy  them? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Why,  no;  I did  not.  I said  if  there  was  anything 
there  that  was  not  of  value — I had  some  of  my  personal  belongings. 

The  Chairman.  Who  determined  whether  or  not  they  were  of 
value  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Why,  I did;  assuredly. 

The  Chairman.  You  went  through  them,  did  you,  then,  and 
sorted  them? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know  whether  I did  or  not. 

The  Chairman.  How  did  you  determine  whether  or  not  they  were 
of  value? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know  how  I determined  that.  When  I 
left  I wanted  to  clean  up  my  desk,  and  whatever  there  was  on  my 
desk  that  I did  not  consider  of  value — that  I did  not  want — I de- 
stroyed. 

The  Chairman.  How  would  you  arrive  at  the  determination  as  to 
whether  they  were  of  value  without  examining  them  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  My  own  judgment. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  base  your  judgment  upon  if  you 
did  not  examine  them? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Undoubtedly,  when  I was  cleaning  up  my  desk  I 
did  examine  them. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  examine  them? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I presume  so. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  what  I want  to  get  at — whether  you  did  or 
not;  not  when  you  did  it.  You  did  examine  these  papers,  then,  and 
discriminated  between  those  you  thought  of  value  or  importance  and 
those  that  were  not;  did  you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Now,  Senator,  I do  not  make  any  such  statement  as 
that. 

The  Chairman.  I asked  you  if  you  did. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Then  you  did  not  do  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know  that  there  was  a single  thing  in  my 
desk  that  was  destroyed  that  was  of  value. 

The  Chairman.  You  determined  whether  or  not  they  were  of  value 
then  and  there,  did  you  not? 


214 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Mr.  Edmonds.  I assume  that  I did. 

The  Chairman.  You  mean  to  say  that  you  did  not  pass  upon  that 
question  in  separating  those  that  you  destroyed  from  those  that  you 
did  not  destroy? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Senator,  I am  making  the  statement  that  I cleaned 
up  my  desk,  preparatory  to  leaving,  and  whatever  articles  on  that 
desk  were  mine,  I took  with  me,  and  whatever  was  not  of  value  I 
threw  in  the  wastebasket. 

The  Chairman.  Then  you  were  the  one  that  exercised  the  judg- 
ment as  to  whether  they  were  of  value  or  not  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  say  so,  yes,  sir.  I did  not  ask  anyone  else. 

The  Chairman.  And  some  of  them  you  destroyed,  and  some  you 
did  not.  Is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  say  that  was  a fair  assumption. 

The  Chairman.  Those  that  you  destroyed,  you  say,  were  selected 
because  they  were  of  no  value.  What  was  their  character  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  remember  now  what  there  was  on  my  desk, 
even. 

The  Chairman.  By  what  did  you  test  their  value? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know  now.  I could  have  told  you  at  the 
time. 

The  Chairman.  What  rule  governed  you  in  determining  whether 
they  were  valuable? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I have  not  the  slightest  idea  now.  I do  not  believe 
there  was  a thing  on  my  desk  that  was  destroyed  that  would  in  any 
way  injure  or  help  anyone. 

The  Chairman.  I should  like  to  admonish  you  that  your  answers 
are  somewhat  dangerous  to  you  and  nobody  else.  I am  going  to 
give  you  another  chance  to  answer  that  question.  When  you  exer- 
cised a judgment  as  to  what  should  be  destroyed  and  what  should  not, 
what  was  the  criterion  or  basis. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  now  remember. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  not  a question  of  memory.  It  is  a question 
that  you  could  answer  as  well  now  as  then,  without  a memory. 
What  was  the  basis  of  your  discrimination? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Just  a moment,  if  the  Chairman  please.  I sub- 
mit that  the  witness  is  being  inquired  of  as  to  what  basis  he  at  that 
time  used  in  making  the  segregation,  and  if  the  witness  can  not  re- 
member the  test,  it  strikes  me  that  that  does  exhaust  the  inquiry. 

The  Chairman.  It  does  not  exhaust  the  examination. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  No,  no;  that  is  quite  true. 

The  Chairman.  It  may  exhaust  the  witness,  but  not  the  examina- 
tion. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Oh,  no;  I do  not  make  that  point.  But  if  the 
witness  does  not  remember,  I do  not  quite  understand  how  he  can  be 
compelled  to  testify  that  he  does. 

The  Chairman.  The  subcommittee  will  not  compel  a man  to  testify 
as  to  a thing  that  he  does  not  remember,  but  they  will  probe  the 
witness  to  see  whether  or  not  his  answer  is  candid  and  full;  as  to 
whether  he  remembers,  or  as  to  whether  it  is  an  evasive  answer. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  To  that  I have  no  objection. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I will  make  the  statement  that  this  is  not  an  evasive 
answer.  I do  not  remember  anything  of  that  kind,  Senator. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


215 


The  Chairman.  Was  it  because  one  paper  was  larger  than  an- 
other that  you  discriminated  in  determining  whether  you  would  de- 
stroy them  or  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  remember;  if  I could  I would  tell  you. 

The  Chairman.  Might  it  have  been  because  one  paper  was  larger 
than  another? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  You  knew  then;  did  you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I assume  that  I did ; yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  But  now  you  are  willing  to  stand  in  the  position 
that  this  discrimination  may  have  been  based  upon  the  size  of  the 
paper;  are  you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I am  unwilling  to  make  any  statement  of  that  kind. 
I do  not  remember. 

The  Chairman.  Was  it  by  the  contents  of  the  paper  that  you  deter- 
mined the  question  of  its  destruction  or  its  retention  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  remember. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  not  a question  of  memory.  I want  to  know 
now  what  your  judgment  is. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I have  not  any  recollection,  and  I would  not 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  a judgment  now  aside  from  your  recol- 
lection ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I have  a judgment;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  give  xis  your  judgment. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I have  not  any  recollection  of  that.  I can  not 
answer  your  question;  it  is  absolutely' impossible,  because  I do  not 
remember. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  a judgment  now  in  regard  to  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Well,  I do  not  know  that  I quite  get  your  technical 
term  as  to  my  “judgment”  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  your  opinion  now  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I have  not  any  opinion  to  express. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  form  an  opinion  now  as  to  the  basis 
of  your  discrimination  in  sorting  those  papers  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  I can  not. 

The  Chairman.  You  can  not  form  an  opinion? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  would  simply  be  a guess.  I do  not  propose  to 
guess  on  the  witness  stand ; I do  not  think  that  is  what  you  want. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  any  judgment  as  to  why  you  considered 
it  necessary  to  destroy  any  paper  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Let  me  ask  you  here,  were  the  papers  that 
you  put  in  the  wastebasket  memoranda  of  money  that  you  spent 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Oh,  no,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Or  memoranda  of  your  doings  in  connec- 
tion with  Mr.  Stephenson’s  campaign? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  I did  not  keep  anything  of  that  kind. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Were  they  papers  that  you  considered  it  en- 
tirely indifferent  whether  they  were  destroyed  or  not  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Absolutely  so. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  simply  got  rid  of  them  as  so  much  rub- 
bish, then? 


216 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir;  I was  leaving  the  office;  to  clean  up. 

The  Chairman.  I asked  the  character  of  these  papers,  and  you  said 
you  did  not  know.  Now  you  do  know.  You  do  know  that  they  were 
not  papers  containing  any  reference  to  moneys  expended  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  Senator,  you  asked  me,  as  I understood  it,  what 
I did  destroy.  I do  not  remember  what  I destroyed.  I know  I did 
not  destroy  something  I never  made,  and  I did  not  make  that  state- 
ment. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  now  you  can  remember  what  they  did  not 
contain,  but  can  not  remember  what  they  did  contain  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  I do  not  make  that  statement. 

The  Chairman.  You  said  they  did  not  contain  any  reference  to 
expenditures  during  the  campaign,  in  answer  to  Senator  Sutherland’s 
question  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I made  the  statement  that  I made  no  such  records  as 
that,  and  could  not  have  destroyed  them  because  they  were  not  in 
existence. 

The  Chairman.  Then  you  say  these  papers  that  you  destroyed  con- 
tained no  reference  to  matters  touching  the  Stephenson  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  make  that  statement  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  they  contain? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Why  did  you  destroy  them  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I wanted  to  clean  up  the  desk  preparatory  to  leav- 
ing. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  sweep  the  office  before  you  left  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  believe  I did ; no. 

The  Chairman.  What  necessity  was  there  for  you  to  do  the  work  of 
cleaning  up  your  desk  if  it  was  encumbered  with  useless  papers? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  My  usual  method  of  leaving  my  desk  in  that  con- 
dition. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  putting  the  papers  in  the  waste-paper 
basket? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  What  is  that? 

Senator  Pomerene.  Putting  the  papers  in  the  waste-paper  basket. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Cleaning  up  my  desk  preparatory  to  leaving,  I would 
certainly  take  anything  off  from  the  desk 

Senator  Pomerene.  Is  it  your  usual  way  to  clean  up  the  desk  and 
put  the  papers  in  the  waste-paper  basket  and  destroy  them  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Every  day? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir ; I put  papers  in  my  wastebasket  every  day 
in  cleaning  up  my  desk,  when  I am  at  the  desk. 

The  Chairman.  Then  these  were  the  accumulations  of  one  day 
only  that  you  had  to  dispose  of  before  you  left  town ; were  they  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  So  far  as  I know. 

The  Chairman.  Why  did  you  sort  and  classify  them? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I have  not  the  least  recollection  as  to  whether  I did 
sort  and  classify  them.  I do  not  know  now. 

The  Chairman.  I understood  you  to  say  that  you  did. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  did  you  pay  J.  B.  Marshall  $50  on 
July  30th? 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


217 


Mr.  Edmonds.  That  is  one  of  the  items  that  I had  checked  here. 
While  I can  recall  the  name,  I do  not  recall  why  it  was  paid.  I do 
not  now  recall  the  man  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  Who  was  Marshall? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know  now. 

The  Chairman.  Where  did  he  live? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know  what  the  money  was  spent  for? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  paid  it  out? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  If  I ask  Mr.  Sacket  and  he  says  he  does  not  know, 
how  are  we  to  determine  who  paid  that  money  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I doubt  if  it  would  be  possible  to  determine  it.  I 
remember  the  name,  and  it  is  quite  possible  that  the  transaction  was 
through  me,  but  I do  not  now  remember.  He  is  not  a man  whom  I 
have  ever  met  since,  and  I do  not  recall  him  at  all,  except  the  name. 

The  Chairman.  Take  F.  Remold,  $50  on  July  30.  Did  you  pay 
that  money? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I believe  that  to  be  a matter  relating  to  Mr.  Sacket. 
I think  he  can  explain  that. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Sacket? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I remember  this  man’s  name,  and  I think  he  went 
down  to  Kenosha  County.  I think  he  can  give  you  that. 

The  Chairman.  Take  the  name  C.  O.  Larson,  $25,  July  30.  Who 
paid  that  money  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  is  C.  O.  Larson.  I did.  That  is,  I think  so. 

The  Chairman.  You  paid  that  money?  For  what  purpose? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I remember  that  Mr.  Larson  was  our  organizer  and 
representative  in  Ozaukee  County. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  money  did  you  pay  him  altogether? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I am  not  positive,  not  having  added  up  the  different 
amounts ; but  at  different  times,  I think,  he  was  to  receive  some  com- 
pensation. 

The  Chairman.  On  August  the  10th  you  paid  him  $140.  Did 
you  make  that  payment,  too? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Well,  I do  not  recall.  At  least,  it  was  paid. 

The  Chairman.  This  is  not  an  item  about  which  Mr.  Sacket  will 
be  expected  to  know,  is  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No;  this  is  my  deal. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  yours? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  The  other  items  to  him  were  all  paid  by  you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  the  same  manner;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  remember  the  gross  amount  you  paid 
him? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  My  recollection  is  that  it  was  about  $200,  but  I am 
not  certain  of  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  those  items  come  along  later.  I am  trying 
to  check  up  as  I go  along. 

The  Chairman.  There  is  another  item,  on  August  14th,  and  there 
are  others  you  will  find  by  going  through.  You  will  find  many  more 
such  items.  What  did  you  pay  him  that  money  for? 


218 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Mr.  Edmonds.  He  was  the  organizer  for  that  county;  it  was  for 
his  expenditures. 

The  Chairman.  How  did  he  expend  the  money  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  no  knowledge? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  never  inquired  of  him? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Is  he  still  living  in  that  county  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  so. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  is  his  address,  if  you  know? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know.  Port  Washington,  I think;  I am 
not  positive. 

The  Chairman.  E.  H.  McMahon,  $50.  Who  paid  that  money? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  is  not  mine. 

The  Chairman.  You  paid  him? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  is  not  my  arrangement. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Sacket  will  know  about  that,  will  he? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I presume  so;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  In  every  instance  here,  either  you  or  Mr.  Sacket 
paid  the  money  or  made  the  contract ; is  that  true  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think,  without  any  question,  so  far  as  I know. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  may  be  put  down  to  Mr.  Sacket. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Just  a moment.  I think  perhaps  the  record 
might  appear  a little  inconsistent.  The  testimony  of  all  these  wit- 
nesses is  that  Mr.  Edmonds  paid  no  money  except  what  he  paid  out 
of  the  $5,000,  and  what  he  paid  out  of  these  items  that  were  disbursed 
to  him  by  Mr.  Sacket  the  method  was  to  give  orders  on  Sacket  and 
Puelicher.  I suppose  that  is  what  the  chairman  means,  and  what 
the  witness  means;  but  strictly  speaking,  literally,  it  might  appear 
that  he  was  paying  money  when  as  a matter  of  fact  a great  deal  of 
it  was  paid  by  Sacket  on  the  order  of  Edmonds.  Do  I get  that 
right,  if  the  chairman  please? 

The  Chairman.  What  I mean  is  this:  That  whatever  moneys  were 
disbursed  out  of  any  fund  were  disbursed  either  by  Mr.  Edmonds  or 
Mr.  Sacket. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes.  Then  I get  the  chairman’s  meaning. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  one  or  the  other  of  them  is  expected  to  be 
able  to  account  for  the  money? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  the  reason  I made  that  suggestion. 

Mr.  Black.  But  outside  of  Milwaukee  County? 

The  Chairman.  Yes ; I am  referring  now  to  general  headquarters. 
So  that  when  I mark  the  item  with  Mr.  Sacket’s  name  opposite  it, 
I mean  that  Mr.  Edmonds  has  referred  that  to  Mr.  Sacket  as  the 
party  who  can  give  all  information  that  can  be  given. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  I will  mark  that  item,  then,  “ E.  H.  McMahon, 
$50,”  to  Mr.  Sacket.  Proceed  to  the  next  item,  “ J.  R.  Keyes.” 

Mr.  Edmonds.  May  I make  an  explanation  in  regard  to  Mr. 
McMahon  ? He  was  one  of  the  men  who  was  in  the  office  and  whom 
you  term  a political  scout.  He  was  sent  out,  but  he  was  employed 
before  I went  there. 


E*  A.  EDMONDS. 


219 


The  Chairman.  You  only  know  that  by  hearsay,  I presume? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  we  will  get  that  from  the  party  who  does 
know. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I assume  he  will  not  be  able  to  tell  because  after  I 
came  on  the  ground  his  movements  Avere  directed  by  me. 

The  Chairman.  Oh ! Then  that  first  $50,  paid  on  July  30,  was 
after  you  came  on  the  ground  and  you  directed  his  movements? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  say  so ; yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Then  what  was  the  $50  given  to  him  for? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Either  for  expenses  or  salary. 

The  Chairman.  Will  Mr.  Sacket  knoAV  as  much  about  that  as 
you  do? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir ; I should  say  so. 

The  Chairman.  Then  Ave  will  take  the  statement  of  both  of  you. 
You  made  the  arrangement,  then,  pursuant  to  which  the  $50  was 
gi\Ten  to  Mr.  McMahon,  did  you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  statement  is  perhaps  correct,  though  he  may 
have  been  behind  that  much  and  have  gotten  this  on  what  was  oAvea 
to  him  prior  to  my  coming  there.  But  I presume  from  the  date  that 
he  was  paid  either  on  account  of  expenses  or  salary,  working  under 
my  direction. 

The  Chairman.  I questioned  you  on  a previous  occasion  in  regard 
to  McMahon.  He  is  the  first  man  who  is  charged  with  receiving  any 
money  out  of  the  campaign  fund.  That  is  the  same  man,  is  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir;  the  same  man. 

The  Chairman.  And  the  sums  run  all  through  the  account  paid  to 
McMahon  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Was  McMahon  an  office  man  or  a field  man? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  A field  man. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  do  any  work  in  the  office  at  headquarters? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir;  whenever  he  would  come  in  during  the 
campaign.  I remember  once  I was  very  busy  and  asked  him  to  do 
something.  I do  not  recall  what  it  was,  but  something  in  connection 
with  the  correspondence,  I think. 

The  Chairman.  He  spent  a considerable  sum  of  money  for  you, 
did  he  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall  whether  his  expenditure  was  large 
or  not. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  what  he  expended  it  for;  whether 
it  Avas  for  legitimate  or  illegitimate  purposes? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Do  I know  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know?  Did  you  eA^er  inquire  of  him 
as  to  the  use  he  was  making  of  this  money  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  I talked  with  him  every  time  he  came  in. 

The  Chairman.  He  told  you  what  he  was  using  it  for.  What 
did  he  tell  you  he  was  using  it  for  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  remember  that  in  making  his  reports  to  me 
he  told  me  what  he  was  doing  with  the  money,  because  he  would  be 
sent  out  to  a certain  locality  for  two  or  three  days,  and  come  back  and 


220 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


make  a report.  I would  know  that  would  cost  him  something ; I do 
not  know  just  what. 

The  Chairman.  How  old  a man  is  he? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Thirty  years  old,  perhaps. 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  sure  ot  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  think  so. 

The  Chairman.  Is  he  not  just  recently  out  of  college  here? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Well,  I think  not  very  long  before  this.  Possibly 
he  is  not  30  years  old.  He  is  a man  who  is  practicing  law. 

The  Chairman.  Was  he  practicing  law  then? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think  so.  I think  he  had  just  graduated 
shortly  before  that. 

The  Chairman.  A law  student? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  he  had  finished  his  course.  I am  not  sure. 
I had  never  known  him  up  to  that  time. 

The  Chairman.  You  kept  him  actively  on  the  go  during  the  cam- 
paign ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  furnished  him  money  without  requiring  any 
account  to  be  kept  of  the  money  furnished  him  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  made  his  accounting  to  the  office  manager  who 
had  hired  him,  I assume ; not  to  me,  certainly. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Sacket  hired  him  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  At  least  he  was  employed  before  I got  there. 

The  Chairman.  But  you  say  after  you  got  there  you  directed  his 
movements? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  When  he  was  paid  [examining  Exhibit  49] 

Mr.  Littlefield.  While  the  chairman  is  looking  up  the  amount, 
Brother  Black  suggests  it  is  $300  for  services  and  $200  for  expenses. 
That  is  Brother  Black’s  recollection. 

Senator  Pomerene.  $300  is  what  was  testified  to  yesterday. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  leaving  $200  or  $150  for  expenses;  I think 
that  was  it. 

The  Chairman.  On  September  5 is  the  item  I am  after — $300. 
That  payment  was  made  under  your  direction,  was  it  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  anything  about  what  that  money 
was  paid  for? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Sacket  will  know  then,  will  he? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir;  I should  assume  so.  I do  not. 

The  Chairman.  But  all  of  the  expenditures  before  that  time, 
after  you  took  charge,  were  made  under  your  direction;  is  that  true? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes.  That  is,  I would  send  him  out  and  direct  his 
movements,  but  when  he  came  in,  if  he  needed  money,  he  did  not 
ask  me  for  it. 

The  Chairman.  No.  But  you  told  him  what  to  do? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  inquire  what  he  had  done,  when  he  came 
to  you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir;  he  reported,  when  he  came  in,  I assume. 

The  Chairman.  What  had  he  done? 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


221 


Mr.  Edmonds.  He  was  one  of  the  men  doing  the  same  line  of  work 
that  Mr.  Hambright  was. 

The  Chairman.  I know;  but  that  is  general.  What  had  he  done? 
Tell  me  some  one  thing  that  McMahon  reported  to  you  that  he  had 
done? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  had  been  in  Grant  County  and  Iowa  County 

The  Chairman.  What  had  he  done  in  Grant  County? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  had  endeavored  to  enlist,  as  I recall,  the  services 
of  Mr.  Stevens  or  Mr.  Stevenson — Stevens,  I think — and  in  Iowa 
County  a Mr.  Rogers. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  something  definite.  He  had  endeavored 
to  enlist  their  services  on  behalf  of  Senator  Stephenson,  had  he? 
Had  he  succeeded? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  so. 

The  Chairman.  Had  he  done  any  other  thing,  in  either  of  those 
counties,  that  he  reported  to  you  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall;  but  my  judgment  is  that  he  had 
been  around  in  different  localities  in  those  counties,  determining  the 
situation,  how  people  felt.  I have  not  any  definite  knowledge  or 
recollection  of  his  report. 

The  Chairman.  And  it  was  for  that  these  sums  of  money  were 
paid  him? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  For  his  expenses  and  salary. 

The  Chairman.  The  $300  paid  him  two  or  three  days  after  the 
primary  election  was  for  services  rendered  prior  to  that  time,  was 
it,  or  was  that  for  services  to  be  rendered  after  the  payment? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know.  But  I have  every  reason  to  believe 
that  it  was  in  full,  up  to  that  time,  for  his  services  during  the 
campaign. 

The  Chairman.  Had  McMahon  had  any  experience,  prior  to  this 
campaign,  in  political  work? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  first  meet  him? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  Milwaukee,  when  I came  down  and  took  charge. 

The  Chairman.  Where  is  he  now  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know,  but  I am  sure  he  is — I think — I 
think  he  is  here  in  the  State  and  can  be  located  without  any  trouble. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Practicing  law? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  so.  I have  not  seen  him  in  months. 

The  Chairman.  Take  the  item  of  “ July  31,  J.  R.  Keyes.”  Who 
was  J.  R.  Keyes? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  I met  him  but  once.  He  came  to  the  office. 
As  I recall,  he  was  a railroad  man.  I am  not  absolutely  certain  of 
that. 

The  Chairman.  You  gave  him  $25.30,  did  you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I can  not  recall  that  I did.  But  my  best  recollec- 
tion is  that  he  was  working  for  Senator  Stephenson  and  did  go  out. 
Whether  I or  Mr.  Sacket  made  the  arrangement  with  him,  I am  not 
positive.  If  I made  it  it  was  with  the  same  general  instructions,  to 
get  reports  from  the  various  localities  that  he  would  visit. 

The  Chairman.  Get  votes? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  that  manner;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Get  votes? 


222 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Mr.  Edmonds.  To  buy  votes  ? 

The  Chairman.  To  get  votes? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No;  not  to  get  votes,  because  he  was  in  the  cam- 
paign; he  was  getting  men  interested  in  the  campaign  for  Senator 
Stephenson — expecting  them  to  vote  for  him,  if  he  could  get  them; 

certainty. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I suppose  that  would  mean,  ultimately,  to  get 
votes. 

The  Chairman.  I did  not  say  to  get  votes  unlawfully.  I said,  to 
get  votes? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Most  assuredly.  That  was  the  primary  object  of 
the  campaign. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  ever  hear  of  a campaign  that  was  not 
for  the  purpose  of  getting  votes  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  To  have  votes  cast  for  the  candidate. 

The  Chairman.  But  you  do  not  know  definitely  what  the  money 
was  paid  to  him  for? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No;  that  is  one  of  the  cases  I do  not  know  dis- 
tinctly. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Sacket  would  probably  know? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  think  so. 

The  Chairman.  uL.  Bancroft,  $250.”  Did  you  pay  him  that 
money  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  a party  to  the  contract  under  which  it 
was  paid  him? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I was  not. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  anything  about  the  payment? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Who  was  Mr.  L.  Bancroft? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Levi  Bancroft  was  a candidate  for  the  assembly  and 
later  elected  speaker  of  the  house. 

The  Chairman.  This  is  the  Mr.  Bancroft  who  was  a member  of 
the  legislature  (speaker  of  the  assembly)  from  Bichland  County? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Now  attorney  general. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  is  now  the  attorney  general  as  well. 

The  Chairman.  And  is  now  the  attorney  general  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Now  the  attorney  general;  and  had  been  the  mem- 
ber of  assembly  in  the  previous  campaign  when  Senator  Stephenson 
was  elected. 

The  Chairmann.  Did  you  have  anything  to  do  with  this  $250 
transaction  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  anything  about  the  transaction  for 
which  that  money  was  paid? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

„ The  Chairman.  Mr.  Sacket  will  know,  will  he? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  May  I ask  here : Is  this  the  man  whom  you  dis- 
cussed later  with  Mr.  Sacket,  and  testified  in  relation  to  it  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Is  this  the  attorney  general  who  wrote  the  opinion 
that  has  been  introduced  before  the  subcommittee  ? 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


223 


Mr.  Black.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  No.  This  is  a gentleman  who  has  been  elected 
by  the  people  of  Wisconsin  after  all  these  difficulties  have  occurred. 

The  Chairman.  I know  the  fact.  I want  the  record  to  show  the 
fact.  I know  that  he  was  not  the  attorney  general  who  wrote  the 
opinion. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes.  It  was  an  attorney  general;  I really  do 
not  know  the  name  myself. 

The  Chairman.  I merely  wanted  the  record  to  show  the  fact. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  At  that  time  Mr.  Bancroft,  I think,  was  speaker 
of  the  house  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes ; the  record  shows  it.  The  proceedings  under 
which  the  subcommittee  is  acting  show  that  fact.  As  to  that,  Mr. 
Sacket  is  the  party. 

We  will  proceed  to  “A.  J.  Weisman,  $83.”  Do  you  know  about  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  going  over  this  I put  a dot  opposite  that  name, 
thinking  that  I might  be  able  to  recall,  but  I do  not  recall  that  name 
now. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know  who  he  is  nor  where  he  resides? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I assume,  from  the  statement  only,  that  he  is  from 
Manitowoc. 

The  Chairman.  If  you  do  not  know,  we  will  find  that  out  from 
Mr.  Sacket. 

The  next  item  is  “August  4,  C.  M.  Hambright,  $50.”  Do  you  know 
about  that  item? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  he  was  one  of  the  workers  in  the  office  to 
whom  payments  have  been  made  and  will  be  made  in  this  statement 
at  various  intervals. 

The  Chairman.  “August  4,  T.  J.  Sexton,  $50  ”? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  is  the  same  man  referred  to  above. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  the  same  Sexton.  That,  you  say,  you  know 
nothing  about? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No;  I state 

The  Chairman.  You  had  nothing  to  do  with  paying  the  money 
or  making  the  transaction  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No;  this  is  the  same  man  referred  to  above  here 
that  we  discussed. 

The  Chairman.  On  “July  20  ” I have  marked  the  record  here  as 
an  item  that  you  do  not  know  about 

Mr.  Littlefield.  July  28,  I think,  if  the  chairman  please,  is  the 
time  he  is  testifying  about. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  July  28  we  discussed. 

The  Chairman.  We  passed  over  “July  20,”  the  item  of  $50;  now 
I will  recur  to  it.  Do  you  know  anything  about  that  item,  “ July  20, 
T.  J.  Sexton”? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Only  in  such  manner  as  I have  explained  that  later 
when  under  “July  28.”  He  was  employed  as  a scout,  as  he  has  been 
called. 

The  Chairman.  That  applies  to  this  first  payment,  then,  too? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Was  that  first  payment  made  before  you  took 
charge  of  the  office? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No  ; I was  there  before  that. 

The  Chairman.  Then  you  do  know  about  him  ? 


224 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  I mark  him  as  one  that  you  do  know.  Now, 
we  have  him  for  the  third  time  down  here.  The  testimony  that  you 
have  given  in  regard  to  the  item  of  July  28  applies  to  all  of  the 
Sexton  items,  does  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir;  same  man. 

The  Chairman.  I will  so  mark  it.  The  next  item  is  $100  to  J.  L. 
Sturtevandt.  That  is  said  to  be  for  “ advertising.”  What  advertis- 
ing was  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  is  running  a daily  and  weekly  newspaper,  I 
believe,  at  Wausau. 

The  Chairman.  Who  made  that  contract? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I believe  I sent  him  the  money. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  a bill  and  receipt  for  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Any  acknowledgment  of  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  advertising  was  that  for  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know  why  the  word  “ advertising  ” is  in 
there  except  that  that  is  Mr.  Sacket’s  method  of  designating  certain 
of  these  matters  to  keep  them  in  a certain  account. 

The  Chairman.  But  you  know  about  the  payment  of  the  money  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  I paid  the  money. 

The  Chairman.  You  inquired  what  it  was  for  when  you  authorized 
it,  did  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No.  I had  known  Mr.  Sturtevandt  for  some  little 
time  and,  believing  that  he  could  be  of  assistance  to  us  in  Wausau  (I 
knew  that  he  was  a friend  of  Senator  Stephenson) , I sent  him  a hun- 
dred dollars  to  use  as  he  saw  fit  in  promoting  the  interests  of  the 
Senator. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  what  might  be  termed  a general  contri- 
bution to  the  newspaper,  was  it ; for  its  friendship  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Perhaps  it  might  be  called  that. 

The  Chairman.  There  was  no  specific  advertisement — no  space 
charged  for — was  there  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  this  particular  instance,  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  No  bill  was  rendered  for  specific  services  as  “ ad- 
vertising ” ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall,  in  this  instance.  I sent  him  the 
money,  asking  him  to  use  it  in  the  interest  of  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  You  sent  him  the  money  for  the  purpose  of  retain- 
ing a friendly  attitude  toward  Senator  Stephenson,  did  you  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I did  not  need  to  do  that,  because  he  was  very 
friendly ; his  paper  was  for  him  and  had  been  all  the  time. 

The  Chairman.  Then  it  was  a gratuity.  You  already  had  the  serv- 
ices, and  in  acknowledgment  of  friendship  you  sent  him  a hundred 
dollars ; does  that  express  it  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No;  I hardly  think  that  expresses  it. 

The  Chairman.  Then  what  was  the  hundred  dollars  for? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I thought  that  with  the  hundred  dollars  he  would  be 
more  active  in  his  support  of  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  Then  it  was  for  additional  friendship  to  that 
already  existing,  was  it? 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


225 


Mr.  Edmonds.  Perhaps  that  statement  would  be  true. 

The  Chairman.  It  was  to  cement  the  existing  friendship  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Most  assuredly ; it  was  to  help  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  Was  it  in  order  that  he  might  not  probably  be  in- 
fluenced to  change  his  attitude  of  friendship  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No;  that  was  not  at  all  necessary  with  him. 

The  Chairman.  Very  well.  You  sent  just  that  class  of  contribu- 
tions to  a number  of  papers,  I suppose,  did  you  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  there  were  a number  of  instances;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  on  August  4,  after  petitions  had  been 
filed,  was  it?  You  have  the  date  there — Exhibit  49. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  So  far  as  I know,  that  was  the  date;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  had  filed  the  petitions  or  had  .them  filed,  had 
you  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I say,  so  far  as  I know,  August  4 was  the  date  that 
was  sent. 

The  Chairman.  And  that  was  after  you  had  filed  your  petitions? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes.  I think  that  wTas  August  1. 

The  Chairman.  Take  the  next  item  of  $1,000.  That  is  the  point 
where  this  question  arose  last  evening  when  we  were  examining  Mr. 
Sacket,  and  it  was  stated  that  you  would  know  about  that  item,  if 
I am  correct  in  my  recollection.  What  do  you  know  about  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  This  first  item,  as  well  as  other  items 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  mean  the  $1,000  item? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  To  S.  L.  Perrin? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir;  paid  him — as  well  as  other  items  that  will 
come  later,  amounting  to  something  like  $3,000,  I believe,  were  paid 
by  me  to  Mr.  Perrin ; that  is,  I authorized  the  payment. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  the  money  paid  for  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  For  the  same  general  purpose  I have  explained; 
in  organizing  and 

The  Chairman.  I would  rather,  instead  of  answering  it  by  refer- 
ence, that  you  would  answer  each  on  its  own  responsibility. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Mr.  Perrin  was  the  man  in  charge  of  Douglas  and 
surrounding  counties,  where  he  had  a very  wide  acquaintance,  where 
he  had  lived  a good  many  years ; he  was  a lawyer  of  ability  and  had 
been  a good  deal  of  a politician  and  understood  thoroughly  the 
method  of  getting  out  the  vote  and  handling  campaigns. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  he  do  for  the  $1,000  under  considera- 
tion? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  that  he  did  anything? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  The  vote  showed  that  somebody  did  something  up 
there,  and  I think  probably  it  came  from  his  efforts,  largely.  We 
were  very  well  satisfied  with  the  vote  of  the  eleventh  district. 

The  Chairman.  That  encumbers  the  record;  those  comments  are 
very  interesting,  but  they  encumber  the  record  unnecessarily.  Did 
you  have  a talk  with  Mr.  Perrin  before  that  money  was  paid  to  him, 
in  which  the  consideration  that  he  was  to  give  for  it  was  discussed  ? 

The  Chairman.  Where  was  the  conversation  held? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Here,  in  the  Wells  Building. 

The  Chairman.  Did  Mr.  Perrin  come  down  to  the  Wells  Building 
to  see  you? 

15235°— vol  1—11 


-15 


226 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Had  you  sent  for  him? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  How  did  you  send  for  him?  Through  what 
means  ? 

Mr.  'Edmonds.  I think  he  was  recommended  to  me  by  some  persdn 
who  sent  for  him.  I did  not  write  him  or  telegraph  him. 

The  Chairman.  Had  you  known  him  before  that  time? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Personally,  not  well.  I had  met  him  perhaps  a few 
times,  but  I did  not  know  him  personally. 

The  Chairman.  What  positions  has  Mr.  Perrin  held  in  the  State 
of  Wisconsin? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  was  one  of  the  candidates  for  the  Senate  from 
that  district,  previously. 

The  Chairman.  That  is,  the  State  Senate? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  The  State  Senate.  There  was  a very  bitter  fight. 

The  Chairman.  In  that  campaign? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  several  years  before. 

The  Chairman.  Was  he  a candidate  at  all  in  that  campaign,  for 
anything  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  for  nothing. 

The  Chairman.  Then  he  had  no  special  interest  in  Mr.  Stephen- 
son’s contest,  except  as  inspired  by  either  personal  friendship  or  this 
$1,000.  Is  that  true? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  I think  so. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  answered  in  general  terms  as  to  what 
he  was  to  do  for  the  $1,000.  State  some  specific  thing  that  he  did  do. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know  of  a single  item  of  service  that 
he  performed,  for  this  money  paid  him? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think  I ever  saw  him  after  the  original 
interview.  Possibly  I did  see  him  once  more,  but  my  recollection  is 
not  clear  as  to  whether  I ever  saw  him  during  the  campaign,  or  im- 
mediately afterwards,  to  inquire  of  him  what  was  done.  I made  the 
contract  or  agreement  with  him,  as  to  what  he  thought  it  would  be 
necessary  to  do  to  get  out  the  vote  and  insure  a big  vote  for  Senator 
Stephenson  in  those  counties,  and  left  the  matter  entirely  to  him. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  did  you*  contract  to  pay  him  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think,  $3,200  or  $3,000. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  at  the  first  meeting  with  him,  was  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  As  to  whether  the  amount  was  agreed  upon  at  the 
first  meeting,  or  whether  I saw  him  again  and  agreed  upon  the  sum 
later,  I am  not  positive. 

The  Chairman.  You  must  have  had  some  agreement  when  you 
paid  him  a thousand  dollars. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  but  I say  I do  not  know  whether  the  whole 
amount  was  agreed  upon  at  that  time. 

The  Chairman.  Was  any  part  of  it  for  personal  services? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  It  was  all  to  be  expended? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Now,  be  thoughtful  in  your  answer  there.  Was 
all  of  the  money  that  you  paid  to  Mr.  Perrin  to  be  expended  by  him, 
or  was  any  part  of  it  to  be  retained  by  him  for  personal  services? 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


227 


Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know  that  that  matter  was  discussed. 

The  Chairman.  You  agreed  to  pay  him  $3,250,  without  knowing 
whether  it  was  to  be  expended,  or  retained  by  him  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall  any  discussion  of  any  compensation 
for  him  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  You  had  never  known  him  personally  before,  at 
all,  had  you  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  but  the  conditions  under  which  I met  him 
were  not  peculiar ; but  they  were  such  as  to  inspire  confidence  in  him. 

The  Chairman.  What  were  those  conditions  under  which  you  met 
him  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Mr.  Hizer  introduced  me  to  him.  Mr.  Hizer  is  a 
man  in  whom  I have  very  great  confidence. 

The  Chairman.  Is  Mr.  Hizer  a member  of  a law  firm,  or  was  he? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  was;  yes,  sir.  He  was  representing  the  North- 
western Railroad,  and  is  now  the  general  counsel  of  the  road. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  he  introduce  you  to  Mr.  Perrin? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  At  that  time.  I think  I had  met  him  before,  but 
at  that  time  we  met  again. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  being  introduced  to  Mr.  Perrin  by  Mr. 
Hizer,  whom  you  knew,  sufficiently  inspired  you  with  confidence  so 
that  you  placed  a thousand  dollars  then  and  later  $2,250  more  in  his 
hands,  without  condition  or  restriction  as  to  the  use  of  it.  Is  that 
true  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  This  is  true,  that  I have  such  confidence  in  the 
judgment  and  ability  of  Mr.  Hizer  that  if  he  had  said  give  Mr.  Per- 
rin, or  any  other  man  whom  he  recommended,  even  $10,000,  I would 
have  given  it  to  him  and  not  felt  that  I should  be  questioned  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  You  would  have  given  it  to  him  without  consult- 
ing with  Senator  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Absolutely. 

The  Chairman.  Would  you  have  given  it  to  him  without  consult- 
ing wTith  the  other  two  men  who  were  associated  with  you  in  the 
management  of  this  campaign — Mr.  Puelicher  and  Mr.  Van  Cleve? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Or  without  consulting  with  Mr.  Sacket  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  would  have  paid  out  $20,000  of  this  fund  to 
a man  on  the  simple  introduction  of  Mr.  Hizer? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Well,  that  is  doubling  up  a little  rapidly.  I said 
$10,000,  but,  yes ; I would  make  it  $20,000. 

The  Chairman.  I did  not  know  that  I was  doubling  it,  but  inas- 
much as  you  now  say  it,  I will  take  that  statement.  That  is  your  idea 
of  the  measure  of  your  responsibility  under  the  law  as  the  manager 
of  a candidate,  and  under  the  laws  of  Wisconsin  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  One  moment.  Is  there  any  objection  to  having 
it  appear  here  that  Mr.  Hizer  was  one  of  the  leading  members  of  the 
law  firm  of  Cary,  Upham  & Black,  who  had  been  the  personal  counsel 
of  Mr.  Stephenson  for  years,  and  that  since  then  he  has  left  the  firm 
of  Cary,  Upham  & Black,  and  is  now  general  solicitor  of  the  North- 
western Railway  Co.,  taking  the  place  of  the  late  Solicitor  General 
Bowers.  That  is  the  man  he  was  relying  upon.  I feel  as  though 
the  record  ought  to  show  just  exactly  the  character  of  Mr.  Hizer,  a 
man  of  the  very  highest  standing  in  this  community. 


228 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


The  Chairman.  I think  that  would  inevitably  appear  in  the 
record,  because  some  of  Mr.  Hizer  s actions  will  be  a subject  of 
consideration. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  exactly  who  Mr.  Hizer  was. 

The  Chairman.  Did  the  overwhelming  importance  of  Mr.  Hizer 's 
political  and  personal  position  impress  you  as  sufficient  to  authorize 
you  to  pay  out  this  money  to  Mr.  Perrin,  on  his  word  alone? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I would  have  been  willing  to  do  it  on  his  word  alone. 

The  Chairman.  Would  you  have  done  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  the  fact  of  his  statement  had  more  to  do 
with  influencing  me  than  any  other,  because  the  amount  was  large. 

The  Chairman.  What  limit  would  you  fix  for  Mr.  Hizer’s  word? 
What  percentage  of  this  entire  campaign  fund  would  you  have  been 
willing  to  hand  over  on  his  word  or  at  his  solicitation  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I would  have  been  willing  and  glad  to  have  ac- 
cepted his  judgment  as  to  the  placing  of  that  money,  and  all  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  All  of  it;  and  to  have  resigned  your  position  as 
manager  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Feeling  that  in  his  hands  it  was  in  much  better 
hands. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  would  have  done  that  without  consulting 
with  Senator  Stephenson,  would  you  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  had  you  say  paid  out  this  money  and  would 
have  paid  out  up  to  $20,000,  and  you  say  you  did  not  consult  with 
Senator  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I refer  now  to  the  resigning  and  turning  over  the 
business  to  him.  As  far  as  the  payment  of  the  money  is  con- 
cerned— 

The  Chairman.  Would  you  have  paid  out  all  the  money  on  his 
judgment,  without  consulting  Senator  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Most  assuredly. 

The  Chairman.  You  would? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I believe  Senator  Stephenson  would  have  been  very 
well  satisfied  and  glad  to  have  him  accept  that  responsibility. 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Stephenson  did  not  appoint  Mr.  Hizer 
as  one  of  his  agents  or  representatives,  did  he? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  If  he  could  have  secured  his  services,  he  would  not 
have  been  looking  for  me.  I want  to  state  here  that  I hold  Mr. 
Hizer  in  the  very  highest  esteem.  I believe  him  to  be  one  of  the 
most  honorable  gentlemen  that  I know  or  ever  have  met. 

The  Chairman.  He  will  doubtless  appreciate  that,  but  we  are 
interested  here  in  knowing  the  circumstances  under  which  you  paid 
Mr.  Perrin  these  sums  of  money,  and  you  have  stated  that  it  was 
upon  the  recommendation  of  Mr.  Hizer  and  that  alone,  and  that 
you  did  not  inquire  into  the  manner  of  his  use  of  that  money. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  I have  not  made  the  statement  quite  as  ex- 
plicit as  that. 

The  Chairman.  Wherein  is  it  different? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Depending  on  his  judgment  alone;  but  his  advice 
and  suggestion  actuated  me  very  largely. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know  of  any  single  act  performed  by 
Mr.  Perrin  for  Senator  Stephenson  in  consideration  of  this  money 
being  paid  to  him? 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


229 


Mr.  Edmonds.  He  never  reported  to  me. 

The  Chairman.  Not  a single  act? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  whether  Mr.  Hizer  knows  of  a 
single  act  that  was  performed  by  Mr.  Perrin  under  this  arrangement? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  know  of  Mr.  Perrin  performing  a 
single  act  on  behalf  of  Senator  Stephenson  in  consideration  of  re- 
ceiving these  sums  of  money? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I can  only  judge  by  the  results. 

The  Chairman.  But  you  do  not  know? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  I never  was  in  that  locality  during  the 
campaign. 

The  Chairman.  As  to  the  sum  paid  George  Gordon — who  is 
George  Gordon  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  George  Gordon  is  a prominent  attorney  of  La 
Crosse.  He  has  been  appointed  attorney  for  the  western  district  of 
Wisconsin. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  United  States  district  attorney? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  he  now  holding  that  office? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  paid  him  the  $1,300  on  August  4;  for  what 
purpose  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  For  work  in  La  Crosse  and  the  adjoining  counties. 

The  Chairman.  For  working  in  the  count}^? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  For  work  in  the  county. 

The  Chairman.  What  kind  of  work? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  General  organizing.  I left  the  matter  entirely  to 
his  judgment. 

The  Chairman.  Without  any  restrictions  or  limitations  as  to  the 
use  that  he  should  make  of  this  money? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Except  in  so  far  as  we  talked  the  matter  over  and 
discussed  what  would  be  done. 

The  Chairman.  And  what  was  to  be  done? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  was  to  organize  in  the  best  and  most  thorough 
manner  for  Senator  Stephenson’s  interest,  with  the  money  at  hand. 

The  Chairman.  Was  the  character  of  the  organization  considered 
in  that  conversation? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall.  We  talked  perhaps  an  hour  or  two, 
and  I think  in  all  probability  it  was  discussed.  I do  not  recall. 

TKe  Chairman.  You  can  not  recall  that  that  subject  was  discussed? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall  that  it  was. 

The  Chairman.  Was  it  to  be  expended  or  was  he  to  retain  any 
part  of  it  for  his  personal  services? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think  that  matter  was  referred  to,  but  I 
do  not  believe  he  was  to.  I am  not  certain. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  believe  he  was  to  expend  it,  or  to 
retain  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  To  retain  it. 

The  Chairman.  But  it  might  have  been  that  he  was  to  retain  that 
sum,  $1,300.  Is  that  true? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  How  is  that? 


230 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


The  Chairman.  It  might  be  that  he  was  to  retain  all  of  the  $1,300. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Oh,  no;  it  was  distinctly  understood  that  he  was 
to  use  such  money  as  was  necessary,  and  he  thought  that  would  be 
necessary  in  those  counties  to  get  out  the  vote. 

The  Chairman.  Then,  he  was  to  use  the  $1,300 — to  pay  it  out,  to 
expend  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Certainly. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  whether  he  did  expend  any  part  of 
it  or  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  not  from  personal  knowledge. 

The  Chairman.  What  kind  of  knowledge  have  you  on  the  sub- 
ject? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Only  that  somebody  did  work  there,  and  that  was 
left  in  his  hands. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  not  inquire  as  to  whether  or  not  he  had 
given  anything  in  return  for  the  money  you  paid  him.  Is  that  true  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  not  true? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I mean  that  I did  not  inquire. 

The  Chairman.  Then,  it  is  true  that  you  did  not  inquire? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  is  true;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  The  next  item  is  to  D.  E.  Riordan,  $1,300.  He 
is  also  an  attorney,  is  he  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Living  at  Vilas? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  he  is  living  still  in  Vilas  County;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  did  you  pay  Mr.  Riordan  $1,300?  Was 
it  for  personal  services  or  as  a fund  to  be  expended  in  behalf  of 
Senator  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  As  a fund  to  be  used  by  him  in  his  judgment  in  the 
interest  of  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  use  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I fully  believe  he  did. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  render  you  any  account? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

(At  12.30  o’clock  p.  m.,  the  subcommittee  took  a recess  until  2 
o’clock  p.  m.) 


AFTER  RECESS. 

At  the  expiration  of  the  recess  the  subcommittee  reassembled. 

TESTIMONY  OF  E.  A.  EDMONDS— Continued. 

The  Chairman.  We  were  considering  the  item  of  $1,300  to  D.  E. 
Riordan.  Were  the  conditions  under  which  you  made  that  payment 
to  him  similar  to  those  under  which  you  paid  Mr.  Gordon  and 
Mr.  Perrin? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  except  for  the  fact  that  Mr.  Riordan  was  to 
look  after  several  counties. 

The  Chairman.  And  the  amount  paid  was  for  personal  services  and 
not  for  disbursements.  Is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No;  that  is  not  correct. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


231 


The  Chairman.  Was  he  authorized  to  pay  out  money  to  other 
people  to  work  for  Senator  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Was  he  authorized  to  pay  them  any  particular 
rates  of  compensation  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  we  never  went  into  those. 

The  Chairman.  He  was  to  be  the  judge  of  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Was  any  restriction  placed  upon  him  as  to  the 
character  of  services  that  he  was  to  purchase  with  that  money? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir.  ITe  had  been  State  senator  from  that  dis- 
trict for  several  years  and  was  very  well  posted  in  that  territory,  and 
I thought  better  posted  than  any  other  man  I could  secure  for  that 
work. 

The  Chairman.  He  was  not  a State  senator  in  the  legislature  that 
elected  Senator  Stephenson,  was  he? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  the  first  time  that  he  had  not  been  a 
member  of  the  legislative  body,  was  it  not,  for  a number  of  years  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  My  recollection  is  that  his  last  term  of  office  expired 
four  years  before  this  period. 

The  Chairman.  Did  Mr.  Sacket  know  anything  about  the  arrange- 
ments with  either  Mr.  Perrin,  Mr.  Gordon,  or  Mr.  Riordan? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  He  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  payment  of  the 
money  to  them? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I am  quite  sure  with  regard  to  the  amount  paid  to 
Mr.  Riordan  that  that  was  one  of  the  checks  in  my  personal  check 
book. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  indicated  here  as  being  in  consecutive  order 
with  the  numbers  of  the  cashier’s  checks.  You  will  observe  that  there 
are  three  checks  to  Perrin,  Gordon,  and  Riordan  which  are  numbered 
consecutively  25,  26,  and  27.  That  would  indicate  the  manner  of 
payment,  would  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I would  think  so.  I do  not  know  what  those  num- 
bers are,  but  my  best  recollection  was  that  that  amount  was  paid  out 
of  the  personal  fund  of  $5,000  placed  in  my  hands ; so  these  numbers 
would  tend  to  confuse  my  recollection  of  that. 

The  Chairman.  Let  us  get  that  straight.  Did  you  place  that 
$5,000  in  a fund  by  itself  and  draw  against  it,  so  that  you  could 
ascertain  from  an  inspection  of  the  account  when  it  was  exhausted  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir;  in  the  National  Exchange  Bank. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  it  become  exhausted  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  never  was  exhausted  until  I turned  in  the  stubs 
of  the  check  book  and  the  checks  to  Senator  Stephenson  and  sent  him 
the  balance,  which  was  practically  $459. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  those  stubs? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Where  are  they  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Mr.  Chairman,  I am  told  by  Mr.  Sacket  that 
“ C.  D.”  there,  those  initials,  indicate  “ Chicago  draft.”  It  would 
not  be  a cashier’s  check  from  the  Marshall  & Ilsley  Bank.  Just  what 
significance  that  fact  has  I do  not  know. 


232 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Senator  Pomerene.  That  does  not  mean  “certificate  of  deposit?” 

Mr.  Littlefield.  No  ; it  means  “ Chicago  draft.”  That  is,  a draft 
on  some  bank  in  Chicago. 

The  Chairman.  As  I understand  it,  that  was  a draft  purchased 
of  the  bank  here  ? 

Mr.  Black.  Of  the  Marshall  & Ilsley  Bank. 

The  Chairman.  So  it  would  be  a charge  against  the  account  in 
this  bank,  no  matter  what  place  it  was  drawn  upon. 

Mr.  Black.  That  is  correct. 

The  Chairman.  I had  so  understood.  Now,  those  are  to  be  dis- 
tinguished from  the  number  of  the  item  on  July  30,  which  bears 
simply  a number  33353.  Do  you  know  what  that  number  indicates? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  I have  not  any  idea. 

The  Chairman.  There  seem  to  be  three  classes  of  numbers  here, 
one  of  them  cashier’s  checks  or  certificates  of  deposit;  one  of  them 
just  numbers,  without  indicating  anything  more  than  that;  and  the 
others  “ C.  D.,”  which  now,  I understand  you  to  say,  Mr.  Edmonds, 
refers  to  “ Chicago  draft.” 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  I made  no  statement  of  that  kind.  I have 
no  idea  what  it  means. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Mr.  Sacket  worked  out  these  details. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know  about  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  I have  no  idea  what  those  numbers  refer  to. 

The  Chairman.  You  think  you  paid  Mr.  Riordan  the  $1,300 
check  against  the  $5,000,  which  you  had  in  a separate  fund  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  is  my  recollection,  though  that  could  be 
verified  by  the  stubs  in  the  check  book. 

The  Chairman.  Where  do  you  say  those  stubs  are  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  They  wTere  turned  over  to  Senator  Stephenson,  and 
later,  I believe,  they  were  before  the  investigating  committee.  At 
any  rate  when  I testified  before  the  investigating  committee  at  Madi- 
son, I had  those  and  refreshed  my  memory  from  them.  They  were 
in  their  hands  at  that  time. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  in  whose  custody  those  exhibits  are 
now  ? 

Mr.  Black.  I believe  that  the  checks  that  the  witness  now  refers  to, 
which  were  turned  over  to  the  committee,  were  turned  back  to  me, 
and  later  turned  back  to  Senator  Stephenson,  and  I can  obtain  those, 
if  that  is  correct. 

The  Chairman.  I wish  you  would  ascertain  their  whereabouts. 

Mr.  Black.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Are  they  in  this  city,  or  are  they  at  Marinette  ? 

Mr.  Black.  They  are  now  at  Marinette. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  refers  to  these  particular  checks.  Wit- 
nesses have  referred  to  other  memoranda  that  they  gave  to  the  com- 
mittee up  there.  Was  there  anything  else  beside  these  checks? 

Mr.  Black.  No;  I am  only  stating  these  facts.  There  would  be 
these  checks  and  Senator  Stephenson’s  checks. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  With  the  exception  of  these  checks  and  Senator 
Stephenson’s  checks,  nothing  was  turned  over  to  you  by  the  legis- 
lative committee? 

Senator  Pomerene.  Whatever  these  original  exhibits  are,  will  they 
be  brought  here  ? 


E.  A.  EDMONDS.  233 

Mr.  Littlefield.  We  have  no  control  over  those  in  the  hands  of 
the  committee. 

The  Chairman.  Any  that  you  have  control  of  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Any  checks  that  I drew  on  that  bank  were  con- 
secutively numbered,  and  are  in  the  stubs. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  think  you  drew  the  check  to  Perrin  or 
Gordon  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  My  recollection  is  that  the  item  of  $1,300  was  the  first 
one  that  I drew  on  that  bank. 

The  Chairman.  And  yet  it  bears  a number  consecutive  with  those 
preceding,  wdiich  would  indicate  that  it  was  the  same  class  as  that. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Of  course,  I have  no  idea  what  these  numbers  are. 
They  were  put  here  by  Mr.  Sacket. 

The  Chairman.  All  right.  We  will  get  at  that.  Now,  let  us  go  to 
the  next  item,  L.  B.  Dresser.  Did  you  pay  that  $300  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yres. 

The  Chairman.  On  August  4? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  pay  it  to  him  for? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  My  best  recollection  is  that  having  known  Mr. 
Dresser  personally,  and  knowing  that  he  was  in  the  southern  part  of 
the  eleventh  district,  and  knowing  that  in  a former  campaign  of  Sen- 
ator Stephenson  for  the  Senate  he  was  favorable  to  him,  I communi- 
cated with  him  and  sent  this  by  mail,  asking  him  to  look  over  the 
situation  and  report  to  me  as  soon  as  he  could.  That  is  my  best 
recollection. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  report  to  you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  he  came  down  later. 

The  Chairman.  He  came  down  later  and  reported  in  person  and  not 
by  letter? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Not  by  letter. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  he  say  that  he  had  done  in  this  matter? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall,  except  that  he  had  been  around  in  the 
different  counties,  and  he  stated  as  nearly  as  he  could  the  feeling  of  the 
people  as  to  the  several  candidates  who  were  apt  to  run. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  know  him  personally? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Where  is  he  now  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Mr.  Dresser  is  here  in  the  court  room. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  He  is  under  subpoena,  I think. 

The  Chairman.  I wanted  to  identify  him. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Later  on  I arranged  with  him  for  the  payment  of 
$1,800. 

The  Chairman.  You  paid  him  $1,800  on  August  12  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  At  the  time  he  came  down.  That  was,  I think,  the 
day  he  came  down  and  reported. 

The  Chairman.  You  paid  him,  in  these  two  items,  $2,100.  What 
did  you  pay  him  $1,800  for? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  For  organizing  in  the  interest  of  Senator  Stephenson 
in  several  counties  near  his  home. 

The  Chairman.  You  use  the  term  “ organizing  ” in  the  same  sense 
in  which  you  have  used  it  heretofore,  do  you  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 


234 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


The  Chairman.  Did  you  have  Stephenson  clubs  in  those  counties? 
Did  he  organize  Stephenson  clubs? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Whether  there  was  an  organization,  consisting  of  a 
president  and  secretary,  with  regular  minutes  kept  and  everything 
of  that  kind,  I do  not  know,  but  there  were  associations  of  men  that 
virtually  amounted  to  clubs,  in  the  different  parts  of  the  State. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  pay  any  part  of  it  for  bands  or  halls  in 
connection  with  the  holding  of  meetings? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  report  to  you  for  what  he  had  expended 
that  money? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Was  he  to  receive  any  part  of  it  for  his  personal 
compensation  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  My  recollection  is  not. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  whether  he  did  spend  it  all? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  ask  him? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  ask  him  to  account  to  you  for  the 
use  that  he  had  made  of  this  money  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  saw  him  after  the  primaries  were  over,  did 
you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  and  during  the  campaign. 

The  Chairman.  It  was  not  for  securing  signatures  to  the  petition? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir.  I am  quite  sure  that  I did  not  see  him  until 
after  the  date  that  the  signatures  were  to  be  sent  ..in  to  the  secretary 
of  state. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  May  I ask  the  witness  here,  because  it  occurs  to 
me:  Were  there  any  campaign  speeches  during  the  campaign? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I believe  there  were  some. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  it  involve  the  hiring  of  halls  and  bands? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir;  I assume  so. 

The  Chairman.  Where  were  those  meetings  held? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  different  localities. 

The  Chairman.  Name  some  of  them. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I can  not. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  remember  a single  meeting  held  in 
this  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No. 

The  Chairman.  How  was  your  mind  occupied  in  regard  to  this 
campaign — just  in  distributing  money? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  took  a good  share  of  my  time,  from  the 
amount  of  distribution,  and  I was  a pretty  busy  man. 

The  Chairman.  At  what  were  you  busy  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I was  trying  to  get  acquainted  with  the  people  of 
the  State,  and  trying  to  enlist  sympathizers  and  workers  for  Senator 
Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  You  were  busy  talking? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  I was  talking  a good  deal  of  the  time. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  not  organize  any  political  club  or  body 
at  all  in  the  State,  did  you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir ; no  organization  of  voters  into  clubs. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


235 


The  Chairman.  You  did  not  hold  any  meeting,  which  you  at- 
tended, in  Senator  Stephenson’s  behalf? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think  I attended  a public  meeting ; no,  sir. 
Of  course,  we  had  innumerable  private  meetings. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  do  besides  talk  and  have  confer- 
ences in  this  campaign  and  draw  checks? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  every  day  during  the  campaign,  except  part 
of  Saturday  afternoon  and  Monday  morning  and  Sunday  during  the 
campaign,  I was  in  the  office  of  the  headquarters. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Here  at  Milwaukee? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  And  doing  whatever  came  up. 

The  Chairman.  Whatever  did  come  up? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Whatever  I could  think  of  to  promote  the  interest 
of  Senator  Stephenson  in  any  way. 

The  Chairman.  What  came  up? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Most  of  the  time  there  were  men  coming  up  the 
stairs  endeavoring  to  see  me  and  make  arrangements  for  organizing 
in  their  districts. 

The  Chairman.  Making  arrangements  for  getting  money? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  A good  many  of  them;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  pay,  on  August  5,  to  E.  J.  Rogers,  $50? 
Before  you  answer  that  question  I will  ask  you  first,  did  you  give 
money  to  everybody  who  asked  for  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No;  I do  not  think  so. 

The  Chairman.  What  percentage  did  you  turn  down? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Oh,  I can  not  tell  what  percentage.  I know  a great 
many  people  came  up,  but  Mr.  Sacket  was  very  good  about  steering 
them  clear  of  me.  If  he  thought  they  were  not  worthy  of  confi- 
dence— of  getting  into  the  campaign — he  would  steer  them  away 
from  me. 

The  Chairman.  If  they  once  got  safely  by  Mr.  Sacket,  then  they 
stood  some  show. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I am  afraid  I was  something  of  an  easy  mark  in 
the  matter  in  a good  many  instances,  probably.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  given  us  the  names  of  20  now  who  got 
by  Mr.  Sacket  and  to  whom  you  gave  money.  You  gave  money  to  all 
that  got  by  Mr.  Sacket? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  No;  he  did  not  quite  say  that.  He  authorized 
the  payment  of  money  to  most  of  those. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  the  subject  matter  of  my  question. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  For  instance,  there  were  many  times  men  would 
come  into  the  office.  There  would  be  duplicates.  For  instance,  I 
had  arranged  in  a certain  county  for  a man  to  manage  the  cam- 
paign in  that  county.  Every  man  would  come  in  and  discuss  the 
situation  in  that  county  and  try  to  give  me  information  in  regard 
to  it,  and  some  of  them,  not  knowing  who  was  our  manager  there, 
would  suggest  themselves,  perhaps,  or  somebody  else.  In  that  case 
I tried  not  to  duplicate. 

The  Chairman.  Does  it  not  seem  from  this  statement  that  you  did 
duplicate  in  a good  many  counties? 

Sir.  Edmonds.  No;  I do  not  think  so. 

The  Chairman.  And  when  these  men  reached  you  finally,  with  a 
claim  for  expense  account,  did  you  pay  the  money  out? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think  I quite  understand  that  question. 


236 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


The  Chairman.  Did  you  personally  pay  the  money  out  for  the 
expenses  of  those  that  did  reach  you,  make  a personal  payment  for 
the  expense  account? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  some  instances. 

The  Chairman.  When  you  would  make  such  a payment,  did  you 
report  it  to  Mr.  Sacket? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  I think  in  every  instance.  When  I say  per- 
sonally, I means  by  that  it  came  out  of  the  office,  that  I made  the 
arrangements  for  it,  and  in  that  way  it  came  through  me;  that  the 
money  would  pass  through  Mr.  Sacket’s  hands.  The  money  did  not 
come  through  me. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  have  testified  here  before  from  time  to 
time  that  you  got  a certain  amount  of  cash  from  Mr.  Puelicher. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  have  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  men 
would  get  past  Mr.  Sacket  up  to  you.  What  we  want  to  know  is,  did 
you  give  to  some  of  these  men  the  actual  cash  out  of  the  money  that 
you  had  personally  received  in  cash  from  Mr.  Puelicher  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  When  you  speak  of  the  men  getting  by  Mr.  Sacket, 
I do  not  know.  There  were  at  different  times  out  of  the  money  I 
had  in  my  hands,  in  my  pocket,  moneys  paid,  $25  or  $50,  or  what 
was  needed 

Senator  Pomerene.  Have  you  the  names  of  those  persons  here? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  keep  a list  of  those  names? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir.  Those  sums  were  advanced  in  almost  every 
instance,  I believe,  to  the  men  who  were  employed  to  go  out  from 
headquarters — what  have  been  called  “ political  scouts.” 

Senator  Pomerene.  If  you  did  not  keep  a list  of  those  names,  how 
did  you  expect  a report  of  it  to  be  made? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  was  paid  out  of  the  money  in  my  hands. 

Senator  Pomerene.  How  did  you  expect  a report  of  that  to  be 
made  so  as  to  comply  with  the  statute? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know  that  I gave  it  any  thought  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  You  paid  that  to  Mr.  Rogers,  you  say,  on  Au- 
gust 5. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No;  I do  not  think  I did. 

The  Chairman.  Can  I charge  that  to  Mr.  Sacket? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  And  the  item,  “ R.  H.  Rowe,  $35.25  ”? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  is  a case  that  I do  not  recall.  My  judgment 
is  that  I never  made  any  arrangement  with  him,  though  the  name, 
“Richard  Rowe,”  seems  familiar. 

The  Chairman.  It  seems  familiar? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  The  name  is  familiar  to  me. 

Senator  Pomerene.  We  lawyers  have  learned  that. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  But  this  is  another  Rowe.  This  is  R-o-w-e. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  where  Mr.  Rowe  was  then  or  is  now 
to  be  found? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not. 

The  Chairman.  Shall  we  ask  Mr.  Sacket  about  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  think  so. 

The  Chairman.  The  next  one,  Mr.  Wavland,  you  have  already 
told  us  about.  That  was  $49.18.  Did  you  pay  that  to  him? 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


237 


Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall  this  particular  payment. 

The  Chairman.  Would  Mr.  Sacket  know  about  that  item? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I am  not  sure  of  that  at  all.  That  was  a part  of 
the  total  amount  paid  to  Mr.  Wayland. 

The  Chairman.  The  next  item,  J.  R.  Keyes,  $25,  was  paid  by 
whom  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  By  Mr.  Sacket. 

The  Chairman.  And  the  next  item,  L.  H.  Stevens,  $28.92,  was 
paid  by  whom? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I am  quite  sure  that  I did  not  pay  that. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  Mr.  Stevens? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  is  L.  H.  Stevens,  in  Iowa  County.  I think 
there  is  a mistake  there.  I think  it  should  be  in  Grant  County. 
There  may  be  an  L.  IX.  Stevens  in  Iowa  County ; I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Then  there  is  J.  E.  Kelley,  in  Milwaukee  County, 
on  August  6,  $500.  Before  answering  that  question,  I desire  to  in- 
quire of  you  as  to  the  item  of  $75  in  Kewaunee  County.  Who  paid 
that  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know.  I could  not  tell  to  whom  that  refers. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Sacket  will  know  about  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  think  so. 

The  Chairman.  We  now  come  to  August  6,  Milwaukee,  J.  E. 
Kelley,  $500. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  was  that  paid? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Mr.  Kelley  was  employed  by  me  to  make  speeches 
for  Senator  Stephenson,  in  his  behalf. 

The  Chairman.  To  make  speeches  where? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  All  over  the  different  parts  of  the  State,  wherever 
he  was  called  upon. 

The  Chairman.  I understood  you  to  say  that  there  were  no  meet- 
ings held  for  speech  making. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Oh,  no;  he  could  not  specify  the  meetings.  He 
said  there  were  meetings. 

The  Chairman.  He  could  not  name  one  place  where  a speech  had 
been  made,  and  you  paid  $500  to  Mr.  Kelley  for  making  speeches? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  never  inquire  as  to  where  he  made  these 
speeches  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes — no ; I will  take  that  back.  I want  to  correct 
that  answer. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  the  answer? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Your  question  is,  did  I never  inquire.  No.  I knew 
the  circumstances 

Mr.  Chairman.  You  do  know  that  he  made  speeches? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir.  I made  an  agreement  with  Mr.  Kelley,  who 
was  the  city  attorney  of  Milwaukee,  to  make  speeches  in  different 
parts  of  the  State.  I paid  him  for  his  services,  and  paid  him  in  ad- 
vance $500.  Later  my  suggestion  as  to  the  advisability  of  Mr.  Kelley 
making  speeches  was  overruled- -it  was  discussed,  at  least,  and  it  was 
decided  not  to  send  him  out. 

The  Chairman.  Then  did  he  make  any  speeches? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Not  one  that  I know  of. 


238 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


The  Chairman.  So  the  $500  was  merely  a gift  to  Mr.  Kelley  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  So  far  as  the  services  of  Mr.  Kelley  were  concerned, 
it  was  an  absolute  loss,  because  he  did  not  make  any  speeches,  but  I 
want  to  say  that  Mr.  Kelley  is  not  at  all  at  fault,  because  he  was 
ready  to  go,  and  we  decided  not  to  call  on  him. 

The  Chairman.  Is  he  still  living  in  this  city  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  he  is ; yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  He  does  not  hold  any  office,  does  he? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Except  that  he  was  the  city  attorney  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Not  since  the  Socialists  got  in  power  here. 

The  Chairman.  Are  the  Socialists  in  power  here  now  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I believe  they  are.  I am  not  a resident  of  Mil- 
waukee. They  appear  to  be. 

The  Chairman.  And  Mr.  Kelley  rendered  no  service,  gave  no  con- 
sideration for  the  $500  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  rendered  valuable  services  because  of  his  friend- 
ship to  Senator  Stephenson,  but  this  particular  amount  was  to  be 
paid  to  him  for  making  speeches,  and  he  did  not  do  that,  through  no 
fault  of  his. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  vote  for  Senator  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I have  not  the  slightest  idea,  but  I believe  he  did. 
He  was  very  friendly  to  him. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  not  sure? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  We  next  have  the  item  of  J.  Livermore,  $50.  Did 
you  pay  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  that  for? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  For  work  in  Oconto  County. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  figured  up  the  total  amount  that  you 
paid  Mr.  Livermore? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No;  I have  not.  I think  that  is  the  only  amount. 

The  Chairman.  We  now  come  to  the  item  of  $600  to  J.  J.  McGilli- 
vary.  Did  you  pay  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  For  what? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  For  organization  work  in  Jackson  County. 

The  Chairman.  Organization  work.  That  was  on  August  6 ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  WTat  did  he  do  for  the  $600? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  had  entire  charge  of  Jackson  County.  Mr. 
Chairman,  you  speak  of  speeches.  That  reminds  me  that  Senator 
McGillivary  did  make  some  speeches. 

The  Chairman.  He  was  not  a senator  then,  was  he  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  was  not  a senator  at  that  time. 

The  Chairman.  He  had  been  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  had  been  years  before  that. 

The  Chairman.  Was  he  a candidate  for  the  senate? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  whatever  services  he  rendered  for  the 
$600  were  in  the  nature  of  speech  making? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  pay  out  any  of  the  $600  to  any  other  person  ? 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


239 


Mr.  Edmonds.  I am  quite  sure  that  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  never  inquired  nor  had  an  account  from  him? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  never  had  an  account  from  him. 

The  Chairman.  Then  there  is  the  item  of  Pat  Dormady,  $50. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Ashland  County. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  pay  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  For  what? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Services  that  he  might  render  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  Had  he  rendered  any  service  at  the  time  you  paid 
him  the  money? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know  whether  he  had  or  not.  At  the  time 
this  money  was  sent  him  I believe  he  was  a candidate  for  the  nomina- 
tion of  sheriff  in  that  county,  and  he  thought  he  could  be  of  assist- 
ance to  Senator  Stephenson,  at  the  same  time  getting  around  work- 
ing for  himself. 

The  Chairman.  Was  he  nominated? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know  whether  he  spent  the  $50  to  ad- 
vance his  own  candidacy  or  that  of  Senator  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir.  I would  not  like  to  ]eave  the  insinuation 
that  he  did. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Had  Mr.  McGillivary  performed  any  services  for 
Senator  Stephenson  before  you  paid  him  the  $600  on  August  6 ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know.  He  was  friendly  to  Senator  Ste- 
phenson when  I employed  him. 

The  Chairman.  But  you  do  not  know  whether  or  not  he  would 
have  organized  Jackson  County  had  he  not  received  the  $600? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I hardly  think  he  would  have  gone  out  and  spent 
$600  of  his  own  money,  or  any  large  amount  of  money  to  organize 
the  county  if  he  had  not  expected  to  be  reimbursed. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know  that  Mr.  Kelley  would  have  sup- 
ported Mr.  Stephenson  unless  he  was  paid  $500? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Oh,  I do;  certainly.  He  was  a very  warm  friend 
of  the  Senator,  as  was  Mr.  McGillivary. 

The  Chairman.  Before  you  paid  him  the  $500  what  had  he  done 
toward  his  election? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  that  he  did  anything? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  The  same  is  true  as  to  Mr.  Livermore?  You  do 
not  know  that  he  would  have  done  anything  at  all  in  the  absence 
of  the  payment  of  $50  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Of  course  I do  not  know  what  they  would  have 
done. 

The  Chairman.  Up  to  that  time  they  had  not  performed  any  serv- 
ices for  Mr.  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know  whether  they  had  or  not.  I know 
they  were  friendly  to  his  nomination. 


240 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


The  Chairman.  Why  was  it  necessary  to  give  them  money? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  They  were  not  getting  this  money  for  themselves, 
to  keep. 

The  Chairman.  How  do  you  know  they  did  not  keep  it  all? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know,  of  course,  what  they  did,  never  hav- 
ing had  an  account  from  them. 

The  Chairman.  Let  us  cover  that  general  principle.  You  have 
enumerated  a number  of  persons  to  whom  you  paid  money  for 
organizing  and  assisting  in  the  election  of  Senator  Stephenson.  Had 
any  of  these  people  performed  any  services  before  you  paid  them  or 
commenced  making  payment  to  them? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know.  I would  say  that  in  every  instance 
where  money  was  paid  to  men  to  work  for  Senator  Stephenson  by 
me,  I knew  them  to  be  friendly  and  in  favor  of  Senator  Stephenson’s 
nomination.  No  money  was  paid  to  them  to  get  them  to  vote  for 
Senator  Stephenson,  or  to  influence  their  vote.  In  almost  every  in- 
stance these  men  were  solicited  by  me  to  organize  in  these  counties. 
They  did  not  come  to  me — these  men  to  whom  these  larger  sums  were 

Eaicl.  Those  wrere  men  that  I sought  out,  men  I thought  were  the 
est  fitted  in  those  counties  to  organize. 

The  Chairman.  Let  us  take  the  cases  of  Gordon,  Iliordan,  and 
Perrin.  Those  men  had  not  actively  or  in  any  way  supported  Sena- 
tor Stephenson  prior  to  the  time  you  made  the  arrangement  with 
them  to  do  so? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. . They  were  all  friendly  to  the 
Senator. 

The  Chairman.  I know,  but  that  is  a very  indefinite  proposition. 
Had  they  been  supporting  Senator  Stephenson,  doing  things  that 
would  tend  to  bring  about  his  nomination,  prior  to  the  time  you  made 
the  contract  with  them? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I had  absolutely  no  means  of  knowing  until  I saw 
them. 

The  Chairman.  Did  it  not  occur  to  you  that  when  a man  came  10 
you  for  money,  or  when  a man  agreed  to  accept  money,  it  would  be 
very  proper  for  you  to  inquire  whether  he  had  already  interested 
himself  in  the  election  of  Senator  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Most  assuredly. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  do  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  In  the  case  of  Mr.  Gordon,  what  had  Mr.  Gordon 
done  to  promulgate  Senator  Stephenson’s  nomination  when  he  first 
came  to  you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I have  absolutely  no  means  of  knowing.  I sent  for 
him  to  come  down. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  not  ascertain  or  attempt  to  ascertain 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Would  not  the  chairman  let  the  witness  finish  the 
answer  ? 

The  Chairman.  He  said  he  did  not.  That  is  his  answer. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I submit  whether  the  witness  has  not  a fair  right 
to  make  an  explanation.  I know  that  the  chairman  does  not  intend 
to  cut  him  off,  but  he  was  going  on  to  make  an  explanation,  and  it 
seemed  to  me  that  the  chair  would  be  perfectly  willing  that  he 
should  do  it. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


241 


The  Chairman.  The  witness  is  entitled,  first,  to  answer  the  ques- 
tion, and  he  has  answered  it.  He  is  not  entitled  to  make  an  explana- 
tion. He  can  only  make  an  explanation  under  the  rules  of  evidence  # 
upon  an  application  to  make  the  explanation  after  having  answered 
the  question.  He  can  not  substitute  an  explanation  for  an  answer. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Oh,  the  chairman  and  I are  perfectly  agreed  about 
the  rule  of  law.  My  suggestion  was  this : I do  not  think  the  chair- 
man has  any  objection  when  the  witness  makes  an  answer,  if  he 
feels  he  ought  to  go  on  and  make  an  explanation  in  addition  to  the 
answer 

The  Chairman.  He  can  not  do  that  without  the  consent  of  the 
committee. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I know,  and  I am  asking  the  committee  to  con- 
sent to  it. 

The  Chairman.  If  he  requested  the  opportunity  to  make  an  expla- 
nation, or  the  request  was  made  in  his  behalf,  it  would  be  proper, 
but  the  witness  must  not  be  the  arbiter  of  that  matter.  His  answer 
being  complete,  if  the  witness  desires  to  explain,  then  the  question 
must  be  submitted  to  the  committee,  and  the  committee  willl  doubtless 
authorize  or  permit  him  to  make  an  explanation.  But  that  is  not  the 
status  of  this  question  now.  Let  the  question  and  the  answer  of  the 
witness  be  read. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I am  perfectly  agreed  with  the  chairman’s  view 
of  the  matter,  and  the  question  and  answer  need  not  be  read  for  my 
information.  There  is  not  the  slightest  difference  between  us,  but 
my  only  suggestion  was  that  if  the  witness  was  perhaps  going  on  to 
make  an  explanation,  perhaps  the  chairman  would  have  no  objection 
to  his  doing  so.  I understand  perfectly  that  it  is  within  the  discre- 
tion of  the  chairman  and  the  committee. 

The  Chairman.  The  reporter  will  read  the  question  and  the  answer 
of  the  witness,  and  then  if  the  witness  desires  to  explain,  that  will  be 
a thing  to  consider. 

The  reporter  read  as  follows: 

“ The  Chairman.  In  the  case  of  Mr.  Gordon,  what  had  Mr.  Gordon 
done  to  promulgate  Senator  Stephenson’s  nomination  when  he  first 
came  to  you? 

“ Mr.  Edmonds.  I have  absolutely  no  means  of  knowing.  I sent 
for  him  to  come  down.” 

The  Chairman.  If  the  witness  desires  now  to  make  any  explana- 
tion of  the  answer,  or  any  comments  upon  it,  to  explain  that,  he  will  be 
permitted  to  do  so. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  There  was  no  opportunity  and  no  time  for  me  to 
learn  from  the  different  counties  what  these  different  men  had  been 
doing.  This  particular  man  was  known  to  be  a “ stalwart  ” in  his 
county,  an  organizer  of  ability,  and  he  was  the  best-fitted  man,  it 
seemed  to  me,  among  the  friends  of  Senator  Stephenson,  to  do  the 
work  there.  I asked  him  to  come  down,  and  I made  the  arrange- 
ment with  him  for  such  organization. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  your  explanation? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  whether  or  not  in  the  absence  of  an 
arrangement  such  as  you  made  with  him  he  would  have  supported 
Senator  Stephenson  ? 

15235°— vol  1—11 16 


242 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Mr.  Edmonds.  Why,  of  course 

The  Chairman.  No;  do  you  know? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No;  1 do  not  know.  I have  every  reason  to  believe 
* that  he  would. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  a complete  answer — that  you  do  not  know. 
Do  you  know  whether  or  not  in  the  absence  of  an  arrangement  such 
as  you  made,  Mr.  Perrin  would  have  supported  Senator  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  making  my  answer,  I would  like  to  make  an 
explanation. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  make  it  afterwards. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know.  I believe  he  would. 

The  Chairman.  Now  you  say  you  know.  Now  you  know.  You 
may  explain. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes.  Now,  what  do  you  say? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I have  no  means  of  knowing,  because  I had  not 
seen  him  before  that  time.  I had  been  informed  that  he  was  for  him. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  that  Mr.  Riordan  would  have  sup- 
ported Senator  Stephenson  in  the  absence  of  the  arrangement  which 
you  made  with  him,  pursuant  to  which  you  paid  him  the  money? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know.  May  I make  the  explanation  here 
and  say  that  I believe  it  to  be  the  case,  as  I had  been  informed  that 
he  was  in  favor  of  Mr.  Stephenson’s  nomination. 

The  Chairman.  As  you  had  been  informed.  Are  you  able  to  sav 
whether  any  of  the  men  to  whom  you  paid  these  sums  of  money, 
enumerated  during  the  forenoon’s  examination,  would  have  sup- 
ported Senator  Stephenson  in  the  absence  of  the  payment  of  the 
money  which  you  made  to  them  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  I am;  some  of  them.  Some  of  them  I had 
personal  acquaintance  with  and  had  seen  before  that  time. 

The  Chairman.  Which  ones? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Mr.  Kelley,  Mr.  Livermore,  Mr.  Wayland,  Mr. 
Dresser.  That  is  all  I notice  there  (“  Exhibit  49  ”)  that  I had  seen 
before  or  had  communicated  with. 

The  Chairman.  Those  are  the  only  ones  that  you  are  willing  to 
say  that  you  know  would  have  supported  Senator  Stephenson  in  the 
absence  of  the  contracts  with  and  payments  that  you  made  to  them  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  They  are  the  only  ones  that  I would  want  to  make 
that  statement  of  at  this  time.  1 believe — if  I may  explain — that 
every  one  of  them,  however,  was  in  favor  of  him. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  voluntary,  and  please  do  not  put  those 
things  in  the  record  without  the  consent  of  the  subcommittee. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Will  the  chairman  excuse  me?  Is  not  that  within 
the  fair  scope  of  the  explanation  and  bearing  upon  the  good  faith 

The  Chairman.  The  explanation  must  only  be  made  upon  request. 
The  witness  is  not  at  liberty  to  sit  here  and  reenforce  his  testimony. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I know,  but  the  chairman  does  not  propose  to 
enforce  that  rule  in  strictness? 

The  Chairman.  Only  in  the  interest  of  conciseness  and  reason- 
able brevity  in  these  procedings. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Certainly. 

The  Chairman.  If  the  witness  were  permitted  to  make  a speech 
in  connection  with  each  answer  it  would  very  much  delay  and  drag 
out  the  hearing. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


243 


Mr.  Littlefield.  True.  But  in  this  particular  matter,  I submit, 
the  explanation  bears  upon  the  good  faith  of  Mr.  Edmonds.  If  it 
be  a question  as  to  whether  or  not  his  conduct  was  proper,  under 
those  circumstances,  his  belief  as  to  what  these  men  would  have  done 
otherwise  is  certainly  a factor  that  enters  into  the  equation. 

The  Chairman.  His  present  belief  is  not  a factor.  The  belief  that 
he  may  have  entertained  at  the  time  might  be. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Surely ; but  that  is  the  belief  to  which  he  is  testi- 
fying, I believe.  Is  it  not,  Mr.  Edmonds? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  is. 

The  Chairman.  Now  we  will  proceed.  The  case  of  It.  J.  Shields, 
to  whom  $200  was  paid  on  August  6;  did  you  make  that  payment? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I have  that  marked  with  a question  here,  and  I can 
not  recall  whether  I did  or  not. 

The  Chairman.  Then  I will  mark  it  as  I am  marking  that  class. 
Do  you  think  that  Mr.  Sacket  will  be  able  to  explain  that  item? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  If  he  can  not,  I can  not.  I know  of  Mr.  Shields, 
but  I do  not  recall 

The  Chairman.  Who  is  Mr.  Shields? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  lives  in  Superior. 

The  Chairman.  Superior? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  the  most  northern  town  in  the  State. 

The  Chairman.  Yes.  That  is  right  across  from  Duluth? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Llave  you  any  personal  acquaintance  with  him? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I know  him  slightly. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  know  him  before  the  campaign  com- 
menced ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  I had  known  him  10  or  15  years  before,  but 
had  not  seen  him  for  a good  many  years. 

The  Chairman.  What  does  he  do? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  think  that  he  could  be  reached  with  a 
subpoena  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  so. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  is  his  business,  do  you  know  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  he  is  a lawyer;  I am  not  positive. 

Senator  Sutherland.  He  has  been  subpoenaed. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  He  has  been  subpoenaed  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  so  I am  informed.  J.  C.  Miller,  $75,  on 
August  6.  Did  you  make  that  payment? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  is  not  one  of  the  items  I have  marked,  and  I 
think  not. 

The  Chairman.  The  next  item  of  $100,  to  Kewaunee  County? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Who  made  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know  anything  about  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  I do  not  recall  anything  about. 

The  Chairman.  And  the  next  one,  to  Racine  County,  $100? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I have  no  recollection  of  that. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know  whether  that  was  money  sent 
there  or  money  paid  to  some  one  there? 


244 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  I can  not  tell  from  this  (“  Exhibit  49  ”). 

The  Chairman.  Now  “ General,  C.  C.  Wayland,  $250  ” ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  was  a part  of  the  amount  that  he  was  to 

The  Chairman.  That  was  within  the  explanation  that  you  have 
made  with  reference  to  Wayland? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  that  is  one  of  the  cases  of  which  you  have 
personal  knowledge  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  I will  so  mark  it.  The  next  one,  to  “ M.  C.  King.” 
I suppose  that  is  really  the  man  whose  name  is  at  the  top  of  page 
592,  as  “ Bing  ”■ — merely  a misprint  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir;  it  is  the  same  name. 

The  Chairman.  Here  you  pay  him  $170? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  For  what? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I employed  him  to  go  about  the  State,  in  different 
places,  endeavoring  to  learn  and  report  to  me  the  sentiment,  par- 
ticularly as  to  the  stalwarts  in  the  State,  as  to  how  they  felt  in  re- 
gard to  Senator  Stephenson’s  nomination. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  his  business? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  A lawyer. 

The  Chairman.  Where  does  he  reside? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Neillsville. 

The  Chairman.  Where  is  Neillsville? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Clark  County. 

The  Chairman.  Had  you  known  him  before  you  entered  into  this 
arrangement  with  him? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir;  I had  known  him. 

The  Chairman.  How  long? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Oh,  perhaps  10  years. 

The  Chairman.  Is  he  a man  who  ordinarily  takes  an  active  part  in 
political  matters? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir.  He  is  one  of  the  prominent  stalwarts  in  the 
State. 

The  Chairman.  Has  he  been  in  office  in  the  State? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Not  to  my  recollection,  though  he  has  been  a poli- 
tician, well  known  in  the  State.  He  represented  the  Northwestern 
Railroad  Co.  at  one  time. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  what  he  did  with  the  money 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman  (continuing).  That  he  received,  which  amounts  to 
several  thousand  dollars? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I believe  he  kept  for  services  and  for  traveling  ex- 
penses and  other  such  expenditures  that  he  was 

The  Chairman.  It  was  personal  compensation  to  Mr.  Ring  to  go 
abroad  in  the  State  in  the  interests  of  Senator  Stephenson’s  renomi- 
nation and  election,  was  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  These  services  seem  to  have  been  performed  after 
the  filing  of  the  nomination  papers,  so  no  part  of  the  services  consisted 
in  securing  signers  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  None  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  make  speeches? 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


245 


Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think  so. 

The  Chairman.  Hold  meetings? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think  so.  I think  he  was  traveling  most  of 
the  time  from  one  part  of  the  State  to  another. 

The  Chairman.  Personal  canvass,  you  think  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir;  seeing  the  different  leaders  of  the  party,  in 
different  sections. 

The  Chairman.  BefQre  you  made  this  arrangement  with  him  had 
he  been  engaged  in  canvassing  for  or  supporting  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  He  entered  upon  those  duties  because  of  the 
arrangement  you  had  made  with  him,  did  he  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I believe  he  entered  upon  the  duties  of  going  about 
the  State,  after  having  been  paid  by  me  for  his  services. 

The  Chairman.  Because  of  the  contract  with  you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes.  I believe — if  I may  explain — that  he  was  in 
favor  of  Senator  Stephenson’s  nomination  or  I should  not  have  hired 
him. 

The  Chairman.  Upon  what  do  you  base  your  belief? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  From  my  talk  with  him,  before  I hired  him  or  at  the 
time. 

The  Chairman.  At  the  time? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  to  say,  he  expressed  a willingness,  upon 
the  payment  of  this  money,  to  go  out  for  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir.  And,  if  I may  further  explain,  he  was 
a friend  of  Mr.  Hizer,  and  Mr.  Hizer  had  arranged  for  him  to  come 
to  Milwaukee,  or,  at  least,  he  came,  and  I met  him  in  Mr.  Hizer’s 
office — possibly  in  Mr.  Hizer’s  office — I think  that  is  where  I met 
him;  and  Mr.  Hizer 

The  Chairman.  He  came  here  to  be  employed  to  go  out  and  make 
a canvass  for  Senator  Stephenson’s  nomination,  did  he? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  I do  not  know.  I met  him  at  the  suggestion 
of  Mr.  Hizer,  who  informed  me  that  he  was  a friend  of  Senator 
Stephenson  and  believed  that  he  could  be  employed  to  work  in  his 
interest. 

The  Chairman.  August  8,  to  “ E.  A.  Edmunds,  $250  ” — that  was 
to  you  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose  was  that  money  drawn  from 
the  campaign  fund? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  For  the  same  purpose  as  other  items  referred  to. 
I had  evidently  run  out  of  money  at  that  time  and  called  on  Mr. 

The  Chairman.  It  was  your  personal  expenses? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Let  me  ask  there:  You  say  you  had  run  out 
of  money;  you  still  had  some  of  this  $5,000  to  your  credit  in  the 
bank,  did  you  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir;  and  no  part  of  it 

Senator  Pomerene.  Why  did  you  not  draw  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No  part  of  that  was  used  by  me.  For  the  reason 
I wanted  stubs  to  shoAV  that  that  was  used  for  other  purposes.  It 
had  been  arranged  that  I should  be  paid  by  Mr. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Was  that  more  sacred  than  other  money  ? 


246 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know  that  it  was;  but  that  was  intrusted 
to  my  care  and  I had  to  make  a report  on  that  and  I did  not  want 
any  question  about  that. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Was  not  the  other  money  intrusted  to  your 
care? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Or  the  expenditure  of  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir.  I was  to  keep  an  account,  however,  of 
this  particular  amount  and  render  a statement  of  it,  and  of  the  other 
the  man  from  whom  I got  the  money  rendered  a report. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  say  you  were  to  keep  account  of  the 
$5,000;  why? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Because,  for  my  own  protection  and  safety. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Who  required  that  of  you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I required  it  of  myself.  I do  not  think  Senator 
Stephenson  said  to  do  that,  but  I certainly  understood  that 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  you  were  not  required  to  keep  an  account 
of  the  rest? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  I did  not  keep  an  account  of  the  rest.  It 
was  done  under  my — in  the  office. 

The  Chairman.  Then  you  drew  the  $250  from  the  other  fund  that 
was  supplied  through  Mr.  Peulicher? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Always.  Any  amount  received  from  me  came 
from  him. 

The  Chairman.  Now,  the  next  item,  $250,  “ General.”  What  does 
that  indicate ; to  whom  was  that  paid  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Sacket  will  know  that,  will  he? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know  what  he  will  know.  I certainly 
do  not. 

The  Chairman.  What? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I certainly  do  not ; I have  not  any  idea. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Edmonds,  did  you  pay  the  $50  to  Mr.  Dett- 
mam  on  August  8 ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  My  recollection  is  not  clear  on  that,  but  I think 
I sent  it  to  him. 

The  Chairman.  You  think  you  sent  it  to  him;  for  what  purpose? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  For  assistance  among  the  German  Lutherans  in  his 
locality. 

The  Chairman.  What  kind  of  assistance? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  So  that  he  would  get  out  and  help  to  get  out  the 
vote — interest  his  friends — for  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  There  was  no  vote  to  be  gotten  out  on  August  8 
for  any  purpose — nearly  a month  before  the  election. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  When  I say  getting  out  the  vote,  I do  not  refer 
to  the  actual  carrying  or  taking  of  the  persons  to  the  polls,  but  to 
interest  them  so  that  they  would  get  out. 

The  Chairman.  Enthuse  them? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  is  the  idea — enthuse  them.  Thank  you  for 
the  suggestion. 

The  Chairman.  “ O.  L.  Gust,  $800,  August  8.”  Did  you  pay  that 
money  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I can  not  recall  that  payment  at  all. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


247 


The  Chairman.  Who  is  Mr.  Gust? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know  anything  about  that  expendi- 
ture ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  I do  not  think  I ever  met  the  man;  I do 
not  know  him. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  go  in  and  look  over  the  accounts  of 
Mr.  Sacket  to  see  how  much  money  he  was  paying  out  and  to  whom 
he  was  paying  it  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think  I ever  did. 

The  Chairman.  The  next  one,  “ F.  H.  Gehbe,  $200.”  Did  you 
pay  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  for? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  For  the  same;  for  services,  helping  to  organize  and 
get  out  the  vote  for  Senator  Stephenson  in  Manitowoc  County. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  ever  render  any  account  to  you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  whether  he  kept  the  money  for  his 
own  trouble  or  whether  he  paid  it  out  to  others? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  You  never  inquired? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  he  might  have  used  that  money  and 
might  not  have  used  it  within  the  law  so  far  as  you  know  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir.  If  I may  explain,  he  came  to  the  office 
and  said  he  was  a friend  of  Senator  Stephenson  and  wanted  to  get 
out  and  do  work  for  him  in  that  county.  Now,  as  to  whether  some 
one  had  sent  him  or  not,  I am  not  sure;  but  he  was  there  at  least, 
and  I arranged  with  him — paid  him  the  $200. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  whether  he  would  have  supported 
Senator  Stephenson  in  the  absence  of  the  payment  of  this  money  to 
him? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Only  that  he  told  me  he  would. 

The  Chairman.  Whether  he  got  the  money  or  not.  Did  he  tell 
you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No.  When  he  came  in  he  told  me  he  was  a friend 
of  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  But  did  he  say  that  he  would  support  him 
whether  he  got  the  money  or  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I did  not  ask  him. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  not.  And  you  do  not  know  whether  or 
not,  had  you  declined  to  give  him  any  money,  he  would  have  sup- 
ported Senator  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  I do  not  know  it. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  do  not  know  whether  or  not  the  pay- 
ment of  that  money  to  him  secured  his  support  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know.  If  I may  explain  in  this  case  again, 
I believe  it  to  be  a case 

The  Chairman.  If  you  do  not  know,  I do  not  see  what  there  is  to 
explain. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  was  the  explanation  you  wanted  to  make  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I would  like  to  make  the  explanation  that  the  only 
means  I have — when  I do  not  know  a particular  thing — is  to  inquire 


248 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


of  a man ; he  tells  me,  or  in  talking  with  him  if  he  tells  me  he  is  in 
favor  of  Senator  Stephenson’s  nomination,  I know  of  no  better  means 
of  learning  it  than  that.  In  no  instance  did  I ever  pay  money  to  one 
of  these  men  who  did  not  talk  with  me  and  assure  me  that  he  was  a 
friend  of  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  They  would  hardly  have  come  to  you  for  money, 
accompanied  with  a declaration  that  they  were  not,  would  they? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I presume  not. 

The  Chairman.  Now,  the  next  one  is  Mr.  Ames,  $350. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  You  have  referred  to  him  on  the  previous  page,  and 
this  is  a part  of  the  amount  that  was  to  be  paid  him. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  that  an  item  that  Mr.  Sacket  knows  about? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir.  That  is  an  item  I know  about. 

The  Chairman.  Yes,  you  have  already  stated 

Mr.  Edmonds.  May  I make  this  explanation,  Senator:  That  when 
these  items — these  particular  checks — are  paid,  I do  not  mean  by  that 
that  that  necessarily  was  done  at  my  instance.  For  instance,  if  I 
arranged  with  a man  to  pay  him  so  much  and  told  Mr.  Sacket — say 
$600 — and  he  had  been  paid  $200.  when  he  came  in  later  he  may  have 
received  something  from  Mr.  Sacket  that  I did  not  know  about,  but 
I knew  of  the  general  transaction ; I did  the  employing. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  did  you  pay  Mr.  Ames  altogether? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall.  I could  only  know  by  figuring 
this  up. 

The  Chairman.  Several  hundred  dollars? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  paid  him  $350  on  August  8? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir.  This  is  the  item. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  pay  him  that  for? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Because  he  asked  for  it. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  a sufficient  reason? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir.  We  had  arranged  for  him  to  organize  in 
that  county  and  had  agreed  to  pay  him  a given  amount,  the  amount 
of  which  I have  forgotten,  and  he  had  received  some;  when  he  came 
in  and  asked  for  more  on  account,  he  received  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is,  pursuant  to  an  arrangement  previously 
made? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  “ J.  K,  Keyes,  $50,  August  8.”  What  was  that 
for? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Mr.  Sacket 

The  Chairman.  You  had  already,  on  August  5,  paid  him  a sum  of 
money.  That  is  the  same  man,  I believe? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  The  same  man;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  J.  R.  Keyes? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  was  the  railroad  man  who  was  traveling  about 
the  State,  when  this  was  paid  him. 

The  Chairman.  He  started  out  to  travel  because  you  paid  him  the 
money,  did  he  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Had  you  not  paid  him  the  money  do  you  suppose 
he  would  have  traveled  over  the  State  in  the  interest  of  Senator 
Stephenson  ? 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


249 


Mr.  Edmonds.  At  his  own  expense?  I do  not  believe  he  would. 
I do  not  think  he  was  a man  who  could  afford  to  do  so. 

The  Chairman.  Had  he  performed  any  service  or  indicated  his 
choice  for  Senator  Stephenson  prior  to  the  payment  by  you  of  this 
sum  of  money? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  was  sent  in  to  me  by  a friend  of  Senator  Steph- 
enson^, as  I recall,  and  I was  assured  by  them  that  he  was  for  him. 

The  Chairman.  The  next  item  is,  “ General,  $150.*’  What  does 
that  mean? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I have  no  means  of  knowing. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know  what  kind  of  item  that  is? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  It  occurs  frequently  in  the  account. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know  what  it  refers  to.  Where  there  is 
no  explanation  I am  unable  to  refresh  my  mind. 

The  Chairman.  There  are  several  “ generals”  here.  There  is  one 
above  for  $250  and  another  one  for  $250  and  this  one  for  $150;  there 
is  close  to  $1,000  “generals”  on  that  page.  You  do  not  know  what 
any  of  those  “generals”  are  for? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir.  I am  unable  to  tell  because  there  is  no 
explanation  here  that  will  refresh  my  mind. 

The  Chairman.  You  never  called  for  any  statement  in  regard  to 
them,  did  you  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  I did  not  know  they  were  carried  in  that 
way. 

The  Chairman.  Here  is  one  to  C.  H.  Russell  on  August  10,  $200. 
Do  you  know  about  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir:  I made  that. 

The  Chairman.  Was  he  out  supporting  Senator  Stephenson  prior 
to  August  10  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know.  He  was  a candidate  for  Congress. 

The  Chairman.  Was  he  nominated? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  it  was  thought  best  by  the  workers  in  that 
locality  with  whom  I talked  to  join  with  Mr.  Russell  in  working. 
He  was  to  put  up  the  same  amount  of  money  that  was  given  him, 
and  they  would  work  jointly  for  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  whether  or  not  Mr.  Russell  paid  out 
any  of  this  $200.  or  whether  he  kept  that  for  compensation  for  his 
support  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know.  If  I may  explain,  I will  say  I do 
not  believe  he  did. 

The  Chairman.  The  next  one  is  “ C.  O.  Larson,  $140.*’  That  is  the 
Larson  you  have  already  explained  about,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  the  explanation  as  to  that  $140  is  similar  to 
the  explanation  you  made  as  to  the  first  item? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Was  any  part  of  that  for  personal  expenses  of  Mr. 
Larson  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir;  my  recollection  is  that  Mr.  Larson  was  to 
be  paid  something  for  his  services. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  $100. 


250 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


The  Chairman.  Where  does  he  live  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  At  Port  Washington,  I think. 

The  Chairman.  What  does  he  do? 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  say  now  you  think  you  paid  Larson  $100 
for  his  personal  services.  Yesterday  you  thought  it  was  $50.  What 
is  the  occasion  for  the  change  of  thought  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I want  to  say,  Senator,  that  the  list  I gave  to  you 
of  those  who  had  been  given  some  money  was  only  on  my  recollection. 
Now  I do  not  know  whether  that  amount  was  $100  or  $150  or  $50,  but 
I gave  it  to  you  as  I best  remembered  it  at  that  time. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  gave  it  to  me  as  $50.  Now  you  say  it  is 
$100,  and  you  don’t  know  whether  it  is  $150  now  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  $140  now — this  item  on  August  10? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  The  $140  is  the  compensation  to  which  you  re- 
ferred, did  you  not,  Senator? 

Senator  Pomerene.  I did. 

The  Chairman.  On  July  30  you  gave  him  $25.  That  is  the  item 
that  you  think  was  on  account  of  compensation.  Now,  on  August  10 
you  gave  him  $140,  and  do  you  say  that  was  for  compensation,  or 
partly  for  compensation  and  partly  for  expenses? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  have  explained,  in  the  former  instance, 
that  it  might  have  been  partly  for  expenses  and  partly  for  com- 
pensation, in  the  same  way  as  this  item. 

The  Chairman.  You  paid  him  other  items  afterwards,  did  you 
not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir;  I think  so. 

The  Chairman.  Now,  “Mr.  Rowe,  $19.20.”  Did  you  pay  that 
item  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall  it  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  Then  we  will  mark  that  “ Mr.  Sacket.”  Now,  the 
“ General  ” comes  in  for  his  compensation,  $150.  Do  you  know  any- 
thing about  that  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Is  that  for  General  Schlitz  or  General  Pabst? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  General  what? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I will  say  in  explanation,  if  I may,  that  if  it  is 
meant  to  imply  that  any  of  that  money  marked  “ General  ” was  spent 
for  booze,  if  I may  so  denominate  it,  none  of  it  was  by  me. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I was  only  inquiring  for  information. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  wanted  to  get  the  local  color? 

The  Chairman.  “ Brown  Co.,  $250,  August  12.”  Do  you  know 
about  that  item  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Of  Brown  County,  I think  that  is. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Brown  County. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  And  while  no  name  is  given,  I have  looked  through 
the  record  here  and  do  not  find  the  name  of  the  man  I employed  to 
look  after  Brown  County,  Mr.  Calkins. 

The  Chairman.  Your  Brown  County  man  was  Haslem,  was  he  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Mr.  Haslam  worked  in  Brown  County  and  other 
counties.  The  general  organizer  in  Brown  County  was  Mr.  Calkins. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  explain  that  expenditure  of  $250  on  Au- 
gust 12  for  Brown  Co.,  or  county,  or  whatever  it  may  be? 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


251 


Mr.  Edmonds.  I can  only  in  that  way  that  I believe  that  to  be  an 
amount  paid  to  Mr.  Calkins. 

The  Chairman.  For  what? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Whom  I employed  to  organize  Brown  County. 

The  Chairman.  In  that  organization  an  item  of  that  size,  $250,  to 
be  expended  in,  say,  less  than  three  weeks  in  organizing  that 
county — how  would  he  expend  that  much  money? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know.  That  would  be  left  entirely  to  his 
judgment. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  not  interest  yourself  to  know  how  Sena- 
tor Stephenson’s  money  was  to  be  spent  in  organizing  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir;  I interested  myself  and  talked  to  the  men 
when  I employed  them.  And  it  is  not  certain  here,  by  the  way,  Sena- 
tor, that  that  was  the  first  money  paid  him.  That  may  be  one  of  the 
general  items.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  There  is  another  item  of  $200  on  the  next  day, 
u Brown  County.” 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  was  part  of  the  amount  paid  him.  The  agree- 
ment was  made  before. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  he  received  $400  in  10  days  to  organize 
Brown  County  that  late  in  the  campaign,  when  you  had  already 
provided  for  the  organization  of  that  county  at  the  beginning  of 
the  campaign,  had  you  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I do  not  see  any  sign  of  it  in  the  account.  Is 
the  chairman  looking  at  the  account  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I do  not  find  it;  will  the  chairman  give  me  the 
page  and  the  date? 

The  Chairman.  The  two  items,  August  12  and  13. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  were  suggesting  a prior  item,  were  you  not? 

The  Chairman.  I was  asking  him  about  that. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I thought  you  had  another  man  in  mind.  I was 
looking  for  it  and  did  not  find  it. 

The  Chairman.  I was  rather  indicating  some  surprise  that  a county 
of  that  importance  should  have  been  left  without  an  attempt  to  organ- 
ize it  until  within  10  or  12  days,  or  a few  days,  of  the  election. 

That  sum,  then,  for  “ Co.,”  whatever  that  indicates,  you  can  not 
explain,  except  that  it  was  given  to  one  of  these  men  that  you  call 
organizers,  and  you  do  not  know  what  he  spent  it  for,  or  that  he  spent 
it  at  all,  do  you  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir.  I never  required  any  account  and  never  re- 
ceived any  from  him. 

The  Chairman.  Have  we  any  basis  by  which  we  can  determine 
whether  or  not  that  man  would  have  supported  Senator  Stephenson 
in  the  absence  of  being  paid  this  sum  of  money? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I had  information  at  that  time  that  he  would  when 
I paid  it. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  the  information  now  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir;  I recall  it. 

The  Chairman.  Give  us  the  benefit  of  your  “ recall.” 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I sent  for  Mr.  Calkins.  I rather  think  I telephoned 
him ; and  at  the  suggestion  of  other  men  in  Brown  County  with  whom 


252 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


I talked  as  to  who  would  be  the  best  man  to  conduct  the  campaign  for 
Senator  Stephenson,  they  gave  me  the  name  of  Mr.  Calkins,  who  had 
been  a candidate  for  circuit  judge  in  that  territory  and  who  was  very 
well  acquainted.  He  came  down,  and  I made  the  arrangement  with 
him. 

The  Chairman.  That  is,  you  made  an  arrangement  by  giving  him 
$250.  Had  he  supported  Senator  Stephenson  prior  to  that  time? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  was  the  information  I had  received;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Who  told  you  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Friends  of  Senator  Stephenson  in  the  county. 

The  Chairman.  Who  w as  it  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall  now. 

The  Chairman.  Where  did  he  tell  you  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall  now. 

The  Chairman.  You  can  not  recall  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  not  now. 

The  Chairman.  At  first  you  could  not  recall  anything  in  regard  to 
it.  Then  you  recalled  one  thing  in  regard  to  it,  and  then  it  seems  to 
have  flitted  by,  and  you  have  no  other  recollection. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Is  not  that  very  often  true  that  when  you  are  asked 
a question — it  is  w7ith  me.  When  I am  asked  a question,  and  other 
questions  lead  to  a certain  point,  it  refreshes  your  memory.  It  does 
mine. 

The  Chairman.  Your  memory  was  slightly,  briefly  refreshed — was 
that  it — so  that  you  could  remember  that  this  was  the  man  who  had 
held  that  position? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  A candidate  for  judge? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Not  at  this  election. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  He  had  been  a candidate  for  judge. 

The  Chairman.  He  had  been  a candidate  for  judge? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  was  very  well  acquainted  in  that  territory. 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  very  well  acquainted  with  him? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  I was  not  well  acquainted  with  him. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  seen  him  recently? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  whether  he  supported  Senator 
Stephenson  or  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Only  from  the  returns  from  the  county,  I judge  that 
he  did. 

The  Chairman.  Did  that  county  cast  a large  vote  for  Senator 
Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  How  much? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  have  a majority  of  the  votes  cast  in  the 
county  at  that  time? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I believe  he  had  a plurality. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  you  do  not  know  whether  that  man  to 
whom  you  paid  the  money  voted  for  Senator  Stephenson  and  sup- 
ported him  because  he  received  the  money,  or  not  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  From  personal  knowledge  I have  no  means  of  know- 
ing whether  he  voted  for  him  or  not. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  pass  that.  Now,  we  come  to  another 
item.  u Casl  to  J.  W.  Stone.  $2,500.”  Who  was  Mr.  Stone? 


253 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Mr.  Stone  was  game  warden  of  Wisconsin. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  know  him  personally  before  the  payment 
of  this  $2,500? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  I had  met  him. 

The  Chairman.  Or  at  the  time  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I had  met  him. 

The  Chairman.  You  paid  him  the  money,  did  you  not,  in  cash? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Through  my  instructions. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  not  pay  it  to  him  in  cash  yourself? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No. 

The  Chairman.  Who  did? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Mr.  Sacket  says  he  did. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Sacket  paid  it  in  cash.  Where  did  he  get  the 
cash  ? Did  you  give  it  to  him  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No;  I did  not  have  the  cash. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Sacket  had  no  cash  in  the  campaign,  did  he? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Mr.  Sacket  could  get  the  cashier’s  check  from  the 
bank. 

The  Chairman.  He  had  to  get  it  from  you;  or  on  your  credit? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Sure ; I told  them  to  give  it  to  him. 

The  Chairman.  Then  you  did  tell  him  to  get  it  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Certainly. 

The  Chairman.  Let  us  see  if  we  can  get  at  a candid  statement  of 
the  occasion  of  the  payment  of  this  $2,500  to  the  State  game  warden. 
You  know  all  about  it,  do  you  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  About  his  getting  the  money. 

The  Chairman.  You  know  all  the  details  of  that  game  warden 
proposition,  do  you  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  The  matter  has  been  investigated  in  such  a way 
as  to  fix  it  in  your  mind,  has  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  was  not  necessary,  because  I remembered  the  de- 
tails. 

The  Chairman.  Remembered  it  all? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  there  were  some  things  I did  not  remember, 
but  some  details  I remember. 

The  Chairman.  I would  hardly  expect  to  receive  a reply,  if  you  do 
not  know  in  regard  to  Mr.  Stone. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose  was  $2,500  paid  to  Mr.  Stone? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  For  the  purpose  of  getting  his  assistance  in  helping 
to  nominate  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  What  kind  of  assistance? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Such  kind  as  he  could  give,  in  his  best  judgment. 

The  Chairman.  Was  any  other  sum  paid  to  him  later  in  connec- 
tion with  the  election  of  Senator  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think  a dollar ; not  to  my  knowledge. 

The  Chairman.  So  this  represents  the  compensation  for  everything 
that  Mr.  Stone  did ; does  it  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  So  far  as  I know ; yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  Mr.  Stone  give  you  the  names  of  his  assistants 
who  would  perform  the  services  for  this  compensation,  and  who 
would  share  in  this  sum  of  money? 


254 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know  that  he  gave  me  the  names  in  writing. 
I am  sure  he  talked  about  different  ones  who  would  help  him. 

The  Chairman.  He  told  you  who  they  were;  did  he  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Certainly. 

The  Chairman.  Who  wTere  thej^? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  believe  that  I can  remember  more  than  two 
or  three  of  them.  There  w7as  Harry  Bowman.  There  was  a Superior 
man  named.  I never  had  met  him  before.  I met  him  during  the 
campaign,  but  I can  not  recall  his  name. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  one  you  remember  and  one  you  do  not. 
Now  give  us  another  one. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  There  was  Haslem,  who  was  a game  warden.  I 
want  to  say  in  regard  to  Mr.  Haslem  that  he  took  a vacation  and 
was  not  in  the  employ  of  the  game-warden  department  during  the 
campaign.  I employed  him  and  he  was  paid  by  me. 

The  Chairman.  Haslem  was  one  of  the  parties  that  Stone  told 
you  would  share  in  the  $2,500 ; was  he  not  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  he  did  not  tell  me  anybody  would  share 
in  the  $2,500. 

The  Chairman.  I asked  you  the  question  as  to  whether  or  not  he 
gave  you  the  names  of  those  who  would  participate  in  this  $2,500,  and 
you,  as  I understood  you,  were  enumerating  these  names. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  like  to  corect  my  answer,  if  that  was  your 
question.  My  understanding  of  your  question  was  that  he  enumer- 
ated the  game  wardens  who  would  assist  him  in  the  work  of  helping 
Senator  Stephenson.  He  gave  me  the  names  of  no  men  to  whom  he 
paid  this  money. 

The  Chairman.  Then,  was  it  this  way — that  he  gave  you  the  names 
of  his  assistants  who  would,  in  consideration  of  this  payment,  work 
for  Senator  Stephenson’s  nomination  or  election  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  How  was  that? 

The  Chairman.  He  gave  you  the  names  of  the  assistants  who 
would  work  for  Senator  Stephenson’s  election. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  When  you  say  he  gave  me  the  names,  he  mentioned 
the  names  of  certain  men  of  the  game  warden’s  department  who  were 
favorable  to  Senator  Stephenson’s  election. 

The  Chairman.  Who  were  favorable  to  him? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Not  who  would  work  for  him? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I took  it  for  granted,  if  nothing  was  said,  and  it 
may  have  been  said,  that  he  said  they  would  work  for  him.  My 
understanding — that  is,  that  talk  led  me  to  believe  there  were  some 
of  the  game  wardens  who  were  friendly  to  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  Who? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  not  inquire  of  him  as  to  which  ones  were 
friendly  and  which  were  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Undoubtedly  he  told  me  at  that  time,  but  I was  not 
acquainted  with  the  names. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  you  may  tell  us. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  one  of  the  things  in  connection  with  this 
that  you  do  not  remember? 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


255 


Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  remember  the  names  of  the  game  wardens. 
They  were  not  men  whom  I knew. 

The  Chairman.  I mean  the  names  of  game  wardens  whom  he  told 
you  were  friendly  and  those  whom  he  told  you  were  unfriendly. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know.  I knew  at  the  time. 

The  Chairman.  That  did  not  not  fix  itself  in  your  mind  at  all, 
did  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No. 

The  Chairman.  You  paid  him  $2,500  for  some  services  to  be  per- 
formed by  him,  either  entirely  by  him  or  by  the  game  wardens  under 
his  control,  did  you  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  was  to  be  left  to  his  judgment. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  remember  who  they  were? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No. 

The  Chairman.  Would  you  have  remembered  Mr.  Stone  as  being 
one  of  these  parties  had  his  name  not  been  printed  in  the  book? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Haslem  was  one  of  them,  was  he  not  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No;  I have  explained  Mr.  Haslem’s  connection.  He 
was  a game  warden. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  explained  it.  but,  nevertheless,  was  he 
not  one  of  the  deputy  game  wardens  that  Mr.  Stone  told  you  was  or 
could  be  made  favorable  to  Senator  Stephenson’s  election? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  believe  that  is  true,  because  at  the  time  Mr. 
Haslem  was  working  for  me. 

The  Chairman'  Still,  he  was  a deputy  game  warden,  was  he  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  But  he  was  on  vacation  and  he  was  not  drawing  any 
pay. 

The  Chairman.  Still,  he  was  on  the  roll? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Was  he  discharged  and  out  of  office? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  When  I say  he  was  not  on  the  roll,  had  he  not  been 
on  vacation  he  would  have  been  working  for  the  State,  but  at  that 
time  he  was  not. 

The  Chairman.  He  was  carried  on  the  roll  at  that  time,  was  he 
not  ? Do  you  not  know  that  he  was  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  told  me  distinctly  that  he  was  not. 

The  Chairman.  That  he  was  not  in  office? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  he  was  not  in  the  employ  of  the  State  at  the 
time. 

The  Chairman.  But  that  was  merely  because  he  was  taking  his 
annual  vacation,  was  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No;  but  he  was  not  drawing  his  pay.  During  the 
time  they  do  not  work  they  do  not  draw  any  pay. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  true  of  all  the  deputy  game  wardens  that 
they  take  a month  off,  or  six  weeks  or  something  like  that,  each  year, 
is  it  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Something  of  that  kind.  I do  not  know  what  the 
custom  is. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  resume  work  during  the  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I presume  so. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is,  did  he  resume  work  as  game  warden? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 


256 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Mr.  Edmonds.  The  reason  I mention  his  name  is  that  his  was  a 
different  condition  from  the  other  game  wardens  so  far  as  I know. 

The  Chairman.  Did  the  game  warden.  Mr.  Stone;  expend  this 
money  in  behalf  of  Senator  Stephenson,  or  did  he  keep  it 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know 

The  Chairman.  For  his  own  use? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  in  doubt  about  that,  are  you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  mean  to  say  that  he  did  or  that  he  did 
not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  present  and  do  you  know  of  the  facts 
brought  out  at  an  investigation  in  which  it  was  proven,  or  sought  to 
be  proven,  that  Mr.  Stone,  in  order  to  account  for  the  disbursement  of 
this  sum,  or  part  of  it,  undertook  to  procure  statements  from  his 
deputies  that  they  had  received  certain  portions  of  it,  so  as  to  square 
him  with  the  fund? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I remember  reading  the  newspaper  extracts  from  his 
testimony,  and  that  is  one  of  the  reasons  why  I say  I do  not  know, 
because  1 understood  that. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  read  his  sworn  testimony  in  this  in- 
vestigation that  was  had  before  the  legislative  committee? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Never. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  look  over  that  testimony  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Never ; except  from  newspaper  reports. 

The  Chairman.  When  you  paid  that  $2,500  to  Mr.  Stone  on  behalf 
of  Senator  Stephenson,  you  realized  the  responsibility  that  you  had 
for  the  payment  of  money  on  Mr.  Stephenson’s  account  and  the  duty 
that  you  owed  to  Mr.  Stephenson  to  get  something  for  the  money 
that  you  paid  out,  did  you  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  if  you  paid  out  $2,500  to  a man  to  perform 
certain  services  and  it  was  brought  to  your  notice  afterwards  that  he 
had  not  performed  them  and  that  he  had  made  an  attempt  to  cover 
up  the  fact  that  he  had  not  performed  them,  would  it  not  seem  to  you 
that  it  was  your  duty  to  take  some  notice  of  it  or  investigate  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  that  case  I should  not. 

The  Chairman.  Why?  Upon  what  moral  hypothesis  would  you 
arrive  at  that  conclusion? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I was  entirely  through  with  the  campaign  before 
any  of  this  knowdedge  came  to  me,  or  any  of  this  hearsay,  and,  fur- 
thermore, Senator  Stephenson  had  recommended  this  man. 

The  Chairman.  Had  he  recommended  him  in  writing? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall  as  to  whether  it  was  in  writing  or 
not.  I can  not  remember  whether  that  was  in  writing  or  by  tele- 
phone, or  at  a personal  interview.  He  knew  the  man  and  recom- 
mended him. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  anything  about  the  use  that  Mr. 
Stone  made  of  this  $2,500  or  any  part  of  it  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Absolutely  none,  except  his  statement. 

The  Chairman.  Not  of  a single  cent  of  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Not  of  a single  cent. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS.  257 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  ask  him  what  use  he  had  made  of  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  I have  never  talked  to  him  since. 

The  Chairman.  The  next  item  is  $100  to  Hugo  Franke.  Is  that 
Hugo  Franke  a different  Frank  from  the  doctor? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  that  for? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Hugo  Franke  was  a man  from  Milwaukee  who 
was  sent  to  Ashland  and  some  other  localities,  I think,  to  interest 
labor  organizations  in  Senator  Stephenson’s  behalf. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  he  to  do  to  interest  the  labor  organiza- 
tions ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  he  knew  better  what  to  do  than  I,  he  being 
a labor  man,  but  my  idea  would  be  that  he  would  go  and  see  the 
leaders  of  the  organizations  and  endeavor  to  influence  them,  by 
talking  with  them  and  showing  the  good  points  of  Senator  Stephen- 
son, that  he  was  a man  who  should  receive  the  nomination,  and  get 
them  to  do  all  they  could  for  him. 

The  Chairman.  To  get  them  to  believe  that  Senator  Stephenson 
was  the  laboring  man’s  friend? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Not  a novel  proposition  to  a good  many  of  us. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  do  not  speak  out  of  your  own  experience, 
do  you  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  somewhat. 

The  Chairman.  L.  B.  Cox,  $100.  Did  you  pay  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  pay  that  money  for  to  Mr.  Cox? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Mr.  Cox  came  to  Milwaukee,  or  was  in  Milwaukee, 
and  saw  me,  and  I paid  him  for  work  that  he  was  to  do,  according  to 
his  best  judgment,  in  La  Crosse  County. 

The  Chairman.  What  do  you  mean  by  “ saw  you  ” ? Do  you 
mean  to  say  that  in  the  sense  that  he  simply  looked  at  you  and  was 
conscious  of  your  presence,  or  that  he  saw  you  in  the  sense  in  which 
the  word  is  sometimes  used  in  connection  with  political  affairs? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  some  instances,  when  I have  been  seen,  the  man 
was  better  off  by  $50  or  $100. 

The  Chairman.  So  then  that  is  the  sense  in  which  you  use  the 
word,  is  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  not  in  that  particular  instance. 

The  Chairman.  Then  he  must  have  done  something  more  than 
make  himself  visible  to  you  to  get  this  $100.  What  did  he  do  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  came  and  called  on  me  at  the  office.  I had 
known  him  in  the  assembly,  years  before. 

The  Chairman.  You  would  not  pay  him  $100  for  calling  on  you. 
I want  to  know  what  it  was  you  paid  him  $100  for. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I had  known  him  years  before,  when  we  were  mem- 
bers of  the  assembly  together. 

Senator  Pomerene.  When  was  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  1892.  He  came  in  and  explained  the  situation  in 
his  locality  there,  in  La  Crosse  County.  It  was  in  the  second  district, 
and  he  said  that  he  could  do  a good  deal  of  good  for  Senator  Stephen- 
son if  he  could  have  $100. 

The  Chairman.  Was  he  then  supporting  Senator  Stephenson? 

15235°— vol  1—11 17 


258 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Mr.  Edmonds.  He  told  me  so ; yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  That  he  had  been  supporting  Senator  Stephen- 
son? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir;  he  told  me  so. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Sexton  comes  in  again,  for  $50.  That  is  in- 
cluded in  your  prior  explanation  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Now,  on  July  20  you  paid  Mr.  Sexton  $50,  and  here 
you  paid  him  $50  more.  You  had  him  under  general  employment, 
had  you  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  what  you  say  with  reference  to  Mr.  Sexton  on 
July  30  is  true  of  this  item? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir ; this  is  another  payment  to  him. 

The  Chairman.  Now,  C.  D.  Smith,  $50  on  August  12.  What  did 
you  pay  him  $50  for? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  represented  that  he  was  a very  ardent  friend  of 
Senator  Stephenson ; that  he  had  been  doing  a good  deal  of  work  in 
Fond  du  Lac,  and  that  he  was  better  equipped  than  anyone  else  to 
conduct  the  campaign  in  that  county.  From  inquiries  I made  I did 
not  think  so.  Still,  I paid  him  $50  for  doing  some  work  that  he  told 
me  of. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  not  think  he  was  worth  more  than  $50  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Well,  I would  not  not  like  to  put  it  in  that  way; 
but  I did  not  think  he  was  the  best  man  in  the  county  to  put  in  charge 
of  the  organization. 

The  Chairman.  Was  he  really  supporting  Senator  Stephenson 
before  you  gave  him  that  money? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  I am  fairly  confident,  from  the  things  he 
told  me  he  had  been  doing,  that  he  was  supporting  Senator  Stephen- 
son. 

The  Chairman.  Why  did  he  want  money,  then? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  thought  he  could  do  more  with  money. 

The  Chairman.  Could  he  do  more  than  vote  for  Senator  Stephen- 
son? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Oh,  yes. 

The  Chairman.  What? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  could  get  others  interested  in  his  campaign. 

The  Chairman.  How  could  he  get  them  interested  in  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  By  chasing  around  the  country  enlisting  their 
support. 

The  Chairman.  Did  these  people  all  need  to  be  solicited  by  some 
one  to  support  Senator  Stephenson?  Were  there  not  some  voluntary 
supporters  of  Senator  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  I think  there  were  a good  many. 

The  Chairman.  The  number  of  people  whom  you  have  enumer- 
ated, at  the  prices  named,  that  you  seem  to  have  thought  necessary, 
might  indicate  that  Senator  Stephenson  did  not  have  many  volun- 
tary supporters.  Did  you  conceive  that  it  was  that  way? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No.  I am  sorry  to  have  had  my  actions  so  mis- 
judged. I thought  he  had  a very  large  following,  and  I was  adding 
to  the  number  by  organization  and  getting  the  fellows  out  to  vote. 

The  Chairman.  They  would  not  have  come  out  to  vote  for  Senator 
Stephenson,  except  as  you  paid  these  sums  of  money,  I presume. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


259 


Mr.  Edmonds.  It  is  quite  possible  that  some  of  them  might  have 
been  so  sure  that  he  was  going  to  be  nominated  that  they  would 
not  think  their  votes  were  necessary,  and  they  might  be  busy.  It 
was  in  an  effort  to  get  them  to  feel  the  necessity  of  getting  out,  and 
that  every  vote  counted,  that  some  of  these  things  were  done. 

The  Chairman.  That  would  seem  to  be  a reasonable  explanation 
from  the  returns,  from  which  it  would  appear  that  more  than  half 
the  voters  in  the  State  were  of  the  opinion  that  it  was  not  necessary 
to  go  to  the  polls. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Were  you  not  at  the  same  time  meeting  active 
competition  in  the  solicitation,  by  the  representatives  of  Hatton, 
Cook,  and  McGovern,  all  over  the  State? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  call  it  active  competition. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  They  were  canvassing  for  these  votes  at  the  same 
time. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  They  certainly  were. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  you  were  trying  to  see  what  you  could  do  to 
get  support  for  Senator  Stephenson,  against  that  kind  of  vigorous 
opposition  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Would  not  these  people  whom  you  call  organizers 
have  worked  for  Senator  Stephenson  just  as  effectively  and  earnestly 
without  being  paid  for  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  a lesser  manner  probably,  but  I doubt  if  these 
men  would  have  gotton  out  and  hustled  around  the  country,  and  spent 
money  and  time  for  his  election,  if  they  had  had  to  stand  the  expense 
themselves. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  true,  is  it  not,  that  less  than  half  of  the  votes 
that  were  cast  at  the  general  election,  voted  at  the  primary?  The 
vote  at  the  primary  was  234,277  for  all  of  the  candidates. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  that  was  less  than  half. 

The  Chairman.  There  seems  to  have  been  a general  apathy. 
These  men  whom  you  employed  to  get  out  the  vote  for  Senator 
Stephenson  seem  to  have  managed  to  get  out  56,839  votes  out  of 
470,480  votes  in  the  State.  Had  you  not  employed  these  men,  would 
Senator  Stephenson  have  gotten  any  votes  at  all? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Not  very  many.  My  judgment  is  this,  on  knowing 
the  conditions  in  this  State  with  regard  to  primary  elections  and  the 
convention  system,  that  were  it  not  for  the  larger,  and  very  large  ex- 
penditures of  money  in  the  primary  campaigns,  no  more  persons 
would  go  out  to  the  primary  election  on  election  day  than  attended 
the  caucuses  in  years  past. 

The  Chairman.  You  astonish  me  very  much.  I speak  only  for 
myself  and  not  as  a member  of  the  committee.  I have  been  told 
many  times  that  the  plain  people  were  clamoring  for  an  opportunity 
to  exercise  the  right  of  citizenship. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  plain  people,  of  whom  there  are  supposed 
to  be  a good  many. 

The  Chairman.  And  that  the  direct  primary  was  the  only  means 
through  which  they  could  possibly  exercise  that  right.  But  am  I to 
understand  by  that  statement  that  that  fact  is  open  to  some  doubt? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I have  heard  that  statement  very  forcibly  expressed 
in  this  State.  I very  seriously  doubt  it,  and  I think  there  are  very 
many  others  in  the  State  who  also  doubt  it. 


260 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


The  Chairman.  I am  sorry  to  learn  that  that  is  true  in  Wisconsin, 
because  I have  also  understood  that  Wisconsin  was  one  of  the  first 
States  and  most  enthusiastic  States  in  favor  of  that  great  relief  to 
the  plain  people. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I suppose  you  thought  they  were  entitled  to  some 
credit  for  it  as  a discovery. 

The  Chairman.  I had  intended  to  take  that  into  consideration.  I 
think  it  should  hardly  be  called  a discovery. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  would  it  do  to  call  it  an  invention  ? 

The  Chairman.  Because  a discovery  must  be  of  something  real; 
and  the  anticipation  that  you  are  going  to  discover  a thing  ought  to 
be  distinguished  from  the  discovery  itself. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  While  the  distinction  may  be  fine,  I think  it  is 
substantial. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I hope  it  is  not  the  purpose  of  this  colloquy 
to  incite  me  to  make  a speech. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  to  point  the  testimony.  Now,  we  have  dealt 
with  Mr.  Smith.  You  know  about  Mr.  Smith.  Now  we  come  to  Mr. 
Dresser,  $1,800. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  He  has  already  appeared  as  receiving  $300. 

The  Chairman.  He  is  under  the  head  of  “ General  ” again.  Can 
it  be  that  Mr.  Dresser  is  the  person  termed  “ general  ” throughout 
this  statement? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  if  by  that  you  wish  to  bring  out  the  ques- 
tion as  to  whether  it  were  possible  that  Mr.  Dresser  was  paid  the 
amounts  marked  “ General,”  I am  positive  that  he  was  paid  no  more 
than  the  two  items  of  $1,800  at  one  time  and  $300  at  another  time. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  he  paid  $1,800  for? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  For  organizing  in  seven  counties  up  in  his  district. 

The  Chairman.  We  dealt  with  Mr.  Dresser  this  forenoon. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  On  the  bottom  of  page  589. 

The  Chairman.  On  the  $300  item ; so  it  will  not  be  necessary  to  go 
into  Mr.  Dresser’s  case  further.  Now,  the  next  is  Mr.  A.  O.  Heyer, 
$200.  Did  you  pay  that  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  For  what? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Organizing  Sheboygan  County. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  what  it  was  spent  for  by  Mr.  Heyer  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  never  made  a report  to  me. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  what  any  portion  of  it  was  ex- 
pended for? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  that  it  was  expended  at  all? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir.  If  I may  explain,  I believe  it  to  have  been 
spent  for  the  benefit  of  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  Your  belief  is  not  an  explanation.  You  say  you 
do  not  know  that  any  of  it  was  expended  at  all. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  my  explanation  of  the  items,  I simply  want  to 
place  myself  on  record  as  not  assenting  to  the  proposition  that  it  is  my 
belief  or  intimation  that  these  men  did  not  do  as  they  agreed  to. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


261 


The  Chairman.  It  would  not  be  so  construed.  It  would  not  be 
open  to  such  construction.  You  do  not  know,  and  that  is  the  end 
of  it. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know  that  he  expended  1 cent  of  it  for 
any  purpose? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  do  not  know  but  that  the  fact  may  be  that 
he  put  it  into  his  pocket  and  kept  it  there.  Now,  the  next  item  is 
R.  A.  Etter,  $200. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  pay  that  to  him  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  For  the  purpose  of  organizing  Green  County. 

The  Chairman.  What  use  did  he  make  of  the  money?  Do  you 
know? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know  that  he  expended  any  part  of  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Under  the  same  date  Mr.  Haslem  was  paid  $200. 
What  did  Mr.  Haslem  do  with  the  $200? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Mr.  Haslem  went  into  different  parts  of  Brown, 
Door,  and  Kewaunee  Counties,  I think,  at  different  times. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Is  that  the  deputy  game  warden? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  He  is  the  man  who  was  on  a vacation  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know  of  your  own  knowledge  that  he 
expended  any  money  at  all? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Not  of  my  own  knowledge. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  have  no  statement  rendered  by  him? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Or  by  any  of  these  other  men? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Showing  that  they  expended  any  money  whatever? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  whether  they  voted  at  the  election? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  any  reason  to  doubt  that  Mr.  Haslem 
was  a Stephenson  man  prior  to  receiving  this  money  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I am  very  sure  he  was. 

The  Chairman.  Upon  what  do  you  base  that  feeling  of  assurance? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  From  my  knowledge  of  him  and  my  talk  with  him 
and  the  information  I received  from  others. 

The  Chairman.  He  was  promised  that  he  should  go  back  on  the 
force  after  his  vacation  was  at  an  end  when  he  was  given  this  money, 
was  he  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Was  there  not  a conversation  between  you  and 
Mr.  Haslem  in  which  he  wanted  to  know  whether  or  not  he  could 
count  on  going  back  on  the  force  at  the  end  of  his  vacation? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  never  to  my  knowledge. 


262 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


The  Chairman.  Did  you  have  a conversation  with  Mr.  Stone  in 
regard  to  Mr.  Haslem’s  going  back  on  the  force? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  I never  referred  to  it  in  any  way  to  Mr 
Stone. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  refer  to  it  in  talking  to  you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir ; I am  very  positive  he  did  not. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Were  these  men  on  a salary  or  did  they  have  a 
per  diem? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  A per  diem.  That  is  my  recollection  and  belief. 

The  Chairman.  It  was  considered  a rather  desirable  job  by  a cer- 
tain class  of  men,  was  it  not,  to  be  a deputy  game  warden  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Senator,  the  game  warden’s  department,  as  organ- 
ized in  1900  or  thereabouts,  I believe,  had  been  the  most  effective 
force  used  by  the  governor  at  that  time  to  further  his  political 
ambitions. 

The  Chairman.  Who  was  the  governor? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Mr.  La  Follette.  It  was  a most  remarkably  effective 
force. 

The  Chairman.  I think  we  will  not  go  into  that.  It  might  open 
up  too  wide  a question  for  our  consideration  and  one  not  necessary 
to  be  considered.  Now,  Mr.  O.  O.  Halls,  $200. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Mr.  Halls  was  a man  in  Pierce  County. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  pay  him  that  money? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  For  the  purpose  of  organization  work  in  Pierce 
County. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  what  organization  he  effected? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  how  he  expended  the  money  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Had  he  been  supporting  Senator  Stephenson  prior 
to  the  time  you  made  this  arrangement  and  paid  him  the  money? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I never  met  him. 

The  Chairman.  You  never  met  him  before? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I never  saw  him.  I sent  a letter  at  the  suggestion, 
I believe,  of  Mr.  Dresser,  who  advised  me  that  Mr.  Halls  was  very 
strong  in  that  county  and  was  a supporter  of  Mr.  Stephenson,  and  it 
was  out  of  his  territory. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Dresser  is  the  man  to  whom  you  paid  $2,100  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  was  out  of  his  territory,  and  I asked  him 

The  Chairman.  How  did  you  send  the  money — in  what  shape? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  My  belief  is  that  I sent  it  in  a letter. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  any  recollection  on  the  subject  at  all? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  send  it  in  cash,  or  by  a check,  rather  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I am  sure  I did  not  send  it  in  cash. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  indicated  here  that  it  was  by  some  kind  of  a 
voucher,  No.  33530.  That  would  be  a cashier’s  certificate,  would  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  not  advised  yourself  in  regard  to  that 
since  you  made  the  paper? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS.  263 

The  Chairman.  Now,  on  August  13  you  paid  L.  E.  McGill  $200. 
What  did  you  pay  him  that  money  for  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  For  organizing  Rusk  County. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  that  he  did  organize  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Only  by  inference. 

The  Chairman.  By  inference? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  From  the  result  obtained  in  the  county. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  have  any  conversation  with  Mr.  McGill 
or  any  person  in  the  county  which  recounted  to  you  the  things  that 
had  been  done  by  him  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know  that  I went  into  it  in  that  way.  He 
was  a very  well-posted  man,  and  a very  prominent  lawyer  in  Rusk 
County.  He  was  better  acquainted  with  the  conduct  of  the  campaign 
there  than  I would  have  been  had  I been  on  the  ground,  I am  sure, 
and  I did  not  require  him  to  make  a statement.  I am  sure  I saw  him 
once  or  twice  during  the  campaign  and  he  stated  the  number  of  votes 
that  he  had  to  get  out  for  Senator  Stephenson,  and  so  forth. 

The  Chairman.  T.  Purtell,  at  the  top  of  page  591.  Did  you  pay 
him  $175  on  August  13  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I have  marked  that  with  a question.  I am  not  cer- 
tain, but  I think  so. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  did  you  pay  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  is  marked  Dane  County,  which  would  lead  me 
only  to  suppose  that  it  was  for  work  in  Dane  County;  but  my 
recollection  is  that  his  home  was  in  the  northern  part  of  the  State, 
one  of  the  northern  counties,  and  that  he  was  aiding  Senator  Stephen- 
son there  with  the  use  of  this  money. 

The  Chairman.  You  had  already  employed  Mr.  Ames,  you  said, 
and  paid  him  $350  for  organizing  Dane  County  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir;  I think  this  is  a mistake. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  remember  paying  Mr.  Purtell  $175? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  My  best  recollection  is  that  I did.  I am  not  posi- 
tive on  it. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  For  organizing  and  helping  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  anything  about  what  he  did  for  this 
money  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  He  may  have  put  it  in  his  pocket,  for  all  you 
know,  and  kept  it  there. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know  what  he  did  with  it. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  no  knowledge  on  the  subject  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Now  we  come  to  W.  Batz,  $100  on  August  13.  Did 
you  pay  him  that  money  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Work  in  Washington  County. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  that  he  expended  any  of  it  for  that 
purpose  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Not  from  personal  knowledge. 

The  Chairman.  Was  he  supporting  Senator  Stephenson  prior  to 
the  time  you  paid  him  the  money? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  So  he  told  me. 


2G4 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


The  Chairman.  You  have  his  word  for  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  it  from  any  other  source? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I am  sure  I made  inquiries,  because  I was  not  ac- 
quainted with  him  before  that  time. 

The  Chairman.  Of  whom  did  you  make  inquiries  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  very  many  instances  of  Mr.  Overbeck,  who  was 
with  me  very  much  of  the  time  and  Avas  very  well  posted  in  politics 
in  the  State. 

The  Chairman.  Right  there  I want  to  ask  you  who  constituted 
your  office  force,  and  what  the  duties  of  each  of  them  were.  Who 
was  the  next  man  under  you  in  your  office,  in  the  management  of 
this  campaign? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Mr.  Sacket,  though  perhaps  he  would  not  like  to 
have  me  say  he  was  under  me. 

The  Chairman.  Next  to  Mr.  Sacket? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Mr.  Lam  beck. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  give  his  initials  or  first  name? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  A.  II. 

The  Chairman.  What  were  his  duties? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  he  the  young  man  who  was  a messenger  for 
Senator  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir;  he  had  some  employment  with  Senator 
Stephenson  in  Washington. 

The  Chairman.  What  were  his  duties  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  had  charge  of  the  force  in  the  office  for  mailing 
and  distribution  of  literature,  and  so  forth. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  have  anything  to  do  with  paying  out 
money,  or  making  or  receiving  statements  as  to  how  money  was 
expended  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir ; not  a thing. 

The  Chairman.  Who  was  the  next  one? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know  who  would  be  the  next  one.  There 
were  a number  of  other  employees  in  the  office  whom  I employed. 

The  Chairman.  Name  them  as  they  occur  to  you. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  E.  F.  Puls. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  he  do? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  was  in  the  office  and  was  in  charge  of  Mr.  Lam- 
beck’s  department,  under  him. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  he  do? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  looked  after  the  mailing  work  as  outlined  by 
Mr.  Lambeck. 

The  Chairman.  Did  any  of  those  whom  you  have  mentioned  keep 
books  for  you  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Name  another  one. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know  that  I can  name  them. 

The  Chairman.  I will  punctuate  it  for  you.  Did  you  have  a book- 
keeper ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  No  person  was  designated  bookkeeper? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  Mr.  Sacket  had  that  work  in  charge. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  have  a journal  keeper? 


E,  A.  EDMONDS. 


265 


Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  have  a record  maker? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Were  there  any  books  in  which  journals,  records, 
or  accounts  could  be  kept  in  your  office? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  None  whatever  to  my  knowledge,  unless  Mr.  Sacket 
kept  them. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  have  a press  copy  book  or  carbon  copy 
book? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  I think  there  were  carbon  copies  kept  of  the 
letters  that  were  sent  out. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  those  carbon  copies  now  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Where  are  they? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  last  see  them  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I left  them  in  the  office  when  I left.  The  office  was 
still  open  when  I went  home. 

The  Chairman.  They  were  not  among  the  things  destroyed  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  They  are  not  lying  around  this  desk? 

The  Chairman.  Were  they  left  in  that  desk? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Where  did  you  leave  them  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  There  were  several  rooms  to  these  offices  we  had 
there.  This  material  was  never  in  my  charge. 

The  Chairman.  In  whose  charge  were  these  copies  of  letters, 
whether  carbon  or  letterpress,  or  of  whatever  kind? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  say  that  was  in  the  general  charge  of  Mr. 
Sacket.  He  was  the  office  manager.  Perhaps  the  next  one  would  be 
Mr.  Lambeck,  the  man  I have  mentioned  as  being  a messenger. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  Mr.  Lambeck  who  is  connected  with  Sena- 
tor Stephenson  as  secretary? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  He  is  the  messenger  to  Senator  Stephenson’s  com- 
mittee. 

The  Chairman.  The  messenger  for  the  committee  of  which  Sena- 
tor Stephenson  is  chairman? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  You  think  he  had  charge  of  these  letterpress  books 
or  carbon  copies  of  letters  or  whatever  form  the  copies  might  have 
been  in  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  think  so;  under  the  direction  of  Mr. 
Sacket,  who  was  designated  the  office  manager. 

The  Chairman.  I was  asking  as  to  your  department,  as  distinct 
from  Mr.  Sacket’s,  because  I shall  ask  Mr.  Sacket  about  his  depart- 
ment. Did  you  have  letterpress  copy  books  or  carbon  copies  of  letters 
or  copies  of  any  kind  made  from  letters  which  were  written  or  sent 
out  by  you,  or  from  your  office,  independent  of  Mr.  Sacket’s? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir.  The  whole  force  was  ivorking  together. 
There  was  no  separation. 

The  Chairman.  Where  were  the  copies  of  the  letters  you  wrote 
kept  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  They  were  kept  in  the  office ; in  the  same  room  where 
Mr.  Lambeck  was  employed. 


266 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


The  Chairman.  Where  were  they  when  you  left  the  office  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I have  not  any  knowledge.  I assume  they  were  in 
the  same  place  they  have  always  been  kept. 

The  Chairman.  Of  whom  shall  we  now  inquire  as  to  the  where- 
abouts of  those  letters? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Should  you  want  to  know  for  your  own  conven- 
ience or  purpose  the  contents  of  a letter  that  you  had  written,  where 
would  you  go  to  look  for  the  copy  of  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I would  not  know  where  to  go.  I should  make 
inquiries  of  Mr.  Sacket  and  Mr.  Lambeck  as  to  where  they  were.  If 
they  could  not  give  me  the  information,  I should  go  still  further. 

The  Chairman.  Could  they  have  been  among  the  things  destroyed 
by  Mr.  Sacket? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know  that  he  destroyed  any.  I did  not 
know  that  he  did. 

The  Chairman.  On  what  date  did  you  leave  that  office? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  at  5 o’clock  on  the  5th. 

The  Chairman.  The  5th  of  what? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  The  5th  of  September;  two  or  three  days  after  the 
primary  election. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  not  remain  there  during  the  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Where  did  you  keep  the  headquarters  of  the  State 
central  committee? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  At  the  Plankinton  Hotel. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Here  in  Milwaukee? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  You  had  no  other  headquarters? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir.  There  was  a lapse  of  time  there  between 
the  1st  of  September,  or  thereabouts,  when  the  election  occurred, 
and  the  election  of  the  chairman  and  the  new  State  central  committee 
on.  I think*  the  22d. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  you  are  in  the  position  of  not  being  able 
to  make  available  any  copies  of  letters  you  may  have  written  during 
the  time  you  were  in  charge  of  Senator  Stephenson’s  campaign,  or 
any  letters  you  received  during  that  time.  Is  that  true? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  with  the  exception  that  among  my  files  in 
looking  them  over  and  changing  my  office,  perhaps  six  months  ago, 
I found  a book  wherein  some  letters  were  copied.  My  recollection  is 
that  those  were  generally  “ form  ” letters.  My  recollection  is  that 
some  of  those  were  “ form  ” letters,  sent  out  during  this  campaign, 
though  I am  not  positive  about  it.  There  were  no  personal  letters. 
There  were  none  others  that  I know  of.  This  book  was  prepared  and 
kept,  I presume,  for  my  benefit  by  a clerk  in  the  general  campaign. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Were  they  circular  letters? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  and  clippings  of  all  kinds.  There  were  some 
things  in  there  that  related,  I think,  to  the  general  campaign,  and 
possibly  to  the  primary.  If  so,  I would  be  very  glad  to  submit  them 
to  the  committee. 

The  Chairman.  Did  any  of  these  clerks  or  employees  in  your  office 
or  about  it,  in  any  connection  or  capacity,  make  or  have  any  memo- 
randum showing  these  transactions  which  you  made  with  the  several 
parties  for  services  rendered  or  to  be  rendered? 


E.  A.  EDMONDS.  267 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think  so,  because  I do  not  believe  any  of 
them  knew  about  it. 

The  Chairman.  When  you  had  conferences  with  these  people, 
did  you  have  them  in  a private  room  or  in  public  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  my  room ; a private  room. 

The  Chairman.  Was  there  any  person  who  was  in  the  habit  of  be- 
ing present,  or  who  was  permitted  to  be  present? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir.  I want  to  make  this  explanation  in  regard 
to  that,  that  there  were  different  men  with  whom  I had  acquaintance, 
and  I will  specify  Mr.  Overbeck,  in  whom  I had  a great  deal  of  con- 
fidence. I asked  him  at  different  times  to  come  in,  and  several  times 
he  introduced  me  to  men  I did  not  know,  and  told  me  who  they  were, 
and  what  they  were  able  to  do. 

The  Chairman.  On  August  13  you  paid  W.  Batz  $100.  For  what 
purpose  was  that  paid  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Organization  in  Washington  County. 

The  Chairman.  Organizing? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  When  you  use  this  term  “ organizing,”  is  there 
any  instance  where  you  made  a payment  as  shown  upon  this  ac- 
count— and  you  know  to  what  I am  referring,  as  it  is  published  in 
this  volume 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Where  the  agreement  was  different  from  that 
which  you  have  described  in  regard  to  the  other  organizers? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  About  whom  we  have  asked  you  more  particularly  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  excepting  this,  that  with  some  of  these  men 
I would  have  a longer  conversation  and  go  into  it  perhaps  more 
in  detail  than  I would  with  others. 

The  Chairman.  Which  ones?  Name  those  with  whom  you  had 
conversations  longer  or  more  in  detail  than  those  which  you  have 
recounted. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  say  as  I mentioned  this  morning,  Mr. 
Wayland.  I saw  him  often. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  described  all  of  the  conversations  that 
you  had  with  Mr.  Wayland? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  As  near  as  I can  remember. 

The  Chairman.  You  stated  that  you  could  not  give  the  committee 
a single  item  of  expenditure  made  by  Mr.  Wayland  out  of  the  money 
received. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Oh,  no ; I gave  you  some. 

The  Chairman.  What  items  are  they? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I said  he  had  employed  men  and  teams  to  get  out 
the  votes. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  not  an  item.  I asked  you  whom  he  em- 
ployed, and  how  much  he  paid. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No;  I do  not  know  of  one. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  no  knowledge? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  No  specific  knowledge  as  to  the  manner  of  ex- 
penditure of  money  that  you  placed  in  his  hands  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Absolutely  none. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  true  of  every  one  of  these  organizers? 


268 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  in  every  instance. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  were  I to  take  up  the  balance  of  them, 
each  separately  and  specifically,  you  "would  not  be  able  to  give  me 
any  item  of  expenditure  that  those  men  made  in  connection  with  Mr. 
Stephenson’s  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I believe  not  in  a single  instance. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  would  not  be  able  to  tell  the  committee 
that  they  expended  any  money  for  any  purpose,  would  you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  From  my  personal  knowledge,  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  they  rendered  no  account  by  reference  to 
which  you  could  tell  the  committee  what  expenditures  they  made? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  none  whatever. 

The  Chairman.  Unless  you  particularize  and  except  some  of  these 
items  from  that  statement,  is  the  committee  justified  in  applying  that 
answer  to  every  item  contained  in  this  statement  where  you  made  the 
agreement  or  the  payment? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  tell  your  principal,  Senator  Steph- 
enson, that  you  were  paying  out  money  to  these  men  in  such  sums 
as  are  indicated  by  this  statement,  without  knowing  what  they  were 
to  do  for  it,  specifically? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall  that  I ever  did. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  have  any  conversation  with  Senator 
Stephenson  in  which  you  advised  him  of  the  liberal  manner  in  which 
you  were  distributing  this  money  without  knowing  what  you  re- 
ceived for  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know  that  I did.  I think  I saw  him  only 
twice  or  three  times  during  the  primary  campaign,  and  then  only  for 
a few  moments  at  a time. 

The  Chairman.  Did  Senator  Stephenson  have  any  knowledge  of 
the  fact  that  you  were  paying  men  for  their  services  in  his  behalf 
without  requiring  them  to  make  some  showing  that  they  performed 
the  services? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think  he  had  any  knowledge  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  Did  Senator  Stephenson  have  any  knowledge  so 
far  as  you  know  that  you  were  employing  Mr.  Perrin  and  paying 
him  more  than  $3,000  without  requiring  that  he  should  render  any 
account  or  statement  as  to  the  services  that  he  was  performing  for 
that  consideration? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think  he  did,  and  may  I explain  that  had 
I undertaken  when  I saw  Mr.  Perrin  to  interrogate  him  as  to  exactly 
what  he  was  going  to  do  with  this  money,  go  over  the  details  with 
him,  when  I knew  nothing  about  the  conditions  up  there — if  I had 
required  that  detail,  it  would  have  taken  me  three  or  four  days  to 
go  all  over  it,  or  more,  and  I could  not  have  taken  the  time.  The 
time  was  too  short.  I had  to  get  these  men.  Their  time  was  limited 
in  coming  here  to  Milwaukee  and  my  time  was  limited  in  making  the 
arrangements.  T did  the  best  I could,  and  left  the  arrangements 
entirely  in  their  hands,  as  Senator  Stephenson  did  the  general  cam- 
paign in  my  hands. 

The  Chairman.  Then  is  it  true  you  merely  constituted  these  men 
your  deputies  or  substitutes  for  the  disbursement  of  campaign  funds  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  call  them  local  managers  in  their  localities. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


269 


The  Chairman.  Is  it  true  that  you  merely  created  these  men  your 
substitutes  or  representatives  to  disburse  certain  moneys  without 
liability  to  account?  Is  that  true? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Well,  I do  not  know  that  that  is  quite  a fair  state- 
ment of  the  case.  I should  think  to  designate  them  as  local  managers 
would  be  a better  term. 

The  Chairman.  I am  getting  at  a very  different  proposition,  as 
perhaps  is  will  be  developed  before  I am  through.  I am  trying  or 
intending  to  establish  the  point  of  responsibility  for  the  disbursement 
of  this  money  in  this  way.  Did  Senator  Stephenson  know  you  had 
appointed  these  various  and  several  men  as  your  deputies  or  substi- 
tutes for  the  disbursing  of  this  money?  Did  he  know  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  so,  in  instances. 

The  Chairman.  In  what  instances  did  he  know  it,  or  not  know  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I know  that  he  understood  the  general  plan,  that 
I was  organizing  in  the  different  counties,  and  that  certain  individ- 
uals would  have  to  take  charge  in  those  localities,  because  one  person 
could  not  do  it. 

The  Chairman.  Suppose  we  dispense  with  the  use  of  that  word, 
that  you  were  “ organizing.”  The  word  “ organizing  ” does  not  mean 
much,  in  the  testimony  in  this  case,  because  you  do  not  seem  to  know 
exactly  what  it  means. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I am  very  sorry,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  I am  not  able 
to  explain  about  that  situation. 

The  Chairman.  Let  us  dispense  with  the  use  of  that  word,  and 
get  down  to  the  business  fact  as  to  what  was  really  done,  whether  you 
paid  railroad  fares,  hired  teams,  or  men,  or  what  you  did. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  All  those  things  were  done. 

The  Chairman.  In  every  case  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know  that  in  every  case  it  was. 

The  Chairman.  How  do  you  know  they  were  done  when  you  say 
you  do  not  know  whether  they  expended  any  part  of  this  money  for 
any  purpose  whatever,  and  they  may  have  put  it  in  their  pockets? 
How  can  you  say  under  the  responsibility  of  your  oath  that  they  did 
disburse  it  in  that  way  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  With  these  men  that  I have  talked  to,  with  whom 
I have  discussed  the  situation,  they  certainly  referred  to  the  cam- 
paign, and  they  led  me  to  suppose  that  they  had  done  it. 

The  Chairman.  And  they  told  you  they  expended  a part  of  these 
sums  of  money  that  you  gave  them  for  the  payment  of  railroad 
fares,  in  the  performance  of  their  duties  to  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  As  I have  stated,  they  have  not  made  any  report 
to  me. 

The  Chairman.  Have  they  made  any  statement  to  you  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I am  sure  some  of  them  have;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  statement,  and  who  made  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Mr.  Wayland  has  stated  that. 

The  Chairman.  Tell  us  what  he  said. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  His  expenses  from  Appleton  to  Milwaukee 

The  Chairman.  How  much  were  they? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  not  tell  you  how  much  they  were? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 


270 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


The  Chairman.  How  could  you  know  that  he  had  disbursed  in 
any  way  the  money  you  had  given  him? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  else  did  he  say  he  had  dispensed  the 
money  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  had  hired  teams. 

The  Chairman.  Give  us  the  name  of  one  person  from  whom  he 
hired  a team,  and  where. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I could  not  tell  where. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  tell  you  that  he  had  hired  a team? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  team? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I could  not  say. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  did  he  say  he  paid  for  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  not  dealing  in  generalities  rather  than 
speaking  from  specific  knowledge  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  As  to  any  individual  team,  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  As  to  Mr.  Wayland’s  statement? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No.  I do  not  think  I am  dealing  in  generalities. 

The  Chairman.  If  you  are  speaking  from  specific  knowledge,  then 
give  us  the  knowledge  that  is  specific. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I am  unable  to  say  if  he  told  me  at  any  particular 
time  of  any  particular  team  that  he  hired.  If  he  gave  me  the  name, 
I have  forgotten  it. 

The  Chairman.  Is  there  anj^  man  other  than  Mr.  Wayland  with 
whom  you  had  any  conversation  with  reference  to  what  he  had  ex- 
pended or  how  he  had  expended  the  money? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I certainly  made  no  inquiry  of  any  man  to  de- 
termine— 

The  Chairman.  And  no  man  volunteered  a statement? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  I think  Mr.  Dresser  told  me. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  did  Mr.  Dresser  tell  you  that  he  had 
expended  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  At  one  time  in  conversation  he  told  me  of  the  dif- 
ferent amounts  that  he  had  expended  in  the  different  counties. 

The  Chairman.  Name  one  of  them. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  Polk  County.  That  was  one. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I can  not  recall  the  amount;  somewhere  from  two 
to  three  hundred  dollars. 

The  Chairman.  For  what? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  For  getting  out  the  vote  for  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  he  do  to  get  out  the  vote — what  is  the 

process  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  My  understanding  of  his  method  was  that  he  hired 
men  in  those  counties. 

The  Chairman.  Hired  men  to  do  what — to  get  out  the  vote? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No;  hired  men  to  organize  the  counties. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  back  to  that  word.  Let  us  dispense  with 
the  use  of  that  word. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Well,  will  you  give  me  a word  that  is  satisfactory. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Mr.  Chairman,  I submit  that  the  witness  has  a 
reasonable  right  to  use  his  own  language  in  making  his  own  answer. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS.  271 

The  Chairman.  I think  that  is  too  general  a term  to  apply,  with 
all  due  respect. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I would  like  to  submit  this  question 

The  Chairman.  The  committee  has  a right  to  call  for  a specific 
answer. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  but  I would  like  to  submit  this  proposition 
to  the  committee,  whether  or  not,  when  the  witness  has  answered, 
he  is  not  entitled,  at  least  in  the  first  instance,  to  couch  his  answer  in 
his  own  language,  no  matter  whether  he  repeats  over  and  over  again 
the  term  “ organizing.” 

The  Chairman.  I do  not  see  its  application  to  the  question. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I leave  that  suggestion  right  on  the  record.  The 
chairman  was  undertaking  to  prevent  the  witness  from  saying  that 
he  was  paying  this  money  for  organizing,  and  my  suggestion  is 
when  the  witness  is  inquired  of  and  finds  it  necessary  to  use  that 
language,  he  has  a right  to  do  it. 

The  Chairman.  The  committee  have  asked  the  witness  to  dispense 
with  the  use  of  the  word  “ organizing  ” because  he  has  by  his  testi- 
mony shown  that  it  means  nothing  definite. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I want  to  go  on  record  as  stating  I do  not  give 
my  assent  to  the  statement  just  made  by  the  chairman.  I think  the 
witness  has  given  quite  a number  of  details  involved  in  organizing. 
Of  course,  I have  no  controversy  with  the  committee,  but  I would  not 
by  my  silence  assent  to  the  proposition  that  the  witness  has  not  given 
any  definition  of  tlat  term,  because  I believe  he  has. 

The  Chairman.  Aside  from  what  you  call  “ organizing,”  what  did 
this  man  tell  you  he  had  expended  money  for  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  say  fhat  word  would  embrace  it. 

The  Chairman.  The  committee  thinks  that  it  wants  further  and 
more  definite  information.  What  items  did  he  tell  you  that  he  had 
expended  the  money  for? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  told  me  of  the  different  counties  in  which  this 
money  had  been  expended. 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  and  for  what? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  As  to  the  exact  amounts  that  had  been  expended 
in  any  particular  county,  or  for  what  it  had  been  expended,  he  did 
not  tell  me. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  give  you  any  item  for  which  he  had  paid 
any  sum  of  money  in  these  counties  for  any  purpose  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  My  recollection  is  that  he  told  me  that  in  these 
counties  he  had  hired  men.  For  instance,  he  had  seven  counties  under 
his  charge.  He  had  hired  a man  to — what  word  shall  I use  in  place 
of  “ organize  ” ? 

The  Chairman.  What  did  he  hire  the  men  to  do? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I would  not  want  to  use  the  term  “organize”  the 
county  if  I am  not  allowed  to. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  he  do  that  you  would  call  organize? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  say  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  I do  not  think  he  said. 

The  Chairman.  He  did  not  tell  you.  He  used  the  word  “ organize,” 
did  he? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  so. 


272 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


The  Chairman.  When  he  told  you  he  had  hired  a man  he  said  he 
had  hired  him  to  “ organize.”  In  order  words,  he  had  redelegated  the 
power  that  you  gave  him  to  organize? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  would  be  natural  for  him  to  do  that,  because  he 
was  doing  the  same  thing  in  those  seven  counties  that  I was  doing  in 
the  State.  He  had  charge  of  that  and  would  employ  a man  to  look 
after  the  organization  of  the  county,  and  then  that  man  would  have' 
his  expenditures  more  in  detail. 

The  Chairman.  Would  an  item  for  car  fare  be  expended  for  organ- 
ization ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Would  an  item  for  a carriage  to  carry  a man  to  the 
polls  be  an  item  for  organization? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  would. 

The  Chairman.  Would  his  hotel  bill  be  an  item  under  the  head  of 
organization? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  would. 

The  Chairman.  Then  you  use  that  as  a general  term.  Let  us  split 
that  term  up  and  find  out  its  component  parts.  Did  he  tell  you  of  the 
expenditure  of  money  for  any  component  part  of  “ organization  ” ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know  whether  he  did. 

The  Chairman.  Say  whether  he  did  or  not. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I am  unable  to  say.  If  he  did  I do  not  remember  it. 

The  Chairman.  Then  he  did  not  particularize  at  all? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  did  not  go  into  detail  as  to  the  expenditure; 
no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  the  smallest  piece  into  which  this  infor- 
mation was  carved  was  “ organization.” 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Perhaps  that  is  a good  statement  to  make. 

The  Chairman.  And  he  did  not  go  into  details  as  to  what  con- 
stituted “ organization,”  but  left  it  just  like  the  word  “ inflooence  ” 
as  used  in  political  matters? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  might  be. 

The  Chairman.  It  was  rather  hard  to  put  your  finger  on,  was  it 
not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  On  what? 

The  Chairman.  Could  you  go  into  this  county  and  put  your  finger 
on  the  thing  that  constituted  “ organization  ” ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Could  you  gather  it  within  your  widest  grasp  and 
find  a tangible  thing  to  embrace? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  a glittering  generality  that  avoids  the  neces- 
sity of  particularizing  expenses.  Is  that  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I would  not  think  so.  It  would  say  these  men 
who  did  the  organizing  would  be  able  to  explain  what  they  did. 

The  Chairman.  You  paid  them  for  organizing  and  you  should 
know  what  constituted  the  organization. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  advance  I paid  them. 

The  Chairman.  You  paid  some  of  them  afterwards. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Some  of  them  were  paid  as  they  conducted  their  work. 

The  Chairman.  You  paid  Mr.  McMahon  on  September  5,  which 
was  after  the  election,  $300.  which  you  say  was  for  “ organizing.” 


E.  A.  EDMONDS.  273 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I beg  to  differ  with  that  statement.  I did  not  pay 
him. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  pay  Mr.  Hambright  $300  on  that  day  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  make  any  payments  on  September  5,  as 
found  on  page  595? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Which  one  of  those  payments  there  did  you  make? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Take  the  one  two-thirds  of  the  way  down  the  page, 
of  $183.50,  J.  R.  Jones. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  pay  him  that  for? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  was  an  organizer  in  Racine  County  and  this 
was  in  settlement  of  his  bill  for  services. 

The  Chairman.  The  election  is  over  and  we  find  you  paying  men  for 
organizing.  Did  you  ask  him  when  you  made  that  payment  what  he 
had  done  that  constituted  organizing? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Not  in  detail.  He  came  to  me  and  told  me  that 
in  his  organization  work  he  had  paid  so  much  money  in  excess  of 
what  he  had  been  paid. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  a new  term — “ organization  work.”  That 
is  to  say,  in  items  he  had  paid  out  so  much  money,  but  he  did  not 
tell  you  what  they  were. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  He  did  not  render  you  any  memorandum  of  ac- 
count ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Absolutely  none. 

The  Chairman.  You  paid  others  of  these  items.  Is  that  true  as  to 
all  of  these  items  that  you  paid  at  that  time,  on  September  5 ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  they  were  bills  I knew  to  be  just;  yes;  having 
been  rendered 

The  Chairman.  No  items? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No  items;  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  No  written  or  spoken  details? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I can  not  recall  any  particular  instance.  I un- 
doubtedly talked  with  these  men  as  I saw  them. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  give  any  one  of  those  items  for  which 
you  were  paying  out  money  on  the  5th  of  September  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I can  not. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  no  book  account,  no  memorandum,  no 
memory  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Absolutely  no  book  account. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  been  ill  since  that  time? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  I have  been  in  pretty  good  health. 

The  Chairman.  Has  there  been  any  general  lapse  of  your  mem- 
ory? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  If  I had  any  occasion  to  remember  those  details,  I 
would  probably  remember  them. 

The  Chairman.  This  was  a small  affair — the  handling  of  over 
$100,000  of  another  man’s  money — and  you  do  not  think  that  was 
of  sufficient  importance  to  charge  your  mind  with  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think  it  would  be  of  sufficient  importance 
to  charge  my  mind  with  the  details  of  an  expenditure  of  $250  or  $500 
15235°— vol  1—11 18 


274 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


that  a man  made  two  or  three  years  before.  If  a man  kept  that  in 
his  head  all  the  time,  he  would  not  be  able  to  do  any  business.  I 
know  I would  not,  at  least. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  a conclusion.  This  was  a part  of  a large 
sum  made  up  of  different  items? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  The  expenditure  of  this  money  involves  the  honor 
and  the  office  of  Senator  Stephenson,  to  the  extent  that  the  United 
States  Senate  has  felt  called  upon  to  inquire  into  it,  and  I would 
suggest  to  you  that  you  give  consideration  to  the  importance  and 
the  solemnity  of  such  an  inquiry,  and  see  whether  or  not,  in  view 
of  the  immense  stake  which  Senator  Stephenson  has  in  this  matter, 
you  can  not  refresh  your  memory  as  to  these  items. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I have  answered  every  question  that  jmu  have 
asked  me  to  the  best  of  my  ability,  and  I will  answer  every  one  you 
ask  me  in  the  same  manner.  There  will  be  nothing  but  frankness  on 
my  part. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  the  list  before  you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Without  being  specifically  asked,  will  you  desig- 
nate the  items  of  which  you  have  personal  knowledge  contained  in 
this  statement,  and  do  that  in  the  order  in  which  they  are  printed 
in  the  book? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Beginning  at  the  top  of  page  591  ? 

The  Chairman.  Begin  where  I have  left  off. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  W.  A.  Barber,  Sheboygan  County,  $300. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  about  the  city  of  Superior?  Let  us  have 
them  all. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I am  stating  those  that  I knew  about. 

The  Chairman.  He  is  stating  those  he  had  knowledge  of,  and  if 
he  does  not  refer  to  them  we  will  take  it  for  granted  that  he  has  no 
knowledge  of  them. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  But  I wanted  to  start  with  my  checking  so  as  to 
keep  track  of  what  the  witness  says. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  The  items  that  I am  giving  are  those  that  I have 
knowledge  of,  and  none  others.  C.  B.  Salmon,  $100,  Rock  County. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Give  the  full  item  there  as  well  as  the  name. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  One  moment.  I would  like  to  inquire  now 
whether  the  witness  begins  with  the  item  of  Sheboygan  County,  No. 
33546? 

The  Chairman.  The  witness  has  not  been  handed  over  for  cross- 
examination.  He  is  still  under  examination  by  the  committee. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Does  the  committee  rule  that  I have  not  the  right 
to  understand  the  examination  as  it  goes  along  ? 

The  Chairman.  The  committee  does  not  rule  anything  at  all. 
The  committee  is  simply  making  a suggestion,  thinking  perhaps  that 
counsel  might  think  that  the  committee  had  finished  the  examination 
of  the  witness. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Counsel  labored  under  no  such  very  profound 
misapprehension,  but  if  I understand  it  right,  it  is  quite  necessary 
for  me  to  have  an  intelligible  notion  of  what  the  witness  has  stated. 
I want  to  know  if  I have  not  the  right  to  know  the  item  with  which 
the  witness  begins?  I do  not  know  what  it  was.  It  may  be  my  fault, 
but  I do  not  know. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS.  275 

The  Chairman.  I think  counsel  is  unnecessarily  disturbed  in  the 
matter.  There  is  no  objection  at  all  to  counsel  knowing  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Mr.  Edmonds,  do  you  begin  with  Washington 
County  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  As  I understood,  that  has  been  passed.  That  is  one 
of  the  things  I know  about. 

The  Chairman.  What  about  the  next  one? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Sheboygan  County,  $300.  The  next  item  is  Rock 
County,  $100.  The  next  item  is  A.  R.  Ames,  $50.  The  next  one  is 
J.  R.  Jones,  $350;  T.  F.  Reynolds,  $100.  If  the  Senator  will  permit, 
I would  like  to  explain  that  this  is  the  Reynolds  of  Oconto  County 
and  not  the  man  who  was  running  for  the  assembly.  T.  J.  Sexton, 
$42.46.  C.  E.  Morley,  Vernon  County,  $500.  Then  there  are  the 
different  items  paid  to  S.  L.  Perrin,  and  they  figure  up  $3,000. 

The  Chairman.  That  $3,000  is  in  addition  to  the  item  paid  to  Per- 
rin of  $1,000,  to  be  found  on  page  582,  making  $4,000  in  all? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  is  not  my  recollection  of  the  amount,  but  that 
is  what  it  figures  here,  according  to  this  statement.  W.  C.  Bratz, 
$43.80. 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  the  same  man  whose  name  appears  next  to 
the  first  item  on  the  page  as  Batz  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  word  is  not  spelled  correctly. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  It  should  be  Bratz? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Bratz.  B.  O.  Larson,  55;  U.  C.  Kellar,  $50.  The 
next  item  is  $375  for  Trempealeau  County. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  a payment  to  yourself? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know  why  that  is  made  out  in  that  way.  I 
know  that  the  money  was  paid  over.  I can  not  think  of  the  man’s 
name.  I may  be  able  to  recall  that  later.  I will  think  that  up  later. 
The  next  two  items,  $45  and  $100,  are  general  amounts  paid  to  me. 
W.  O.  Roberts,  Waukesha  County,  $150.  Ashland  County,  $400. 
Price  and  Taylor  Counties,  $500.  Sheboygan  County,  $76.50.  Rusk 
County,  $250.  The  next  item  is  marked  “ Dunn  County,”  but  E.  F. 
Scherbel  lived  in  Dane  County.  He  perhaps  did  work  in  Dunn 
County.  I am  not  positive.  That  item  is  $95.74.  Walworth  and 
Kenosha,  $800. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  passed  over  the  item  of  $50? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know  anything  about  that. 

Senator  Pomerene.  “Walworth  & Kenosha”;  what  was  the 
amount  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  $800.  Chippewa  & Clark,  $350 

The  Chairman.  That  is  “ Ring  ” instead  of  “ Bing  ” ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  “ Ring,”  yes.  The  third  item,  it  says,  “ E.  A.  E., 
$200.”  The  total  item  is  “ $300.”  I do  not  know  what  the  other 
$100  is.  H.  H.  Morgan,  $226;  C.  H.  Russell,  $350;  Hugh  Lewis, 
$160.  The  next  item,  of  $250,  J.  T.  Hanson,  I can  not  recall;  and 
the  third  item  from  there  as  well,  $150,  the  same  man. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Is  what? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  The  same  man,  $150. 

The  Chairman.  You  can  not  recall  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir.  I may  have  made  arrangements  with  him, 
but  I do  not  recall. 


276 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


The  Chairman.  Who  is  he  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know.  I can  not  place  him.  G.  W.  Dart, 
$400;  D.  Atwood,  $50;  J.  H.  Franke,  $140. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  the  doctor,  is  it  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  is  the  doctor ; yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  That  item  is  divided,  “ $125,”  then  it  is  raised  to 
“ $140.”  How  do  yon  account  for  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I can  not  account  for  that. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  ask  Mr.  Sacket. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Which  is  correct ; or,  do  you  not  know  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know.  P.  Dormady,  $50;  M.  J.  Funielle, 
$100 ; F.  W.  Dangers,  $50 ; W.  C.  Bratz,  $21.56. 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  “ Batz  ” ; that  is,  the 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Same  name ; yes. 

The  Chairman.  “ Batz,”  on  the  former  page. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Harry  Bowman,  $150.  I do  not  recall  that  item. 
It.  S.  Cowie,  $150. 

The  Chairman.  That  you  know  about? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir.  J.  W.  Howey,  $50;  R.  A.  Etter,  $100; 
George  Gordon,  $200;  C.  E.  Brady,  $500;  J.  LI.  WTells,  $200;  P.  F. 
Doland,  instead  of  “ F.  F.  Dolan,”  $400;  W.  C.  Bratz,  $100;  A.  O. 
Heyer,  $300. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  passed  over  “ Stevens.”  I suppose  you 
do  not  know  him  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  those  two  I do  not  recall.  Ozaukee  County, 
$200.  That  was  money  paid,  I am  very  certain,  to  C.  O.  Larsen,  the 
manager  up  in  that  locality.  I do  not  recall  the  next  item.  C.  C. 
Wayland,  $500 ; L.  A.  Calkins,  $300. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  the  same  name  we  had  earlier,  in  connec- 
tion with  Brown  County? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Brown  County  was  stated  first,  and  this  is  the  man 
I referred  to. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  the  item  you  referred  to  in  the  item  the 
third  from  the  bottom  of  page  590,  is  it  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  August  12,  page  590. 

The  Chairman.  Brown  County,  August  12 — is  that  the  man? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  L.  A.  Calkins? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir:  F.  H.  Eppling,  $200.  This  item  of  $250; 
there  is  nothing  there  to  tell  me  to  whom  that  was  paid. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  do  you  mean,  what  item — Fond  du  Lac 
County  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Fond  du  Lac  County. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know  about  the  “General”  item? 
Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir.  And  the  Fond  du  Lac  County,  $250,  while 
this  does  not  guide  me  in  determining  who  it  was,  I think  the  amounts 
paid  for  organizing  that  county  were  paid  to  one  man  whose  name  is 
mentioned  below,  Mr.  Morse. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Under  “August  27,”  “ R.  L.  Morse,”  is  that  it? 
Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir.  The  next  two  items  I do  not  recall.  D. 
Atwood,  $100;  W.  C.  Bratz,  $43.50.  This  item  of  $400  under  “Gen- 
eral,” I assume,  is  money 4Daid  to  me. 

The  Chairman.  Those  three  items  there  together,  “ General,  E.  A. 
E.”  That  is  you,  is  it— “ $200  ” 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


277 


Mr.  Edmonds.  The  only  means  I have  of  knowing  is  this 

The  Chairman.  And  the  “$175,”  and  then  the  “$25,”  making  a 
total  of  $400? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Whether  that  is  all  mine  or  part  “General”  and 
part  mine  I do  not  know  now,  I have  no  means  of  knowing  now. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Sacket  knows? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  presume  so.  George  Gordon,  $300;  L.  W. 
Thayer,  $600;  H.  H.  Smith,  $100;  William  Haslem,  $125;  “ G.  E. 
Doe,”  should  be  “ G.  E.  Dee,”  $300. 

The  Chairman. #Is  that  a real  name? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  spelled  like  a fictitious  name. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  should  be  “ Dee.”  It  is  improperly  spelled. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  “ Doe  ” is  wrong.  “ Dee  ” is  the  name.  Not  our 
pseudonymn  of  the  law. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  U.  C.  Keller,  $150 ; E.  E.  Orton,  $300 ; Max  Sells,  $25. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  mention  the  other  two  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir;  U.  C.  Keller  and  E.  E.  Orton. 

The  Chairman.  You  know  about  those? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes.  James  Smith,  $100.  E.  L.  Morse,  $450. 

The  Chairman.  There  is  a discrepancy  there.  The  “ City  of  Fond 
du  Lac,”  giving  the  number  of  the  draft  to  Morse,  “ $250  ” was  carried 
out  “ $450.” 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir.  Now  I do  not  know  which  of  those  is  cor- 
rect ; I have  no  means  of  knowing. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  anything  about  the  item? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  I only  know  that  Mr.  Morse  was  our  mana- 
ger in  that  locality.  City  of  Oconto,  $100,  Mr.  Beyer. 

Senator  Pomerene.  To  whom  was  that  paid  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  The  name  here  is  “ B.  Beyer,”  but  it  is  George  E. 
Beyer. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  It  should  be  “ George  E.”  instead  of  “ B.” 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  $50,  Wagner  & Jennings. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Is  that  the  name  of  a firm  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir;  distributing  and  hanging  posters;  I made 
an  agreement  to  pay.  This  name,  “ D.  G.  Sampson,  $100,  Ashland,” 
I can  not  recall  that,  though  I have  not  any  doubt  that  I made  the 
arrangement.  C.  E.  Brady,  $200 ; A.  E.  Ames,  $50 ; C.  O.  Larson,  $50. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  the  item  that  we  have  considered  in  con- 
nection with  an  earlier  item  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir.  I do  not  remember  the  particular  item  of 
$200  to  Easmussen  Publishing  Co.,  but  I know  we  paid  at  different 
times.  I presume  Mr.  Sacket  can  explain  it  more  fully. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  about  this  item,  “ City  of  Ashland,  E.  A.  E., 
L.  F.  Johnstad,  $100”?  Do  you  know  anything  about  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I can  not  recall  that  name.  I have  no  reason  to 
suppose  I did  not  make  the  arrangement,  but  I do  not  recall  it  now. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  “Johnstad  ” is  an  extraordinary  name. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  There  are  a good  many  extraordinary  names  to  me. 
These  items  of  “ General  ” expense,  two  items,  $15  and  $20,  are  carried 
out  $50 ; that  says  “ E.  A.  E.”  I presume  it  is  charged  to  me,  though. 
I do  not  know  why  the  difference. 

The  Chairman.  To  which  item  are  you  now  referring? 


278 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Mr.  Edmonds.  That  item  of  “General  (E.  A.  E.  $15  and  $20),” 
carried  out  “ $50.” 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  $35  and  the  total  is  “ $50.”  Do  you  know 
anything  about  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Does  that  mean  that  the  entire  item  under  the 
head  of  “ General  ” is  $50,  out  of  which  “ E.  A.  E.”  received  $15  and 
$20? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  would  appear  to  me  to  be  a reasonable  suppo- 
sition, but  I do  not  know. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I notice  other  items  of  that  same  character. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  An  item  of  $15,  A.  W.  Barber.  Jefferson  County, 

$200. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Who  is  your  man  there ; do  you  remember  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  George  Kispert.  J.  H.  Wells,  $200. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  is  this  “J.  H.  Frank”?  Have  you  passed 
that  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  know  anything  about  that  “J.  H. 
Frank”? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  have  passed  it,  have  you  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  I did  not  intentionally  pass  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Well,  you  did  pass  it.  You  do  not  know  any- 
thing about  it? 

The  Chairman.  It  is  obvious  that  the  examination  of  this  witness 
can  not  be  concluded  this  evening.  A member  of  the  committee 
desires  to  examine  him  further,  and  as  we  yet  have  several  pages  of 
this  matter,  I think  we  had  better  take  our  regular  adjournment,  as 
the  time  has  now  arrived,  until  to-morrow  morning  at  10  o’clock. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Let  me  suggest  that  it  will  hurry  this  pro- 
ceeding along,  and  we  will  reach  exactly  the  same  result,  if  Mr. 
Edmonds — if  he  can  do  it  conveniently — will  simply  bring  in  a memo- 
randum— 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Draw  up  a list? 

Senator  Sutherland.  A list  of  the  items. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Take  it  in  the  order  in  which  it  appears  here  and 
just  submit  a list  in  answer  to  one  question ; would  you  like  it  that 
way  ? 

Senator  Sutherland.  Yes ; that  can  go  into  the  record,  and  he  can 
furnish  us  a copy  of  it,  and  we  can  make  such  cross-examination  con- 
cerning any  items  as  we  please. 

The  Chairman.  The  list  will  be  of  the  items  that  come  within  the 
statement  of  the  witness,  that  the  facts  are  the  same  as  to  the  items 
about  which  he  has  been  particularly  examined. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Before  taking  adjournment  I desire  to  swear  the 
witnesses  that  were  subpoenaed  for  to-day — D.  E.  Riordan,  L.  B. 
Dresser,  and  George  Gordon. 

(The  sergeant  at  arms  called  the  names  of  Mr.  Riordan,  Mr. 
Dresser,  and  Mr.  Gordon,  as  indicated  by  the  chairman,  and  Mr. 
Dresser  and  Mr.  Riordan  responded  to  their  names  and  were  sworn 
by  the  chairman.) 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


279 


The  Chairman.  You  will  be  excused  until  to-morrow  morning. 
Be  in  attendance  to-morrow  morning.  Mr.  Gordon  is  required  to 
present  himself.  The  sergeant  at  arms  will  make  proper  inquiry  as 
to  why  Mr.  Gordon  is  not  present  and  instruct  him  to  be  present 
to-morrow  morning. 

(To  Mr.  Edmonds:)  Of  course,  you  will  be  here  in  the  morning? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

(At  4 o’clock  and  34  minutes  p.  m.  the  subcommittee  adjourned 
until  to-morrow,  Thursday,  October  5,  1911,  at  10  o’clock  a.  m.) 


THURSDAY,  OCTOBER  5,  1911. 

Federal  Building, 

Milwaukee , Wis . 

The  subcommittee  met  at  10  o’clock  a.  m. 

Present : Senators  Heyburn  (chairman) , Sutherland,  and  Pomerene. 

Present  also:  Mr.  C.  E.  Littlefield,  Mr.  W.  E.  Black,  and  Mr. 
H.  H.  J.  Upham,  counsel  for  Senator  Isaac  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  Is  George  Gordon  present  this  morning? 

(The  secretary  called  the  name  of  Mr.  Gordon,  and  he  failed  to 
respond.  The  names  of  Mr.  J.  W.  Stone  and  Mr.  J.  J.  McGillivray 
were  called,  and  they  responded  to  their  names,  and  the  oath  was 
administered  to  them  by  the  chairman.) 

TESTIMONY  OF  E.  A.  EDMONDS— Resumed. 

Mr.  Edmonds  produced  a list  of  items  afterwards  marked  “ Exhibit 
Edmonds  A.” 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Edmonds,  give  me  the  page  of  the  printed 
testimony  in  the  State  investigation  on  which  the  first  item  in  your 
list  appears. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Page  594.  I think  it  was  the  next  one. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  the  item  of  J.  H.  Frank,  $100  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  the  first  one  on  that  page  of  which  you 
have  personal  knowledge? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir ; the  first  one  following  those  we  mentioned 
yesterday  in  the  testimony. 

The  Chairman.  Give  us  that  item.  Which  was  the  last  item  yes- 
terday of  which  you  testified  that  you  had  personal  knowledge? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  The  $15,  just  above;  the  second  item  above. 

The  Chairman.  A.  W.  Barber? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I may  be  wrong,  Mr.  Chairman,  but  I have 
checked  up  Jefferson  County,  George  Kispert,  $200.  I think  the 
witness  must  have  testified  to  that,  otherwise  I would  not  have 
checked  it  on  my  notes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  The  $15  is  the  last  item. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  My  recollection,  Mr.  Edmonds,  is  that  you  testi- 
fied that  you  did  not  have  any  knowledge  of  the  Jefferson  County 
item. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I would  correct  that  statement.  He  did  give 
Jefferson  County,  George  Kispert,  $200. 


280 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Mr.  Edmonds.  Well,  I have  not  any  definite  knowledge  whether 
that  amount  was  paid  to  him.  I thought  it  was. 

The  Chairman.  That  brings  us  to  the  item  of  $100. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  made  a list  of  payments,  items  contained 
in  this  entire  account  after  the  item,  “ Jefferson  County,  $200,”  on 
page  594.  Have  you  included  in  this  list  each  and  every  item  of 
which  you  have  personal  knowledge  in  regard  to  the  contract  and 
the  payment? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  every  item. 

The  Chairman.  I notice  you  have  not  put  the  dates  on  this  list, 
so  that  it  is  hardly  sufficient  for  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  intended. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Does  the  chairman  desire  this  list  to  go  in  as  an 
exhibit  ? 

The  Chairman.  It  would  have  saved  some  time  had  this  list  been 
dated,  so  that  it  could  go  in  as  an  exhibit. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Those  items  follow  right  in  order,  but  inadvertently 
I did  not  put  in  the  dates. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  not  indicated  under  what  date  the  payment 
was  made.  It  will  not  take  long  to  deal  with  this  question.  You 
made  the  payment  to  J.  IT.  Frank  of  $100,  did  you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  On  account  of  the  contract  made  with  him  earlier. 
This  is  the  Dr.  Frank  referred  to  earlier  in  the  testimony. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  any  personal  knowledge  of  the  purpose 
for  which  any  of  the  payments  which  you  have  set  out  in  this  paper, 
which  will  be  marked  as  an  exhibit  in  your  testimony,  were  used  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No  personal  knowledge ; no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  make  any  effort  to  ascertain  for  what 
any  of  those  sums  of  money  were  used,  either  at  the  time,  or  during 
the  campaign,  or  since? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir ; I never  asked  for  any  detailed  report.  The 
only  method  I had  of  getting  any  report  would  be  a verbal  one  in  case 
these  men  at  different  times  came  into  the  office. 

The  Chairman.  Verbal  or  written,  or  of  any  character  whatsoever, 
did  you  make  any  effort  to  ascertain  the  purpose  for  which  that 
money  was  used,  as  to  any  of  these  sums  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  no  other  manner  other  than  for  the  purpose  of 
guiding  me  in  handling  the  campaign — not  for  the  purpose  or  getting 
a detailed  report. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  get  or  gather  any  information  at  any 
time  as  to  the  purpose  for  which  these  sums  of  money,  or  any  of  them, 
or  any  part  of  them,  were  used  by  those  to  whom  you  paid  them  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir ; no  more  in  detail  than  those  discussed  yes- 
terday. 

The  Chairman.  You  made  no  effort  to  get  any  further  statement? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  never  asked  for  it. 

The  Chairman.  Either  in  writing  or  otherwise? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  realize  that  if  the  expenditure  of  money 
in  a campaign  is  questioned,  the  burden  is  upon  the  party  spending 
it  to  show  that  the  expenditure  was  legitimate? 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


281 


Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think  I realized  that.  I do  not  know  it 
now. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  I understand  the  chairman  to  state  that  as 
a rule  of  law  ? 

The  Chairman.  Not  that  it  affects  the  inquiry  now  proceeding,  but 
in  the  judgment  of  the  final  tribunal  which  will  be  called  upon  to 
pass  on  this  testimony — that  is,  the  Senate  of  the  United  States — I 
state  it  as  my  opinion  of  the  law  that  expenditures  made  by  a candi- 
date being  challenged  as  to  their  legality,  the  burden  is  upon  the 
party  making  the  expenditure  to  show  that  they  were  lawful. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Then  the  presumption  of  innocent  expenditure 
does  not  follow  the  item. 

The  Chairman.  The  presumption  of  innocence  does  not  enter  into 
the  question  at  all.  The  expenditure  being  challenged  as  to  its 
legality,  there  is  no  presumption  that  money  expended  in  connection 
with  an  individual  campaign  by  a candidate  for  office  is  rightfully 
expended  after  it  is  challenged  in  an  official  way.  Prior  to  the  chal- 
lenge there  is  a presumption  that  the  expenditure  was  proper.  It 
being  challenged  officially,  that  presumption  awaits  the  determina- 
tion upon  the  facts. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Does  the  chairman  understand  that  to  be  the 
rule  the  Senate  acts  upon? 

The  Chairman.  I understand  that  to  be  the  rule  and  the  law. 
That,  of  course,  is  my  own  opinion. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Pardon  me  just  a moment,  but  I should 
hardly  want  to  be  concluded  by  the  statement  which  the  chairman 
makes.  I think  the  presumption  which  he  says  would  arise  would 
only  arise  in  case  the  expenditures  were  so  large,  or  other  circum- 
stances were  sufficient,  to  indicate  that  the  expenditure  itself  was 
unlawful.  I do  not  think  the  mere  fact  that  a man  had  expended 
money  would  necessarily  give  rise  to  the  presumption  that  it  had 
been  unlawfully  expended. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I am  very  glad  to  get  the  idea  of  the  chairman, 
because  of  course  the  chairman  and  the  committee  can  appreciate 
that  these  are  important  suggestions  for  us,  and  we  are  very  glad 
to  be  advised  as  to  what  the  ultimate  condition  is  to  be.  I have  not 
undertaken  to  examine  carefully  in  detail  the  conduct  of  matters  of 
this  kind  before  the  Senate,  in  the  last  analysis,  for  the  purpose 
of  reaching  a conclusion  as  to  the  practice  of  the  Senate  in  this  re- 
gard, but  I had  supposed  that  when  a man’s  right  to  his  seat  was 
challenged  the  party  making  the  challenge,  or  making  the  charge, 
was  under  the  ordinary  obligation  of  sustaining  it.  Of  course  I 
can  very  well  perceive  that  if  what  might  be  termed  an  enormous 
expenditure  of  money  were  developed  it  might  be  a strong  circum- 
stance; but  I had  not  supposed  that  the  mere  establishing  of  the 
expenditure  of  money  of  itself  gave  rise  to  a change  in  the  pre- 
sumption, or  placed  the  burden  upon  the  party  making  the  expendi- 
ture. I am  very  glad  to  get  the  chairman’s  view  of  it;  but  my  idea 
of  it  was  that  that  was  simply  a circumstances  to  be  taken  into 
account  with  the  other  transactions.  I had  not  supposed  that  the 
mere  fact  of  an  expenditure,  dissociated  from  the  other  circum- 
stances, gave  rise  to  any  change  in  the  burden  of  proof.  I am  very 
glad  to  get  the  chairman’s  idea  in  respect  to  it,  and  I wish  the 
chairman  to  distinctly  understand,  of  course,  that  I do  not  under- 


282 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


take  now  to  question  it.  But  ultimately,  of  course,  I am  quite 
anxious  to  bring  myself  within  what  is  ascertained  or  believed  to 
be  the  rule  that  the  Senate  may  act  upon  in  relation  to  it.  I propose 
to  do  that,  and  I am  very  greatly  obliged  to  the  Senator  for  his 
suggestion. 

The  Chairman.  I desire  to  suggest  that  the  statement  of  counsel’s 
understanding  of  the  rule  that  I stated  is  not  complete.  The  state- 
ment must  be  considered  as  a whole,  because  I stated  the  exceptions 
in  the  rule,  and  took  it  out  of  the  class  suggested  by  the  recital  of 
counsel.  I confined  it  to  an  official  challenge  of  the  election,  which 
contained  a charge  that  money,  admittedly  paid,  was  paid  for  a 
wrongful  purpose.  There  are  two  elements  necessary  to  be  borne  in 
mind. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  I did  not  include  irresponsible  charges.  I in- 
cluded the  official  charge  upon  which  this  committee  is  acting.  It 
was  made  by  a State,  under  the  signature  and  seal  of  the  governor  of 
the  State.  That  is  one  element. 

The  next  is  that  the  party  charged  with  having  paid  the  money 
shall  have  admitted  that  he  paid  it,  thus  taking  it  out  of  the  rule  of 
the  necessity  of  proof.  No  proof  of  the  payment  is  necessary,  it  hav- 
ing been  admitted. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I quite  agree  with  that. 

The  Chairman.  Now  we  have  a case  stated.  The  question  is 
whether  or  not  the  party,  whose  office  is  challenged  because  of  the 
payment  of  this  money,  which  is  admitted,  must  prove  that  the  pay- 
ment was  for  a lawful  purpose,  in  order  to  meet  the  charge  that  it  was 
for  an  unlawful  purpose.  I think  counsel  has  not  closely  read  the 
specific  charges. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Even  so,  I shall  never  concede  at  any  stage  of 
these  proceedings,  either  here  or  before  the  Senate,  that  the  charges 
made  by  Mr.  Blaine  change  the  burden  of  proof,  and  that  it  is  only 
necessary  to  read  them  and  have  Mr.  Stephenson  say  he  spent 
$107,000,  and  that  then  the  burden  is  upon  Mr.  Stephenson  to  show 
it  was  not  unlawfully  spent. 

When  Mr.  Blaine  makes  the  charges,  and  the  State  of  Wisconsin 
either  does  or  does  not  undertake  to  get  behind  them — when  he 
charges  that  money  was  corruptly  spent,  criminally  spent,  I do  not 
think  the  presentation  of  the  charges  and  the  admission  that  money 
was  expended  is  sufficient  to  change  the  burden  of  proof  and  leave 
it  to  the  Senator  to  exculpate  himself  and  show  it  was  honestly  ex- 
pended. 

This  would  be  my  view : I think  the  charges  involve  precisely  what 
they  would  involve  in  any  judicial  tribunal.  Mr.  Stephenson  is 
charged  with  bribery.  The  State  makes  out  one  step  in  its  case,  per- 
haps, by  showing  the  expenditure  of  money.  The  State  can  not  stop 
there.  On  general  principles  the  expenditure  of  money  is  legitimate 
and  proper.  It  is  attended  by  the  presumption  of  innocence;  and 
Mr.  Blaine,  by  simply  presenting  his  alleged  charges,  and  then  hav- 
ing it  appear  that  money  was  expended,  does  not,  in  my  judgment, 
shift  the  burden  of  proof  so  that  it  is  incumbent  upon  Mr.  Stephen- 
son to  show  that  he  innocently  expended  the  money.  Mr.  Blaine 
must  go  further,  or  the  State  of  Wisconsin,  if  it  identifies  itself  with 
Mr.  Blaine,  must  go  further,  and  not  only  show  expenditure,  but  show 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


283 


criminal  expenditure.  It  may  be  that  in  the  last  analysis  the  Senator 
and  myself  may  agree  as  to  the  practical  condition;  but  it  certainly 
does  seem  to  me  that  the  attitude  in  which  Mr.  Stephenson  stands 
here  is  an  attitude  to  require  whoever  prefers  these  charges  against 
him  to  establish  them;  not  simply  to  show  expenditures.  That  is 
only  a part  of  the  proposition,  and  a trifling  part.  That  is  only  a 
step,  and  a very  short  step.  The  great  step,  and  the  thing  to  be 
proved,  is  the  criminal  expenditure,  or  the  corrupt  expenditure, 
which  is  the  same  thing.  There  can  be  no  corrupt  or  improper  ex- 
penditure that  is  not  a criminal  expenditure.  I do  not  know  about 
the  specific  individual  instances,  but  I mean  on  general  principles. 
Of  course  I am  greatly  obliged  to  the  Senator,  because  I have  not  ex- 
amined the  question  with  a great  deal  of  care.  I want  in  the  end  to 
be  able  to  present  the  matter  upon  what  I believe  to  be  not  only  the 
rules  of  law,  but  the  rules  upon  which  the  Senate  will  ultimately  act. 
It  is  incumbent  upon  me  to  do  that  in  order  to  protect  the  rights  of 
Senator  Stephenson,  and  this  may  be  an  extremely  important  con- 
sideration. 

Senator  Sutherland.  It  does  not  occur  to  me  that  there  would  be 
any  difference  between  counsel  and  the  committee  in  the  end.  As  I 
understand  the  rule  of  law,  it  is  that  a presumption  arises  in  all 
eases,  in  criminal  law  or  civil  law,  in  favor  of  the  regularity  and 
honesty  of  the  doings,  either  of  individuals  or  of  officials.  That  is  a 
general  presumption  of  law.  When  anybody  challenges  that  pre- 
sumption, it  devolves  upon  that  person  to  overcome  that  presump- 
tion by  proof.  In  this  particular  case,  the  expenditure  of  money  in 
the  election  may  or  may  not  have  been  honest.  The  presumption  is 
that  it  was  honest;  but  in  putting  in  the  proof  it  may  appear  that 
the  amount  of  the  expenditure  was  so  extravagant  as  itself  to  over- 
come the  presumption  in  favor  of  the  honesty  of  the  transaction, 
and  shift  the  burden  of  proof  to  show  that  it  wTas  an  honest  expendi- 
ture; or  it  may  be  accompanied  by  other  badges  of  suspicion  that 
w7ill  overcome  the  general  presumption,  and  shift  the  burden  of 
proof. 

Now,  whether  that  exists  in  this  case  I do  not  undertake  to  say ; but 
I am  simply  saying  to  you  that  that  sort  of  a case  may  arise,  and 
whether  this  is  such  a case  can  only  be  determined  when  we  get 
through. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  members  of  the  committee  are  all  lawyers, 
and  it  is  not  necessary  for  me  to  say  that  they  are  good  lawyers,  and 
I do  not  suppose  the  technical  question  of  the  movabilitv  of  the  bur- 
den of  proof,  shifting  from  one  side  to  the  other,  will  be  of  great 
practical  importance  in  the  last  analysis.  I doubt  if  in  any  event, 
under  any  circumstances,  either  before  a jury  or  court,  it  furnishes 
any  very  intelligible  method  for  reaching  a practical  result.  Of 
course,  it  may  be  discussed  upon  that  basis. 

I have  now  in  mind,  for  instance,  a case  that  arose  in  my  own  prac- 
tice, if  I may  state  it  very  briefly,  where  some  three  distinguished 
gentlemen  made  an  award  in  connection  with  damages  to  be  paid  a 
landowner  by  a railroad.  I happened  to  represent  the  railroad. 
I have  my  brief  in  that  case  in  my  office  where  I can  reach  it,  and  in 
that  case  I took  the  ground  that  the  award  of  damages  was  so 
enormously  in  excess  of  the  damages  actually  sustained  that  of 


284 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


itself,  res  ipsa  loquitor,  it  tended  to  demonstrate,  and  practically 
did  demonstrate,  that  the  award  was  founded  in  corruption  and 
fraud.  There  are  authorities  on  that  proposition.  I have  them  all 
in  my  brief,  and  I am  reminded  of  them.  I suppose,  perhaps,  that 
is  parallel  to  the  proposition  which  the  chairman  has  in  mind.  I 
relied  on  that  in  my  case,  and  there  is  plenty  of  law  upon  that 
proposition.  Of  course,  it  is  an  extreme  situation.  If  that  is  all 
that  it  means,  I fully  understand  the  point. 

Senator  Pomerene.  There  does  not  seem  to  be  very  much  differ- 
ence between  you. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I presume  not,  in  the  end.  If  the  chairman  will 
excuse  me,  the  chairman  has  a pretty  vigorous  way  of  stating  these 
propositions  and  a pretty  energetic  way. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Counsel  is  not  lacking  in  vigor. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Perhaps  not. 

The  Chairman.  If  the  counsel  will  permit  me  at  that  point 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  What  I have  said  was  based  upon  this  case  and 
the  status  of  this  case  at  this  time.  I was  not  undertaking  to  deliver 
a statement  as  to  abstract  principles  of  law.  Whatever  I said  then, 
or  will  say,  will  be  in  the  light  of  this  case  as  it  stands  at  the  time  I 
say  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Precisely  so;  and,  as  I have  intimated,  I think  it 
more  than  probable  that  we  would  all  reach  a common  ground;  but 
the  feeling  I had,  and  it  may  have  been  induced  by  the  fact  that  I 
am  here  representing  Senator  Stephenson,  and  of  course  rather  vigor- 
ously interested  in  protecting  his  interests,  was  that  the  chairman  was 
extending  the  application  of  the  rule  a trifle  beyond  its  legitimate 
scope.  I think,  perhaps,  we  understand  ourselves.  I am  very  much 
obliged  to  the  chairman  for  his  courtesy. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  proper  for  me  to  say  that  my  purpose  in 
making  the  statement  was  to  fairly  advise  counsel  and  those  for 
whom  he  appears  as  to  the  necessity  on  their  part  of  furnishing  this 
information,  because  of  the  more  than  probable  necessity  that  will 
arise  when  this  matter  is  finally  before  the  Senate  for  consideration. 
We  are  required  to  obtain  facts.  If  we  fail  to  obtain  facts  and  the 
absence  of  those  facts  tells  against  or  for  the  parties,  the  responsi- 
bility must  be  upon  the  parties,  not  upon  the  subcommittee. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Precisely.  I have  not  any  question  about  that, 
and  we  shall  do  the  best  we  can  to  see  that  not  only  the  committee 
but  the  Senate  have  all  the  information  within  our  possession. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Edmonds,  is  there  any  one  of  the  items  in  this 
list  which  you  have  furnished  the  committee  this  morning  of  money 
paid  by  you,  or  under  your  direction,  to  the  parties  named  in  the 
list,  that  you  desire  to  explain  for  the  purpose  of  showing  the  com- 
mittee what  the  expenditure  was  for  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  none  that  I have  in  mind  except  the  gen- 
eral explanation. 

The  Chairman.  Is  there  any  one  of  the  items  that  you  can  explain 
any  more  fully  than  you  have  explained  items  taken  up  specifically? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  I believe  not  one. 

The  Chairman.  Then,  you  are  in  the  position  of  having  paid  out 
these  sums  of  money  without  knowledge  as  to  the  use  that  was  made 
of  the  money  ? 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


285 


Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir;  I have  no  definite  knowledge  of  the  use 
that  was  made  of  the  money. 

The  Chairman.  If  it  should  transpire  that  a wrongful  use  was 
made  of  the  money,  then  I understand  that  that  knowledge  has  never 
come  to  you  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  never  has  come  to  me ; no,  sir:  not  in  any  instance. 

The  Chairman.  And  that  you  have  made  no  effort  to  ascertain 
whether  or  not  the  expenditures  of  this  money  were  wrongful? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sirv 

The  Chairman.  In  any  case? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I have  not. 

The  Chairman.  Would  any  member  of  the  committee  like  to  ask 
any  questions? 

Senator  Sutherland.  Mr.  Edmonds,  how  long  have  you  been  more 
or  less  engaged  in  politics? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  say  only  during  this  period  of  about  two 
years,  beginning  shortly  after  the  1st  of  July,  1908. 

Senator  Sutherland.  My  question  was  how  long  you  had  been 
more  or  less  engaged  in  politics.  I understood  you  to  say  that  you 
were  a member  of  the  State  assembly. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I was  a member  of  the  State  assembly  in  1892.  I 
served  one  term,  and  from  that  time  until  1900  took  no  interest  in 
political  campaigns  except  to  vote,  and  exercise  my  right  and  perform 
my  duty  in  that  way. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  at  that  time  engage  in  a canvass 
in  your  own  behalf? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Were  you  a candidate  for  the  nomination 
before  the  nomination  was  made? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  The  nomination  came  to  you  without  effort 
on  your  part? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes.  It  was  under  the  caucus  system. 

Senator  Sutherland.  After  your  nomination,  you  did  participate 
in  the  canvass  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Have  you  held  any  other  office? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir:  no  other  elective  office.  I want  to  say  that 
during  eight  or  ten  years  I was  chairman  of  the  town  board  of  the 
township  in  which  I resided.  That  is  the  only  other  elective  office 
I have  held. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  hold  any  political  office?  Were 
you  chairman  of  any  committee  or  a member  of  any  political  com- 
mittee, and  have  you  been  since  1892? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think  so.  It  is  barely  possible  that  in  some 
year  I may  have  been  chosen  a precinct  committeeman  or  something 
of  that  kind.  If  so,  I do  not  remember  it.  I doubt  if  I ever  was. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  participate  to  any  extent  in  any 
canvass  for  others  than  yourself  since  1892? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Not  until  1900  and  1902. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  then  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  To  what  extent? 


286 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Mr.  Edmonds.  In  the  county  of  Oconto,  where  I lived. 

Senator  Sutherland.  In  what  connection  and  for  what  purpose  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  connection  with  the  selecting  of  delegates 
to  the  county  convention  that  would  elect  delegates  to  the  State  con- 
vention. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Since  1892  you  have  known  more  or  less 
about  the  conduct  of  elections  and  the  preliminaries  leading  up  to 
elections? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  The  holding  of  conventions,  and  things  of 
that  kind  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  In  a general  way  you  were  familiar  with 
the  proceedings  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I was. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  wTere  not  State  chairman,  as  I under- 
stand, until  after  this  service  which  you  rendered  to  Senator 
Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  I was  elected  about  three  weeks  later. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Had  it  been  brought  to  your  attention  dur- 
ing the  time  you  were  engaged  in  political  matters  that  sometimes 
improper  expenditures  were  made  to  influence  an  election  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  I am  sure  that  in  reading  the  papers  articles 
have  very  often  come  to  my  attention  charging  corruption  in  politics. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  had  heard  of  them? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  know  that  in  all  elections  there  was 
always  more  or  less  danger  of  money  being  improperly  expended? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I suppose  so. 

Senator  Sutherland.  There  is  the  opportunity? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  the  temptation? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  when  you  took  hold  of  Senator  Stephen- 
son’s canvass  you  knew  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Now,  in  making  arrangements  with  these 
various  men  in  the  seventy-odd  counties,  did  you  suggest  to  any  one 
of  them  the  limits  within  which  they  might  make  their  expenditures? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know  that  I did  in  any  particular  instance; 
but  if  I may  explain,  in  every  instance  in  which  I employed  a man  I 
made  what  I considered  to  be  a careful  investigation  of  his  character 
and  reputation,  and  before  employing  him  I was  convinced  of  his 
trustworthiness  as  a local  manager. 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  was  the  amount  of  money  you  gave 
to  Mr.  Riordan  altogether  ? I have  forgotten  the  amount. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  My  recollection  is  that  it  was  $2,300.  I could  not  be 
certain. 

Senator  Sutherland.  For  him  to  expend  in  what  counties? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  seven  counties  in  the  senatorial  district  which  he 
had  represented  in  the  State  senate. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  handed  over  that  $2,300,  or  caused  it  to 
be  handed  over  to  him,  without  a single  suggestion  as  to  how  it  should 
be  expended  ? 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


287 


Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think  I made  a single  suggestion;  no,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Leaving  it  entirely  to  him  to  spend  it  as  he 
pleased  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir;  I would  not  presume,  with  my  limited 
knowledge  of  politics,  to  instruct  him,  because  he  was  ver}’  much 
better  versed  in  political  methods,  in  the  method  of  getting  out  votes, 
than  I was. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  give  an}^  general  instructions  or 
make  any  general  statement  to  any  of  these  people  to  whom  you 
furnished  money  that  the  money  was  to  be  spent  in  the  interests  of 
Mr.  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think  I quite  understand  your  question. 

Senator  Sutherland.  How  did  thev  know  what  to  spend  the  money 
for? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Well,  Senator,  I want  to  say  that  in  talking  with 
these  different  men  whom  I employed  we  had  a conversation  regard- 
ing the  situation,  regarding  the  prospects  of  Senator  Stephenson, 
regarding,  in  general,  the  conduct  of  the  campaign,  but  as  to  any 
particular  instance  of  just  what  I said  I can  not  remember  one 
single  thing  now. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I will  ask  you  whether  or  not  you  said  gen- 
erally to  these  people  to  whom  you  furnished  money  that  the  money 
was  to  be  expended  in  the  interest  of  Senator  Stephenson’s  canvass? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir;  I think  in  every  instance  they  understood 
from  their  talk  with  me  that  they  were  to  spend  the  money  for  the 
election  of  Senator  Stephenson  and  not  for  the  election  of  any  other 
candidate. 

Senator  Sutherland.  But  you  entered  into  no  other  or  further 
details  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Perhaps  not,  unless  that  came  up  in  the  conversa- 
tion. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  in  any  case? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  As  I say,  not  in  any  particular  instance  that  I can 
recall. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Whether  you  can  recall  any  particular  in- 
stance or  not,  do  you  remember  that  there  were  cases  "where  you  went 
into  details? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I am  very  certain  that  in  the  conversation  such  as  I 
would  have  with  a man  of  an  hour  or  two,  or  possibly  three,  during 
that  conversation,  it  being  understood  that  he  was  to  conduct  the 
campaign  in  his  county  or  in  his  locality,  we  would  go  into  matters 
in  more  or  less  detail,  but  in  just  what  manner  I can  not  now  recall. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  mean  matters  concerning  conditions  in 
the  county? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I am  speaking  now  of  the  expenditure  of 
the  money.  Whether  you  can  remember  the  name  of  the  man  or 
not,  did  you  indicate  to  anybody  any  limits  within  which  he  was  to 
expend  this  money? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I am  very  sure  that  after  our  conversation  it  was 
understood  by  them  thoroughly,  and  from  their  talk  with  me,  that 
there  were  limits. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  does  not  answer  my  question. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I can  not  recall  in  a particular  instance. 


288 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Mr.  Littlefield.  The  question  is  what  you  did  generally. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I do  not  ask  you  to  give  the  name,  or  the 
date,  or  the  place,  or  any  of  the  details,  but  have  you  in  your  mind 
now  any  recollection  that  you  gave  to  anybody  or  made  to  anybody 
any  statement  of  the  limits  within  which  the  money  should  be  ex- 
pended ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  were  those  limits? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I can  not  tell  now. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  in  general.  That  is  what  the  Senator 
wants,  whether  you  did  anything  of  that  kind  in  general. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I tried  to  state  that  in  my  talks  with  these  men  who 
were  to  be  our  organizers,  who  were  to  work  for  Senator  Stephen- 
son’s interests,  that  this  money  was  to  be  expended  solely  for  the 
nomination  of  Senator  Stephenson. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Yes;  you  have  already  said  that. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  And  in  their  judgment  to  use  the  money  as  they 
thought  best. 

Senator  Sutherland.  But  have  you  any  recollection  that  you 
stated  to  anybody — I am  not  asking  you  who  or  the  circumstances  of 
it  at  all — have  you  any  recollection  of  stating  to  anybody  the  general 
purpose  of  the  way  in  which  any  of  this  money  should  be  spent  to 
further  Mr.  Stephenson’s  interest? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  If  you  ask  for  my  recollection  of  any  particular 
thing  that  I said,  I say  no ; I can  not  recall  any  particular  thing. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  you  recall  that  you  did  say  anything  on 
the  subject? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  My  recollection  is  that  I did  in  all  my  talks. 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  is  your  recollection  of  the  limitations 
that  you  put  in  any  case  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I doubt — that  is,  my  impression  is  that  in  no  in- 
stance was  there  ever  talk  of  the  possibility  of  an  expenditure  of 
money  by  these  men  unlawfully  or  illegally. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  discuss  the  activities  in  which  they  were 
to  engage? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Most  assuredly. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Then  state  them. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  tell  them  what  to  do  with  the 
money  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I am  answering  the  questions  as  well  as  I can. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  No  ; you  are  not. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Let  me  conduct  the  examination.  I think  I 
nan  do  it.  Have  you  any  recollection  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Not  now;  no,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Then  did  you  do  any  more,  as  far  as  the 
expenditure  of  the  money  was  concerned,  than  to  say  to  these  persons 
to  whom  you  gave  the  money  that  they  were  to  expend  the  money  in 
the  interest  of  Mr.  Stephenson’s  candidacy? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  While  I do  not  now  recall  that  I did,  it  would  be 
very  improbable  that  I did  not  go  into  it  in  more  detail.  I do  not 
now  recall. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Then  you  are  not  able  to  say  that  you  did 
more  than  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS.  289 

Senator  Sutherland.  Have  you  any  reason  to  suppose  that  you 
did  more  than  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  is  your  reason  for  supposing  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  would  not  seem  possible  to  me  that  in  a tdlk  with 
a man  whom  I was  about  to  employ,  whether  I had  know  him  a long 
time  or  a short  time,  that  in  the  payment  to  him  of  money  for  services 
that  he  was  to  perform  I would  not  have  gone  over  the  situation — (not 
only  the  situation  in  the  counties  where  he  was  to  go,  but  talk  with 
him  about  the  expenditure  of  this  money. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is,  you  mean  that  it  was  probable  that 
you  talked  with  him  as  to  how  he  should  expend  the  money  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir.  It  does  not  seem  possible  to  me  that  I did 
not,  and  I presume  I did  at  that  time. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Does  it  occur  to  you  that  that  was  what  you 
should  have  done? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Looking  back  at  the  affair  now  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  It  strikes  your  mind  now  that  in  putting 
this  money  into  the  hands  of  these  individuals  you  should  have  laid 
down  some  limitations  as  to  how  they  should  expend  the  money? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know  that  that  would  have  been  necessary, 
but  it  would  have  been  probable  that  in  very  many  instances  I did. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Why  do  you  say  it  would  have  been  prob- 
able? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Were  I to  conduct  the  campaign  to-day,  I should  do 
that. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Why  would  you  do  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  For  the  reason  I have  stated — that  in  the  payment 
or  intrusting  of  money  in  the  hands  of  any  individual  I would  dis- 
cuss the  methods  of  that  distribution  or  that  expenditure. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  therefore  it  would  be  the  natural  thing 
for  you  to  lay  down  some  limitation  under  which  he  was  to  expend 
the  money? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  yet  you  have  no  recollection,  in  all 
these  conversations,  of  having  done  so? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No  such  recollection  as  I would  want  to  state  under 
oath;  no,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Now,  I want  to  say  to  you  again  that  I am 
not  asking  you  to  give  me  the  name  of  any  individual  to  whom  you 
made  that  statement,  or  the  time  when  you  made  it,  or  the  place 
where  you  made  it,  or  the  circumstances  under  which  you  made  it, 
but  I simply  want  to  know  whether  you  have  in  your  mind  any 
recollection  that  you  did,  upon  some  occasion,  lay  down  any 
limitation? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Perhaps  I may  be  considered  technical  and  dense, 
but  I can  not  conceive  of  my  ability  to  state  definitely  that  I did  a 
certain  thing  if  I can  not  remember  the  occasion  on  which  I did  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  are  not  asked  that.  You  are  asked  a gen- 
eral question.  You  have  stated  once  or  twice  that  you  have  in  yonr 
mind  now  things  that  they  were  to  do,  but  up  to  date  you  have  not 
succeeded  in  getting  them  into  the  record.  Suppose  you  put  them  in. 

15235°— vol  1—11 19 


290 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Senator  Sutherland.  Mr.  Edmonds,  can  you  not  recall  many 
times  in  your  life  when  you  have  made  statements  about  certain 
matters,  and  known  that  you  have  made  statements,  and  yet  you 
can  not  recall  to  whom  you  made  them  or  under  what  circumstances 
you  made  them,  yet  you  can  recall  in  a general  way  that  you  have 
made  the  statements  ? Now,  can  you  recall  whether  or  not  you  made 
any  statements  on  that  subject? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  I have  stated  as  definitely  as  I can  that  I 
believe  I did;  but  as  to  just  the  limitations 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  have  stated  heretofore  that  it  would 
be  natural  for  you  to  do  it.  Do  you  now  believe  you  did  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I believe  I did  it  from  the  fact  that  I would  do 
so  now. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Now,  what  limitations  do  you  believe  you 
laid  down? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  The  same  that  I would  lay  down  now. 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  are  they? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  discussing  with  a man  who  was  going  to  expend 
the  money  for  the  Senator  and  organize  the  county,  I would  suggest 
to-day  what  he  should  do. 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  would  you  suggest  that  he  should  do  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I would  suggest  that  he  organize  the  county — 
pardon  me  for  using  the  word — as  completely  as  possible  with  the 
funds  in  hand.  For  instance,  in  placing  the  sum  of  $500  in  a man’s 
hands  for  use  in  a certain  county,  if  that  would  enable  him  to  go  so 
far  as  to  organize  each  precinct  by  the  selection  of  a committee  of 
one  or  two  or  three  men  who  would  distribute  literature,  who  would 
endeavor  to  organize  or  make  enthusiasm  for  the  Senator  in  his 
candidacy  by  talking  with  men  who  would  see  to  getting  out  the 
vote,  by  hiring  teams,  or,  if  in  their  judgment  necessary,  secure  halls 
for  speeches;  their  judgment  would  be  exercised  entirely  as  to  the 
best  use  of  that  money  to  be  made,  but  I am  sure  that  in  instances 
we  discussed  that. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Now,  it  occurs  to  you  that  that  is  what  you 
would  do  now? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Have  you  any  recollection  that  you  did  do 
that  in  this  particular  case? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Well,  I am  reasonably  certain  that  I did.  I should 
not  like  to  state  definitely,  because  I have  no  definite  recollection. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  you  mean  by  that,  that  starting  from  the 
conclusion  you  now  have  in  your  mind,  that  it  should  be  done,  you 
probably  did  do  it  ? Is  that  what  you  mean  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  that  is  it  exactly.  I believe  that  while  per- 
haps my  understanding  of  the  conduct  of  a campaign  is  perhaps  more 
complete  in  detail  now,  for  the  reason  that  I have  passed  through  the 
experience  of  the  chairmanship  of  the  State  central  committee,  yet 
my  general  idea  of  conducting  the  campaign  was  about  the  same 
then  as  now. 

Senator  Sutherland.  But  at  the  same  time,  while  you  recognize 
now  that  that  should  have  been  done,  you  have  no  recollection  that 
you  did  do  it  in  any  particular  case? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  I can  not  go  further  than  to  say  that  I 
believe  that. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


291 


Senator  Sutherland.  You  believe  you  did,  but  you  will  not  go  so 
far  as  to  say  that  you  have  any  recollection  of  it  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  I would  not  say  that. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  your  belief  is  based,  as  I understand 
you,  wholly  upon  the  proposition  that  you  now  think  it  should  have 
been  done? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  I would  not  go  as  far  as  that. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Or  that  it  was  the  natural  thing  to  do  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  The  natural  thing  to  do. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  have  also  been  in  business? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  A great  many  years? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  have  had  charge  of  large  expenditures 
of  money,  have  you,  in  a business  way? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Quite  large;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  have  employed  many  agents  whose 
duty  it  was  to  expend  money  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  some  instances;  yes,  sir.  Usually,  however,  in 
the  management  of  a business,  the  work  is  done  from  the  office,  and 
the  management  of  such  business  as  I conducted  was  done  by  me,  in 
the  expenditure  of  money. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Is  it  in  accordance  with  your  business  train- 
ing and  experience,  and  habits,  to  hand  over  to  your  agent  a large 
sum  of  money,  $500  or  $1,000,  and  have  him  expend  it  without  keep- 
ing an  account  of  what  he  expends  it  for,  or  without  having  him 
render  an  account  to  you  of  the  expenditures? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think  so. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is  not  in  accordance  with  business 
methods,  at  any  rate? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Was  there  any  reason  why  you  could  not 
request  these  various  political  agents  to  keep  an  account  of  their 
expenditures  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  The  only  reason  I could  give  is  that  I have  never 
heard  of  it  being  done.  Custom,  I should  say,  governed  that. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Is  there  any  reason  for  its  not  being  done 
that  you  know  of? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know  of  any  reason  why  it  should  not  be 
done  if  desired. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  want  to  know  what  they  expended 
it  for? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir;  I would  have  been  glad  to  know,  if  they 
had  communicated  it  to  me. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  would  have  been  gkd  to  know? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir;  if  they  had  communicated  it  to  me.  You 
realize,  Senator,  that  the  campaign  was  a very  short  one,  and  the 
money  at  different  times  was  not  on  hand  in  the  bank,  and  while  the 
campaign  lasted,  I think,  six  or  seven  weeks,  while  I was  there,  I 
should  say  during  the  first  three  or  three  and  a half  weeks  we  were 
handicapped,  and  did  not  know  how  far  to  go  in  organization,  by  rea- 
son of  not  having  funds,  and  that  when  we  got  started  in  the 
organization  it  was  very  active  work. 


292 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Senator  Sutherland.  You,  I think,  have  said  that  you  were 
familiar  with  the  law  of  the  State  with  reference  to  requiring  a report 
of  the  amount  of  these  expenditures,  have  you  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know  that  I read  it.  I have  a general  idea 
of  it  and  had  then. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Were  you  familiar,  whether  you  had  read  it 
or  not,  with  this  provision  of  the  Wisconsin  statute: 

Every  person  who  shall  be  a candidate  before  any  convention  or  at  any 
primary  or  election,  or  to  fill  an  office  for  which  a nomination  paper  or  cer- 
tificate of  nomination  may  be  filed,  shall  within  thirty  days  after  the  election 
held  to  fill  such  office  make  out  and  file  with  the  officer  empowered  by  law  to 
issue  the  certificate  of  election  to  such  office  or  place,  a statement  in  writing, 
subscribed  and  sworn  to  by  such  candidate,  setting  forth  in  detail  each  item  in 
excess  of  five  dollars  in  money  or  property  contributed,  disbursed,  expended,  or 
promised  by  him,  and  to  the  best  of  his  knowledge  and  belief — 

that  is,  the  knowledge  and  belief  of  the  candidate — 

by  any  other  person  or  persons  for  him  or  in  his  behalf,  wholly  or  in  part,  in 
endeavoring  to  secure  or  in  any  way  in  connection  with  his  nomination  or 
election  to  such  office  or  place,  or  in  connection  with  the  election  of  any  other 
person  at  said  election,  the  dates  when,  and  the  persons  to  whom,  and  the 
purpose  for  which  all  said  sums  were  paid,  expended,  or  promised,  and  the  total 
aggregate  sum  paid,  expended,  or  promised  by  such  candidate  in  any  sum  or 
sums  whatever. 

That  is  as  far  as  I need  read.  Were  you  familiar  with  that  in  a 
general  way? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  say  I was  familiar  with  that.  And,  if 
I may  state  further,  I believed 

vSenator  Sutherland.  Then  you  knew  that  the  law  required  that 
within  30  days  after  the  election  Mr.  Stephenson  must  file  a state- 
ment showing  in  his  statement  every  item  which  exceeded  $5,  did 
you  not  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  take  any  pains  to  preserve  infor- 
mation for  Mr.  Stephenson  by  which  he  could  comply  with  that 
statute  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  did  you  do? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  is,  it  was  done  in  the  office,  by  the  man  he 
had  employed  to  do  that,  Mr.  Sacket. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  gave  to  an  agent — and  I take  Mr. 
Riordan  as  an  example  again — the  sum  of  $2,300  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Which  greatly  exceeds  $5? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  you  put  that  $2,300  in  his  hands,  sim- 
ply telling  him  to  spend  it,  to  use  it,  in  the  interest  of  Mr.  Stephen- 
son’s candidacy? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Without  any  sort  of  requirement  that  he 
should  keep  an  account  of  how  he  spent  it,  to  whom  he  paid  it,  or 
to  preserve  a record  of  any  of  the  circumstances  which  the  statute 
requires ; that  is  true,  is  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I believe  I assumed  that  these  men  understood  the 
law  as  well  as  I,  and  that  in  the  records  in  the  office,  as  they  were 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


293 


kept  by  the  office  manager,  the  items  that  we  expended  from  the 
office,  could  be  explained  in  detail. 

Senator  Sutherland.  But,  Mr.  Edmonds,  the  office  manager  him- 
self could  not  know  how  Riordan  was  spending  the  money,  could  he  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No;  neither  could  I. 

Senator  Sutherland.  The  only  man  who  would  know  about  that 
would  be  Riordan  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Certainly. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  the  law  requires  that  in  that  case  Mr. 
Stephenson  shall  state  in  his  report  upon  information  and  belief. 
How  can  he  state  upon  information  and  belief  unless  the  informa- 
tion be  preserved  for  him  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Only  in  this  way,  Senator:  By  getting  from  me 
the  information  that  I had ; but  there  was  no  possibility  of  my  get- 
ting information  from  Mr.  Riordan  or  others;  he  could  get  that 
from  them  as  well  as  I could.  I did  not  have  to  make  the  report. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Now,  Mr.  Edmonds,  do  you  not  see  that 
under  that  construction  or  view  of  the  matter  you  might  have  turned 
over  the  whole  $107,000  to  Mr.  Riordan  and  said,  “ Go  out  and  spend 
this  in  Mr.  Stephenson’s  interest  in  the  State,”  and  there  would 
have  been  no  way  in  the  world  for  Mr.  Stephenson  to  have  known, 
unless  accounts  were  preserved,  how  that  $107,000  was  expended  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  never  occurred  to  me  that  that  would  be  possible 
or  probable. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  you  not  see  that  that  could  have  been 
done  in  your  view  of  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I can  understand  that;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  it  did  happen  with  reference  to 
amounts  as  large,  I think,  as  $3,500  in  one  instance? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I believe  so — $3,200. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Is  it  the  fact  that  you  and  the  other  man- 
agers of  Mr.  Stephenson  simply  handed  out  this  money  to  these 
various  agents,  leaving  them  to  spend  it  as  they  pleased,  and  that 
you  did  not  desire  to  know  how  they  spent  it  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  is  not  true,  Senator ; no,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is  not  true? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  from  any  source  learn  how  the 
money  was  being  spent  during  the  canvass? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  except  as  I have  stated,  as  these  men  would 
come  in  and  talk  over  what  they  were  doing. 

Senator  Sutherland.  From  other  sources  than  the  men  themselves 
did  you  learn  how  the  money  was  being  spent  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  I think  in  instances  other  men  from  those  same 
counties  would  come  in. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Come  in  and  tell  you  how  money  was  being 
spent  in  Stephenson’s  interest,  do  }^ou  mean  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No;  I should  say  I would  hardly  go  as  far  as  that.  I 
have  known  of  men  coming  in  from  these  counties  and  complaining 
that  the  work  was  not  being  sufficiently  done  in  the  counties. 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  complaints  did  they  make  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  For  instance,  that  the  literature  was  not  out;  that 
the  posters  of  other  candidates  had  been  put  up  in  those  localities  and 


294 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Senator  Stephenson’s  had  not;  and  why  was  not  organizing  being 
done  there  ? 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  get  information  at  any  time  that 
money  which  had  been  intrusted  to  these  agents  was  being  spent  about 
saloons  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  For  the  purpose  of  purchasing  liquors  and 
cigars  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No  one  ever  reported  that  to  me. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  ever  hear  that  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No.  If  it  had,  I would  not  have  been  surprised, 
however.  It  is  customary. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  would  not  have  been  surprised? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir.  It  is  customary  in  this  State. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  They  were  all  at  it,  wrere  they  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  ever  hear  that  a sum  approximating 
$37,000  of  this  $107,000,  had  been  spent  in  that  way  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I certainly  did  not. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Never  heard  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No;  $30,000? 

Senator  Sutherland.  Yes. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Have  you  ever  seen  the  report  which  was 
made  by  the  joint  senatorial  primary  investigation  committee- of  the 
Wisconsin  Legislature? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir ; I never  read  it. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I call  your  attention  to  a statement  made  in 
that  report,  beginning  at  page  9,  under  the  head  of  “ Expense  ac- 
counts,” in  which,  speaking  of  the  expense  account  of  Senator  Ste- 
phenson, showing  a total  expenditure  of  $107,000  and  more,  after 
stating  that  50  per  cent  was  spent  for  organizing  work,  that  more 
than  75  per  cent  of  the  total  amount  was  disbursed  within  30  days 
prior  to  primary  election  day,  they  say : 

Of  the  60  per  cent  spent  for  organization  purposes  it  is  difficult  to  ascertain 
from  the  expense  account  or  from  the  testimony  the  exact  proportion  used  by 
the  different  classifications  of  expense.  An  approximate  estimate,  based  upon 
the  whole  testimony  with  regard  to  the  Stephenson  campaign,  would  lead  your 
committee  to  believe  that  probably  more  than  $20,000  was  spent  for  ward  and 
poll  work,  more  than  $10,000  was  used  for  traveling  and  incidental  expenses  by 
the  various  men  engaged  in  organization  work,  and  more  than  $30,000  was  mis- 
appropriated and  spent  for  treating  to  beer,  liquor,  and  cigars  in  saloons  and 
elsewhere. 

Had  you  ever  heard  that  statement  before? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I never  have. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Was  your  attention  never  called  to  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  This  is  the  first  I ever  heard  of  it.  I would  like — 
may  I state? 

Senator  Sutherland.  We  shall  be  very  glad  to  have  you  state. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I simply  wanted  to  say  that  it  is  not  surprising  that 
any  statement,  no  matter  how  biased,  might  be  made  by  that  investi- 
gating committee,  which  was  a partisan  one — a committee  appointed 
by  a senate  unalterably,  absolutely,  opposed  at  all  times  to  the  elec- 
tion of  Senator  Stephenson — who  made  their  investigations,  I be- 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


295 


lieve,  without  an  idea  of  fairness  or  justice,  but  for  political  effect  in 
this  State. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Is  that  correct,  Mr.  Edmonds  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  I would  be  willing  to  stand  by  it. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Were  there  two  investigating  committees, 
and  was  this  matter  investigated  twice  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir ; there  were  two. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Was  the  first  investigating  committee  made 
up  of  people  who  were  not  unfriendly  to  Mr.  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  the  senate,  no ; and  in  the  assembly,  yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  In  the  assembly  the  members  of  the  commit- 
tee were  not  unfriendly  to  Mr.  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  you  mean  by  that  that  the  members  of 
the  committee  from  the  State  senate  were  unfriendly  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  From  the  State  senate  were  unfriendly. 

Senator  Sutherland.  So  you  would  expect  a report  made  by  the 
members  of  the  assembly  not  to  be  unjust  to  Mr.  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  If  that  statement  were  made  by  the  members  of  the 
assembly,  I would  certainly  consider  it  not  unjust,  to  the  best  of  their 
knowledge  and  belief. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  know  Senator  Husting? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Was  he  one  of  the  men  that  you  say  was 
unfriendly  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Absolutely  so. 

Senator  Sutherland.  This  report  recites  that  “ at  a meeting  duly 
called  by  William  M.  Bray,  chairman  of  the  assembly  committee,  and 
held  in  Madison  March  18,  1910,  at  which  the  following  members  of 
the  joint  committee  were  present : Senator  Paul  O.  Husting  ” — he  was 
a member  of  the  senate — “ William  M.  Bray,  George  P.  Hambrecht, 
Platt  Whitman,  and  John  C.  Chappie  ”■ — they  wTere  all  members  of 
the  assembly,  were  they  not  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  The  latter  four. 

Senator  Sutherland.  All  but  Husting  were  members  of  the  house  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  The  other  two  members  from  the  senate  were 
Spencer  M.  Marsh  and  Thomas  Morris  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Who,  you  will  observe,  were  not  present. 
Only  Mr.  Husting,  of  the  senate,  and  the  four  assembly  members  were 
present.  Then  it  proceeds : “ The  following  report  was  adopted, 
Senator  Husting  dissenting  ” — so  that  the  report,  you  see,  was  made 
only  by  members  of  the  assembly. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Who,  you  say,  were  not  unfriendly  to  Mr. 
Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Not  unfriendly;  no,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Now,  in  view  of  that,  what  do  you  say  as  to 
this  statement? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  say  that  those  men  endeavored,  in  their  best 
judgment,  to  determine  the  truth. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  yet  these  men,  who  you  now  say  were 
not  unfriendly  to  Mr.  Stephenson,  report  that,  in  their  opinion,  based 


296 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


upon  the  whole  testimony,  there  was  $30,000  misappropriated  and 
spent  in  treating  to  beer,  liquor,  and  cigars  in  saloons  and  elsewhere? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Just  a moment.  I beg  leave  to  inquire  of  the 
Senator — I do  not  suppose  there  is  any  hypothesis  upon  which  this 
report  is  evidence  before  the  subcommittee,  is  there  ? 

Senator  Sutherland.  It  is  not  now. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Can  it  ever  be?  Can  the  conclusion  of  a com- 
mittee on  the  part  of  the  Wisconsin  Legislature  ever  be  evidence 
before  this  subcommittee  as  to  conclusions  which  they  undertake  to 
reach  ? 

Senator  Sutherland.  I would  not  undertake  to  say  about  that,  Mr. 
Littlefield.  Of  course,  you  are  aware  of  the  rule  that  I have  a right 
to  call  a witness’s  attention  to  any  document  and  ask  him  about  it  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Certainly;  I appreciate  the  situation.  But  I 
simply  make  that  suggestion. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I am  trying  to  get  the  facts  about  this  case. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I have  no  doubt  about  that,  Senator. 

Mr.  Sutherland.  And  I am  having  recourse  to  any  information 
I can  get  in  order  to  probe  the  recollection  of  this  witness. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Of  course,  I did  not  think  for  a minute  that  the 
Senator  supposed  that  that  report  would  be  evidence.  But  I think 
perhaps  we  ought  to  say  this,  representing  Senator  Stephenson:  Of 
course,  there  is  a great  deal  of  this  material  that  comes  from  this 
committee,  and  even  both  of  them,  if  I am  any  judge  of  the  weight 
of  evidence,  that  has  not  any  foundation  in  the  record — and  I have 
not  any  suggestion  to  make  about  the  scope  of  the  examination  on  that 
line — but,  of  course,  if  it  should  develop  that  it  took  such  an  atti- 
tude in  the  case  as  to  reach  a position  where  it  could  be  treated  as 
evidence,  it  would  be  a very  grave  injustice  to  Senator  Stephen- 
son. As  to  this  particular  remark  here,  the  reason  why  I call  atten- 
tion to  it  is  that  while  I have  not  read  every  word  of  this  original 
record,  I have  gone  through  the  whole  of  it  except  the  last  two  or 
three  hundred  pages  of  the  senate  investigating  committee  proceed- 
ings, and  I know  there  is  nothing  but  guesswork  on  the  part  of  that 
committee  that  authorizes  it  to  state  that  $30,000  was  misappro- 
priated. There  is  not  any  evidence  in  the  case  that  enables  them  to 
make  any  such  computation  or  that  any  such  proportion  was  spent 
in  saloons  and  for  cigars.  I know  enough  of  the  record  to  know  that 
that  speculation  or  guess  of  the  committee  is  simply  a pure  guess, 
and  what  I regret  is  to  have  the  Senator  embarrassed  by  those 
things. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Pardon  me,  Mr.  Littlefield.  I think  I had 
better  proceed  with  the  examination. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  Senator  appreciates  my  position,  of  course? 

Senator  Sutherland.  I understand  your  position,  and  I under- 
stand mine.  This  document,  I tell  the  witness,  is  a report  of  a 
committee  which,  he  says,  was  not  unfavorable  to  Senator  Stephen- 
son. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  is  true. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Now,  with  that  understanding,  what  do  you 
say  as  to  the  truth  of  that  statement  that  $30,000  was  used  for  the 
purpose  which  they  state — buying  liquors,  and  so  on  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  do  not  know? 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


297 


Mr.  Edmonds.  You  asked  me  what  I would  say. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Have  you  never  heard  that  charge  made 
before  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I never  heard  that  charge  made  before. 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  do  you  say  as  to  the  estimate  that 
probably  $20,000  was  spent  for  ward  and  poll  work;  do  you  know 
anything  about  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  I do  not. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Have  you  any  judgment  as  to  the  aggregate 
amount  of  money  which  you  spent  and  which  is  accounted  for  in  the 
statements  under  the  head  of  “ general  ” expense  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Except  by  the  statement;  no,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Would  it  be  as  much  as  $12,000? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I would  not  think  so. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Does  the  Senator  refer  now  to  this  statement 
that  they  have  been  testifying  about? 

Senator  Sutherland.  Yes. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  As  I have  run  over  it  I would  not  think  there  would 
be  any  such  amount  as  that. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Give  me  an  approximate  idea  of  about  what 
it  would  be. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I remember  several  items  of  $200  or  $250  that  are 
unexplained.  I would  not  think  that  they  would  add  up  more  than 
from  $2,000  to  $3,000. 

Senator  Sutherland.  How  much? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I would  say  from  $2,000  to  $3,000  without  looking  it 
over  again.  I did  not  add  it  up  as  I went  through  it. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Would  you  be  surprised  to  know  that  it 
totaled  as  much  as  $10,000? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  General  items,  not  otherwise  expended? 

Senator  Sutherland.  Yes. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I certainly  would. 

Senator  Sutherland.  General  expense,  general  campaign  expense, 
under  that  general  designation ; either  called  “ general  expense  ” or 
“ general  ” or  “ general  campaign  expense  ”? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  With  no  further  explanation? 

Senator  Sutherland.  With  no  further  explanation. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I would  be  very  much  surprised. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  would  be  surprised? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  think  no  more  than  about  $3,000? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think  it  ran  over  that,  from  my  memory  of 
the  items. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  say  you  talked  over  the  matter  of  ex- 
penditures with  Sacket  about  the  time  this  account  was  up,  as  I 
understood  you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir.  The  only  way  in  which  I talked  it  over 
with  him  was  that  he  and  Mr.  Puelicher  asked  me  to  help,  or  sug- 
gested that  I help  make  up  the  report  with  them,  and  I told  them 
that  I could  not,  that  that  was  a matter  in  their  hands. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I understood  you  to  say — and  I made  a note 
of  it  at  the  time— that  you  had  talked  over  the  expenditures  with 
Sacket  about  the  time  the  account  was  made  up  ? 


298 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Mr.  Edmonds.  In  that  way  I talked  it  over,  and  I do  not  recall 
what  else  was  said  at  that  time. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  talk  it  over  with  Sacket? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall  anything  further  being  said  on  it 
than  that  particular  statement. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  have  a conference  with  Sacket  and 
Puelicher  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir;  at  which  time  they  asked  me  to  help  make 
up  the  report. 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  was  the  purpose  of  that  conference? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  They  asked  me  to  make  up  the  report. 

Senator  Sutherland.  As  to  the  expenditures? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  To  determine  the  items  of  expenditures? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  The  items  to  go  into  this  report ; yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  To  enable  them  to  make  up  the  account  for 
Mr.  Stephenson  to  file? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  endeavor  at  that  conference  to  as- 
certain the  various  items  of  expenditure,  and  talk  that  matter  over? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  I did  not  go  into  it  at  all. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  not  go  into  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir.  I do  not  think  we  talked  five  minutes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I want  to  ask  you  another  question  or  two 
about  Mr.  Stone,  who  was  the  game  warden.  You  mean  the  State 
game  warden  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  had  under  him  how  many  deputies  in 
the  State? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall,  but  something  like  one  for  each 
county. 

Senator  Sutherland.  One  for  each  county— about  71.  Were  they 
men  who  were  influential  in  politics  in  the  various  counties  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I was  not  personally  acquainted  with  them,  but  I 
should  presume  they  were  reasonably  familiar;  yes,  sir.  That  had 
been  the  custom  in  years  past. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Was  it  generally  understood  at  that  time 
that  this  body  of  deputies  constituted  a pretty  effective  political 
machine  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  As  to  that,  I am  not  sure.  I had  not  had  any  con- 
nection with  politics  since  1902. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  question  is,  Had  you  heard  that  they  con- 
stituted an  effective  political  machine? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I believed  that  to  be  the  case  at  that  time. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Had  you  heard  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know  that  I had. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Had  not  heard  it,  or  do  not  know  that  you  had. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  believed  it.  Why  did  you  believe  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  From  the  fact  that  when  I was  in  politics  it  was  a 
very  effective  force. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Then  you  had  heard  that  it  was  effective  at 
some  time  or  other? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I knew  it  to  be  so  in  the  earlier  years  when  I was 
in  politics. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


299 


Senator  Sutherland.  How  did  you  know  it — by  having  heard 
it,  or  having  seen  it,  or  what  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Having  seen  it. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  saw  the  machine  in  operation? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I have  seen  the  individuals  working. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  you  knew  it  was  a pretty  effective 
political  machine? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  Mr.  Stone  was  at  the  head  of  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  was  at  this  time ; yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I think  you  said  it  had  been  used,  to  your 
knowledge,  at  other  times  in  the  politics  of  the  State  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I am  pretty  sure  it  had. 

Senator  Sutherland.  A very  effective  organization? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  A very  effective  organization. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And,  knowing  that,  you  got  in  communica- 
tion with  Mr.  Stone? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Mr.  Stone  called  on  me ; yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  ask  him  for  the  names  of  his  as- 
sistants who  were  friendly  to  Mr.  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall  whether  I asked  him  or  whether  he 
volunteered. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  got  the  information,  at  any  rate? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I am  quite  sure  I understood  some  of  the  names,  of 
some  of  them  who  were  friendly  to  the  Senator  and  some  who  were 
not ; yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Without  recalling  the  names  now,  you  re- 
member that  you  did  get  the  names  at  that  time  of  those  who  were 
friendly  to  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  When  you  say  “get  them,”  I am  quite  sure  they 
were  gone  over,  and  I understood  he  named  some,  but  I was  not  ac- 
quainted with  more  than  one  or  two  of  them. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I mean  get  them,  in  the  sense  that  the  infor- 
mation came  to  you. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir;  either  verbally  or 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  you  also  got  the  names  of  those  who 
were  unfriendly  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  So  that  you  had  the  two  classes  before  you, 
did  you  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Only  so  far  as  I could  remember  them.  Of  course 
any  man  whose  name  I remembered  I know. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I do  not  ask  you  to  remember  them  now,  but 
you  remember  now  that  at  the  time  you  did  get  the  information  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes.  But  what  I am  trying  to  explain  is,  at  that 
time  when  he  went  over  it  I certainly  understood,  but  not  knowing 
the  individuals  it  is  very  possible  that  I could  not  remember  all  the 
political  relations  of  each  of  them. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Why  were  you  getting  that  information  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I wanted  the  names  of  the  men  who  were  friendly 
to  Senator  Stephenson.  I did  not  care  about  those  who  were  opposed 
to  him. 

Senator  Sutherland.  But  why  the  names  of  the  deputy  game 
wardens  who  were  friendly? 


300 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Mr.  Edmonds.  For  the  same  reason  that  I would  like  to  know  in 
all  communities  the  names  of  those  active  workers. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  seem  to  have  entered  into  a classification 
in  this  case,  getting  the  names  of  game  wardens  who  were  friendly  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir.  I say  I do  not  know  whether  I asked  for 
them  or  whether  they  were  volunteered,  but  I secured  them  at  that 
time. 

Senator  Sutherland.  But,  whether  volunteered  or  not,  why  was 
it  given  to  you ; what  was  the  purpose  of  having  it  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  So  that  I would  know  those  who  were  friendly  to 
Senator  Stephenson.  We  did  not  want  to  employ  any  men  to  help 
Senator  Stephenson  who  were  opposed  to  him. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Was  it  not  sufficient  for  you  to  know  their 
names  as  individuals  without  knowing  that  they  were  game  wardens? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Certainly;  but  most  naturally  lists  of  names  or 
names  of  men  that  a particular  man  would  give  me  would  be  those 
with  whom  he  was  most  closely  associated. 

Sentaor  Sutherland.  When  was  it  you  gave  Mr.  Stone  the  $2,500, 
before  or  after  this  conversation  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  After. 

Senator  Sutherland.  After? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  is,  I think  the  same  day,  as  I recall. 

Senator  Sutherland.  How  did  you  fix  the  amount  of  $2,500? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  My  recollection  is  that  either  Senator  Stephenson 
informed  me  or  else  Mr.  Stone  informed  me  that  that  was  the 
amount  to  be  paid  him. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Which  was  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I can  not  recall  now. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  make  the  arrangement  or  did  Mr. 
Stephenson  make  it  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  My  present  recollection  is  that  Mr.  Stephenson 
made  the  agreement  with  Mr.  Stone;  Mr.  Stone  had  seen  him. 

Senator  Sutherland.  For  the  $2,500? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  But  as  to  just  how  far  that  went,  I am  not  positive 
now.  I do  not  want  to  do  Mr.  Stephenson  an  injustice  by  saying 
that  he  made  it  if  Mr.  Stone  reported  that  that  was  the  amount 
agreed  upon  when  we  talked. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Then  I understand  you  to  say  that  you  do 
not  know  why  it  was  $2,500  rather  than  some  other  sum? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Except  that  that  was  the  amount  that  Mr.  Stone 
thought  was  advisable  to  put  in  his  hands;  that  he  could  use  to 
advantage  or  because  of  the  information  received  from  Senator 
Stephenson ; which  lam  not  sure. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  }mu  not  exercise  any  judgment  your- 
self as  to  what  amount  should  be  paid  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  that  particular  case ; no,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  did  not  in  any  case,  did  you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I certainly  did. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  did  exercise  judgment  as  to  the  amount 
to  be  paid  to  some  of  the  individuals? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  But  not  in  this  case? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Not  in  this  case. 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  was  this  $2,500  to  be  spent  for? 


E.  A.  EDMONDS.  301 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  was  to  be  spent  for  organization  in  behalf  of 
Senator  Stephenson. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Organization  by  whom? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  the  counties  and  towns  where  these  people  were. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Where  what  people  were? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Where  these  men  whose  names  he  talked  with  me 
about  were. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Where  the  game  wardens  were? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I assume  so ; yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  you  mean  to  be  spent  with  the  game 
wardens  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  By  the  game  wardens  or  in  such  manner  as  he  saw 
fit  to  distribute  it. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  you  mean  that  the  $2,500  was  by  Mr. 
Stone  to  be  distributed  among  the  deputy  game  wardens? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  was  not  talked.  It  was  understood 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  was  your  understanding  about  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  My  understanding  was  that  I placed  $2,500  in  his 
hands  to  use  as  he  saw  fit. 

Senator  Sutherland.  With  whom? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Presumably  by  the  game  wardens,  though  I am  not 
positive  as  to  that  now. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Am  I correct  in  saying  that  it  was  your 
understanding  that  the  $2,500  was  to  be  distributed  by  Mr.  Stone 
among  the  deputy  game  wardens? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  I used  the  word  “ distributed I would 
say  used  by  him  in  such  manner  as  he  thought  best;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Well,  “ used  ”■ — was  he  to  give  it  to  some- 
body else? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Use  it  for  himself? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No;  that  was  not  my  understanding,  at  least. 

Senator  Sutherland.  The  money  ultimately  was  to  be  paid  to 
somebody,  was  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  was  to  be  used ; yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  To  whom  was  it  to  be  paid  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know  to  whom  it  was  to  be  paid ; but  pre- 
sumably to  the  men  with  whom  he  was  associated  in  work. 

Senator  Sutherland.  The  men  with  whom  he  was  associated  were 
the  deputy  game  wardens? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  The  deputy  game  wardens  friendly  to  him  or  to 
Senator  Stephenson. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Then  the  money  was  to  be  by  him  distributed 
among  the  deputy  game  wardens,  was  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  My  recollection  of  that  is  not  clear,  as  to  whether 
it  was  or  not. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Who  else  was  to  get  any  part  of  the  money, 
as  you  understood,  except  the  deputy  game  wardens? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think  we  talked  that  over  at  all,  as  to  how 
the  distribution  was  to  be  made. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  have  any  understanding  on  the 
subject. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  As  to  how  the  distribution  of  money  was  to  be 
made? 


302 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Senator  Sutherland.  Yes. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  part  were  the  deputy  game  wardens 
to  play  in  the  matter  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  They  were  to  do  everything  they  could  to  secure 
Senator  Stephenson’s  nomination. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Were  they  to  have  money  to  expend? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  If  in  his  judgment  that  would  be  wise;  yes,  sir.  I 
placed  no  limitation  on  that. 

Senator  Sutherland.  It  was  left  to  him  then  to  distribute  the 
money  among  the  game  wardens? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir ; if  he  wanted  to. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  expect  that  he  would  use  this  money 
through  anybody  else  than  the  game  wardens  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think  that  was  discussed. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  expect  it  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  believe  I did  at  that  time.  That  is  my  best 
recollection  now. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Was  it  not  your  understanding  that  this  sum 
of  money  was  to  be  expended  through  the  game  wardens  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  so. 

Senator  Sutherland.  In  their  various  communities? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  think  so. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I think  that  is  all  I want  to  ask. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Mr.  Edmonds,  you  have  testified  that  you  knew 
the  provisions  of  this  law  requiring  the  filing  of  an  account.  As  a 
business  man  of  rather  large  affairs,  you  knew  the  necessity  of  keep- 
ing proper  accounts,  did  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  so. 

Senator  Pomerene.  During  this  campaign  Mr.  Van  Cleve  was  act- 
ing as  one  of  the  managers,  was  he  not  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think  I knew  that  at  that  time. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  were  having  constant  communication  with 
him,  were  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think  so,  except  the  day  that  he  was  here  to 
arrange  with  me  to  take  charge  of  the  campaign. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  wrote  him  from  time  to  time  for  money? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think  I ever  communicated  with  him  during 
the  campaign ; no,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Or  Mr.  Puelicher  did  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know  as  to  that.  My  communications  were 
all  with  Mr.  Puelicher. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  had  constant  conversations  with  Mr.  Pue- 
licher, you  said  the  other  day,  when  you  would  go  out  to  dinner 
together  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Very  often;  yes,  sir.  \ 

Senator  Pomerene.  And,  among  other  things,  you  would  talk  over 
the  financial  feature  of  the  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I doubt  that,  unless  there  was  a shortage  of  money, 
because  it  was  supposed 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  have  said  here  this  morning  that  a number 
of  times  there  was  a shortage  of  money? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  So  that  you  did  talk  it  over  at  different  times  ? 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


303 


Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir ; whenever  there  was  a shortage  of  money. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  talked  with  Senator  Stephenson  on  this 
subject,  too,  of  the  amount  of  money  it  was  taking,  did  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  he  was  complaining  a good  deal  about  it, 
was  he  not  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  was. 

Senator  Pomerene.  He  thought  you  were  using  too  much  money  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  did  you  say  to  him  on  that  subject? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I did  not  think  we  were. 

Senator  Pomerene.  When  did  you  first  talk  with  him  on  this 
subject? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  now  recall. 

Senator  Pomerene.  About  when? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  think  two  or  three  weeks  after  I had— 
perhaps  two  weeks 

Senator  Pomerene.  After  that  time  of  the  first  conversation  on 
the  subject  of  the  expenditure  of  money,  how  much  had  you  in  fact 
expended  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I have  not  the  slightest  idea. 

Senator  Pomerene.  About  how  much? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know.  The  only  way  that  could  be  deter- 
mined— I think  it  was  slightly  before  the  $30,000  check  appears  to 
have  been  sent,  but  I do  not  recall  when  that  was  or  how  much  had 
been  spent  up  to  that  time. 

Senator  Pomerene.  It  seems  from  the  memoranda  I have  that 
this  $30,000  check  was  given  on  August  T,  and  up  to  that  time,  in 
round  numbers,  there  was  expended  $52,000;  it  was  about  that  time 
that  you  had  this  conversation  with  him  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds,  Shortly  before  that;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Now  tell  us  what  the  Senator  said  and  what 
you  said  to  him. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I can  not  recall  anything  except  in  a general  way. 
The  substance  of  it  was  that  we  needed  more  money  to  organize  in 
the  counties. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  else  was  said? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  thought  the  amount — no;  I wrote  him  a letter. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Have  you  a copy  of  that  letter  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  receive  an  answer  from  him? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  By  letter? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  How? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  it  was  confirmed  by  letter;  a telephone  com- 
munication. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  did  he  say  to  you  by  telephone? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  said  the  money  would  be  in  the  bank  the  next 
day  or  that  day. 

Senator  Pomerene.  But  he  then  said  something  to  you  about  this 
taking  too  much  money,  did  he  not  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Possibly  he  did. 


304 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Senator  Pomerene.  Did  he  not  say  to  you  in  effect  that  you  were 
too  extravagant  in  your  expenditures? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No;  I do  not  think  he  criticized  me  as  broadly  as 
that. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  was  an  inference  you  could  reasonably 
draw  from  what  he  said? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  believed  this:  That  there  was  too  much  money 
being  expended  in  the  campaign,  more  than  was  necessary  in  order 
to  elect  him.  My  contention  was  that  it  was  necessary,  in  order  to 
get  out  a full  vote,  to  spend  the  money  that  was  expended. 

Senator  Pomerene.  At  that  particular  time  when  you  found  that 
he  was  complaining  of  the  amount  of  money  that  you  had  expended, 
did  it  not  dawn  upon  your  mind  that  it  would  be  wise  for  you  to 
keep  an  accurate  account  of  all  expenditures? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think  that  thought  was  suggested  to  me 
by  my  talk  at  all. 

Senator  Pomerene.  It  never  occurred  to  you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think  it  was  suggested  by  my  talk  with  him 
at  all  at  the  time. 

Senator  Pomerene.  How  did  you  expect  the  Senator  to  be  able  to 
file  his  account  when  you  had  kept  no  account? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I believed  at  the  time  that  the  means  in  the  office 
by  which  he  was  to  receive  an  account  were  adequate  to  enable  him 
to  make  the  report,  and  believe  so  now. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  talk  with  Sacket  on  that  subject? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  As  to  how  he  was  doing  it  ? 

Senator  Pomerene.  Yes. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Never  attempted  to  see  whether  the  form  of 
his  account  was  sufficient? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Or  anything  about  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  was  a matter  between  him  and  the  Senator. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  stated  the  other  day  that  in  some  instances 
you  made  arrangement  with  your  county  managers  as  to  the  amount 
of  their  personal  compensation,  and  in  answer  to  a question  you  said 
then  that  you  had  that  arrangement  with  about  half  of  them? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  was  an  estimate;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  would  be  about  35.  At  my  request  you 
gave  the  names  of  some  of  the  men  at  least  with  whom  you  had  this 
arrangement  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  As  I recollected  them ; yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  This  is  the  list,  I believe,  that  you  fur- 
nished me? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I believe  so. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  it  seems  that  there  are  14  names  on  that 
list;  that  would  be  about  one-fifth  of  your  managers? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  If  we  had  TO. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Was  there  not  one  for  each  county? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  From  my  best  recollection  and  looking  over  the 
statement,  I should  say  not,  though  I thought  at  the  time  there  was. 
I say  one  for  each  county,  but  you  will  remember  that  one  man  had 
seven  counties,  and  in  another  instance  six  or  seven,  and  in  another 
instance  three  or  four. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


305 


Senator  Pomerene.  And  in  some  instances,  if  I remember  correctly, 
you  had  some  general  managers  in  addition  to  your  local  managers 
in  each  county? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Local  managers  in  each  county;  no  men  who  went 
out  from  the  office. 

Senator  Pomerene.  In  that  section  of  the  State,  for  instance,  where 
there  was  one  man  with  five  or  six  or  seven  counties,  you  had,  in 
addition  to  him,  in  those  counties,  local  managers,  had  you  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  If,  in  his  judgment,  he  chose  them;  but  I was  not 
acquainted  with  them,  as  a rule. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  also  stated  that  when  you  had  an  arrange- 
ment for  special  compensation  for  these  managers  you  reported  that 
fact  to  Mr.  Sacket? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  so. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  report  that  fact  to  Mr.  Sacket  with 
respect  to  each  of  these  names  that  you  have  furnished  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall  now.  I presume  I did. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  was  your  purpose  in  doing  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  So  that  he  would  be  acquainted  with  the  conditions, 
as  I was. 

Senator  Pomerene.  So  that  he  could  keep  his  accounts  properly  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Do  you  know  whether  he  made  a memorandum 
at  the  time  you  would  make  these  reports  to  him  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No;  I do  not. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Do  you  know  why  these  amounts  do  not  appear 
separately  in  the  account  that  was  filed  with  the  secretary  of  state? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I have  not  the  slightest  idea. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  have  any  talk  with  him  on  the  subject? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Never. 

Senator  Pomerene.  When  did  you  first  discover  there  was  nothing 
in  the  account  indicating  that  these  several  amounts  were  for  the 
personal  compensation  of  the  different  managers? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  never  appealed  to  me  that  it  had  not  been  sepa- 
rated. I had  never  thought  of  it  until  you  mentioned  it  here. 

Senator  Pomerene.  It  occurs  to  you  now  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  There  is  no  such  separation  of  it  that  I have  seen; 
no,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  stated  that  occasionally  you  did  make  a 
memorandum  and  have  it  on  your  desk  as  to  what  your  arrangement 
was  with  some  of  these  men.  Am  I correct  in  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall — possibly. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  is  the  fact,  is  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  would  be  probable  that  I had.  I am  not  certain 
of  any  instance. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  Senator  Stephenson  did  object  to  the 
amount  that  you  were  expending  from  time  to  time.  Did  it  not  occur 
to  you  that  it  might  be  of  some  importance  to  keep  memoranda  that 
you  had  made,  so  that  you  might  render  an  account  to  him  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  did  not  occur  to  me,  because  I believed  that  to  be 
done  fully  in  the  office. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I think  that  is  all. 


15235°— vol  1—11 20 


306 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


The  Chairman.  In  connection  with  the  testimony  which  the  wit- 
ness first  gave  to-day  we  will  have  the  statement  which  he  furnished 
marked  and  inserted  in  the  record. 

(The  statement  referred  to  was  marked  “Exhibit  Edmonds  A,” 
and  is  in  words  and  figures  as  follows:) 

Exhibit  Edmonds  A. 

[List  of  Items  selected  by  Mr.  Edmonds  from  Exhibit  49,  p.  588,  Jt.  Tes.] 


Clark  County,  J.  H.  Frank $100.  00 

City  of  Portage,  J.  H.  Wells 200. 00 

Medford,  W.  Phlughoeft 126.00 

Rock  County,  W.  G.  Wheeler 600.  00 

General,  Henry  Overbeck 71.  79 

Portage  County,  J.  D.  Curran 250. 00 

J.  T.  Sexton 50. 12 

Racine  County,  J.  R.  Jones 100.  00 

Barron  County,  A.  T.  Hulbert 100.  00 

Oconto  County,  George  Beyer 300.  00 

Iowa  County,  J.  N.  Riece 50. 00 

Middleton,  D.  F.  Sherbel 32.  08 

Fond  du  Lac  County,  R.  H.  Morse 250.  00 

Distributing  posters,  M.  P.  Edwards 12.  00 

General 220.  00 

Eau  Claire  County,  J.  T.  Joyce 50.  00 

Advertising,  H.  H.  Morgan 73.  00 

Jefferson  County,  George  Kispert 50.  00 

Distributing  posters,  M.  T.  Park 15.  00 

Appleton,  C.  C.  Whalen 300. 00 

Chippewa  County,  M.  C.  Ring 125.  00 

General,  D.  H.  Grady 15.  00 

Racine  County,  J.  R.  Jones 150.  00 

Advertising,  C.  E.  Smith 56.00 

General,  W.  E.  Powell 44.  00 

Ozaukee,  C.  O.  Larson 254.  80 

Richland  County,  N.  L.  James 200.00 

Kenosha  County,  Fred  Reinold 111.  05 

Milwaukee  County,  R.  J.  White 150.  00 

General 94. 02 

Racine  County,  J.  R.  Jones 183.  50 

Fond  du  Lac  County,  E.  A.  Morse 27.  00 

New  Medford,  W.  Pflughhoeft 125.  00 

Appleton,  G.  A.  Dettman 25.  00 

Clark  County,  J.  H.  Frank 1 225.  00 

Distributing  posters,  J.  J.  Knelling 14.  75 

General 191.  85 

General,  Henry  Overbeck 100.  00 

Iron  County,  A.  L.  Osborn 154. 00 

Advertising,  Superior,  Tidente 150.  00 

Oconomowoc,  A.  N.  Jones 150. 00 

Items  passed  yesterday  and  not  checked  by  me,  though  possibly  accounted 
for  during  the  examination : 

Advertising,  J.  M.  Rice,  page  594 $100.  00 

Richland  County,  N.  L.  James 300.  00 

Richland,  G.  L.  Miner,  page  593 300.  00 

Calumet,  Frank  Ekland,  page  593 25. 00 

Ashland,  D.  G.  Sampson,  page  593 100.  00 

Juneau  County,  J.  T.  Hanson,  page  592 250.  00 

Juneau  County,  J.  T.  Hanson,  page  592 150.00 

Baraboo,  O.  L.  Gust,  page  593 18.  00 


The  Chairman.  We  will  also  have  offered  in  evidence  Exhibit 
49  in  the  State  investigation,  to  which  reference  has  been  made 
throughout  the  testimony  of  this  witness. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS.  307 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  the  Exhibit  49  that  appears  in  the  pro- 
ceedings before  the  Wisconsin  Legislature? 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  from  pages  588  to  612.  I do  not  know  that 
it  is  necessary  to  offer  these  at  all,  because  the  committee  has  the 
power  to  put  them  in  the  record  without  any  formal  offer. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Of  course  by  making  a formal  offer  it  gives  us 
notice  of  what  is  going  into  the  record. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I suggest  that  in  copying  the  exhibit  referred 
to,  Exhibit  49,  so  called,  the  reporter  keep  distinct  the  original  pag- 
ing of  the  different  sheets,  so  that  each  page  will  be  by  itself. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Mr.  Chairman,  perhaps  attention  ought  to  be 
called  to  the  fact  that  Exhibit  49  is  in  some  instances  different 
from  anything  like  a literal  and  reasonably  accurate  copy  of  what 
was  evidently  filed  by  Mr.  Sacket.  We  may  go  into  that  a little 
more  in  detail  later.  There  are  numerous  instances  where  we  have 
had  to  make  changes  during  the  testimony. 

I want  to  call  attention  also  in  reference  to  Exhibit  Edmonds  A, 
which  has  just  been  furnished  this  morning  by  Mr.  Edmonds,  to  the 
fact  that  whoever  copied  it  for  him  has  succeeded  in  making  a mis- 
take in  it.  An  item  is  noted  under  date  of  August  31,  in  Exhibit  49, 
for  instance,  “Appleton,  E.  A.  E.,  C.  C.  Wayland,  $300.”  In  Exhibit 
Edmonds  A,  to  which  reference  has  just  been  made,  the  typewritten 
memorandum  furnished  by  Mr.  Edmonds  this  morning,  that  appears 
as  “ C.  C.  Whalen.” 

The  Chairman.  This  typewritten  statement  was  furnished  us  by 
the  witness,  Mr.  Edmonds,  and  of  course  if  there  are  any  obvious  or 
manifest  errors  committed  by  his  transcribing  clerk  they  may  be 
remedied. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I intend  to  go  over  this  in  detail  with  him  later. 

Senator  Pomerene.  If  there  are  any  particular  corrections  which 
should  be  made,  I think  they  should  be  called  to  the  attention  of  the 
committee  later  on. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  I will  do  that;  but,  of  course,  the  committee 
can  readily  understand  that  they  may  escape  even  our  attention,  with 
the  multiplicity  of  all  of  these  details. 

(Exhibit  49,  referred  to  by  the  chairman,  to  be  inserted  as  a part 
of  the  record,  is  as  follows:) 


EXHIBIT  49. 

July  6 : 

E.  H.  McMahon,  organizing $50.  00 

J.  C.  Miller,  organizing 50.  00 

General  expense,  organizing 100.00 

C.  M.  Ha  mb  right,  organizing 50.00 

July  13 : 

E.  H.  McMahon,  organizing 50.  00 

J.  R.  Keyes,  organizing 25.00 

July  18: 

Dane  County,  organizing 200.  00 

General,  organizing,  Edmonds’s  check 150.  00 

C.  M.  Hambright,  organizing 50.  00 

July  20.  T.  J.  Sexton,  organizing,  C.  D.  No.  93677 50.  00 

July  21 : 

General,  organizing 250. 00 

E.  H.  McMahon,  organizing 50.  00 

J.  R.  Keyes,  organizing : 50  00 

July  22 : 

J.  W.  Wypszinski,  organizing 50.  00 

General,  organizing ; E.  A.  E.,  stamps,  $200 ; G.  Peterson,  $25 225. 00 


308 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


July  23.  General,  organizing,  E.  A.  E $200.  00 

July  24 : 

Advertising,  No.  33308,  T.  F.  Reynolds 100.00 

R.  Rowe,  organizing,  No.  33312 50.  00 

J.  C.  Miller,  organizing 50.  00 

J.  Wypszinski,  organizing,  E.  A.  E 25.  00 

July  27 : 

Clark  County,  organizing,  E.  A.  E.,  Dr.  Frank 150. 

General,  organizing,  E.  A.  E.,  C.  C.  Wayland 100. 

July  28: 

C.  M.  Hambright,  organizing,  C.  D.  No.  93751 50. 

T.  J.  Sexton,  organizing,  C.  D.  No.  93750 50. 

Dane  County,  organizing,  C.  D.  No.  93752,  H.  Lewis 200. 

July  30 : 

Columbia  County,  organizing,  No.  33353,  J.  B.  Marshall 50. 

F.  Reinold,  organizing,  No.  33354 50. 

Ozaukee  County,  organizing,  No.  33356,  C.  O.  Larson! 25. 

E.  H.  McMahon,  No.  33357 50. 

July  31 : 

J.  R.  Keyes,  No.  33373 25. 

Richland  County,  cash,  L.  Bancroft 250. 

Manitowoc  County,  No.  33374,  A.  J.  Weisman i_  83. 

Aug.  4 : 

C.  M.  Hambright,  C.  D.  No.  93823 50. 

T.  J.  Sexton,  C.  D.  No.  93824 50. 

Advertising,  C.  D.  No.  93828,  J.  L.  Sturtevandt 100. 

Douglas  County,  C.  D.  No.  93825,  S.  L.  Perrin 1,  000. 

La  Crosse  County,  C.  D.  No.  93826,  Geo.  Gordon 1,  300. 

Vilas,  Oneida,  and  Lincoln  Counties,  C.  D.  No.  93827,  D.  E. 

Riordan 1, 300. 

Polk,  Barron,  and  Rusk  Counties,  C.  D.  No.  93829,  L.  B.  Dresser.  300. 
Aug.  5: 

E.  J.  Rogers 50. 

Waupaca  County,  No.  33437,  R.  Rowe 35. 

General,  No.  33436,  C.  C.  Wayland 49. 

J.  R.  Keyes,  No.  33435 25. 

Iowa  County,  No.  33434,  L.  H.  Stevens 28. 

Kewaunee  County 75. 

Aug.  6 : 

Milwaukee  County,  E.  A.  E.,  J.  T.  Kelley 500. 

Oconto,  No.  33452,  J.  Livermore 50. 

Jackson,  No.  33449,  J.  J.  McGillivary 600. 

Ashland,  No.  33448,  Pat  Dormady 50. 

Advertising,  C.  D.,  No.  93862,  R.  J.  Shields 200. 

J.  C.  Miller,  C.  D.,  No.  93861 75. 

Aug.  7 : 

Kewaunee  County 100. 

Racine  County 100. 

General,  No.  33468,  C.  C.  Wayland 250. 

Advertising,  No.  33459,  M.  C.  Ring 170. 

Aug.  8: 

General,  No.  33474,  E.  A.  Edmonds 250. 

General 250. 

Outagamie  County,  No.  33469,  G.  Dettmann 50. 

Grant  County,  No.  33470,  O.  L.  Gust 300. 

Manitowoc  County,  No.  33473,  F.  H.  Gehbe 200. 

Dane  County,  No.  33486,  A.  R.  Ames 350. 

J.  R.  Keyes,  No.  33487 50. 

General 150. 

Aug.  10: 

Columbia  and  Adams  Counties,  No.  33506,  C.  H.  Russell 200. 

Ozaukee  County,  No.  33495,  C.  O.  Larson 140. 

Waushara  County,  No.  33493,  R.  H.  Iiowe^ 19. 

General 150. 

Aug.  12: 

Browne  County 250. 

General,  cash,  J.  W.  Stone 2,  500. 


38  888  8888  388  88888  88  883888  888888  8888  88888888  8888  88 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


309 


Aug.  12 — Continued. 

General,  receipt,  Hugo  Franke 

La  Crosse  County,  No.  33519,  L.  B.  Cox 

T.  J.  Sexton,  No.  33513 

Fond  du  Lac  County,  No.  33518,  C.  D.  Smith 

General,  No.  33517,  L.  B.  Dresser 

Aug.  13: 

Sheboygan  County,  No.  33527,  A.  O.  Heyer 

Green  County,  No.  33528,  R.  A.  Etter 

Brown  County,  No.  33529,  Wm.  Haslem 

Pierce  County,  No.  33530,  O.  O.  Halls 

Rusk  County,  No.  33532,  L.  E.  McGill 

Dane  County,  No.  33531,  T.  Purtell 

Washington  County,  No.  33537,  W.  Batz 

City  of  Superior,  No.  33538,  O.  A.  Berg 

Sheboygan  County,  No.  33546,  E.  A.  Barber 

Rock  County,  No.  33547,  C.  B.  Salmon 

Aug.  14: 

Manitowoc  County,  No.  33553,  A.  J.  Weisman 

Dane  County,  No.  335554,  A.  R.  Ames 

Racine  County,  No.  33560,  J.  R.  Jones 

Oconto  County,  No.  33555,  T.  F.  Reynolds 

T.  J.  Sexton,  No.  33562 

Vernon  County,  No.  33583,  C.  E.  Morley 

Bayfield  County 

Sawyer  County 

Rusk  and  Chippewa 

Dunn,  La  Crosse,  and  Langlade 

Burnette,  Washburn,  and  Vilas 

Polk,  Barron,  and  Florence 

Advertising,  No.  33600,  W.  C.  Bratz 

Ozaukee  County,  No.  33601,  C.  O.  Larson 

Sauk  County,  No.  33602,  U.  C.  Kellar 

Trempealeau  County,  E.  A.  E 

General,  E.  A.  E 

Aug.  18: 

General,  E.  A.  E 

Waukesha  County,  No.  33615,  W.  O.  Roberts 

Ashland  County,  No.  33624,  T.  I.  Laughlin 

Price  and  Taylor  Counties,  No.  33623,  A.  C.  Miller 

Sheboygan  County,  No.  33620,  E.  Voight 

Rusk  County,  No.  33619,  L.  E.  McGill 

Dunn  County,  No.  33626,  E.  F.  Scherbel 

J.  C.  Miller,  No.  33627 

Walworth  and  Kenosha,  No.  33628,  C.  S.  French 

Chippewa  and  Clark,  No.  33629,  M.  C.  Bing 

Waupaca  County,  No.  33632,  R.  H.  Rowe 

Aug.  19 : 

General  (E.  A.  E.,  $200) 

Dane  County,  No.  33626,  H.  H.  Morgan 

Advertising,  No.  33637,  F.  P.  Lamoreaux 

Columbia,  Marquette,  and  Adams  Counties,  No.  33638,  C.  H. 

Russell 

General,  No.  33639,  Hugh  Lewis 1 

Juneau  County,  No.  33640,  J.  T.  Hanson 

Aug.  20: 

J.  R.  Keyes,  No.  33677 

Advertising,  No.  33678,  C.  Bruderle 

Juneau  County,  No.  33681,  J.  T.  Hanson 

Vernon,  Richland,  and  Sauk  Counties,  No.  33687,  G.  W.  Dart — 

Rock  County,  No.  33688,  D.  Atwood,  jr 

Clark  County,  No.  33691  (J.  H.  Franke,  $125) 

Ashland  County,  No.  33692,  P.  Dormady 

Oconto  County,  No.  33694,  M.  J.  Funielle 

Ashland  County — 

Advertising,  No.  33720,  F.  W.  Dangers.  


$100.00 
100.  00 
50. 00 
50.  00 
1,  800.  00 

200.  00 
200.00 
200.  00 
200.00 
200.00 
175.  00 
100.  00 
50.  00 
300.  00 
100.  00 

52.28 

50.00 
350.  00 
100.00 

42.  46 
500.  00 
1 500.  00 
1 500. 00 
1 500.  00 
1 500.  00 
1 500.  00 
1 500.  00 
43.80 

55.00 

50.00 

375.00 

25.00 

100.  00 

150.00 

400.00 

500.00 
76.  50 

250.00 
95.  74 

50.00 
800.  00 

350.00 
25.  40 

300.  00 

226.00 

25.00 


350.  00 
160.  00 

250.00 

48.50 

60.00 

150.00 

400. 00 
50.00 

140.00 

50.00 
100.  00 

15.00 

50.00 


1 No.  33591.  S.  L.  Perrin. 


310 


E.  A.  EDMONDS, 


Aug.  21 : 

Advertising,  No.  33696,  W.  C.  Bratz $21.  66 

General  receipt,  Peter  Deidrich 50.  00 

General  227. 08 

Waukesha  County,  No.  33716,  Harry  Bowmon 150.00 

Trempealeau  County,  No.  33717,  R.  S.  Cowie 150. 00 

Douglas  County,  No.  33718,  J.  W.  Howey 50.  00 

Green  County,  No.  33719,  R.  A.  Etter 100.  00 

La  Crosse  County,  No.  33721,  George  Gordon 200.  00 

Manitowoc  County,  No.  33722,  C.  E.  Brady 500.00 

Columbia  County,  No.  33723,  J.  H.  Wells 200.  00 

Shawano,  No.  33724,  F.  F.  Dolan 400.  00 

Aug.  22: 

E.  J.  Rogers,  No.  33726 300.00 

Grant  County,  No.  33727,  L.  H.  Stevens 300.  00 

Washington  County,  No.  33728,  W.  C.  Bratz 100.  00 

Sheboygan  County,  No.  33729,  A.  O.  Heyer 300.  00 

Ozaukee  County 200.  00 

Waupaca  and  Waushara,  No.  33733,  R.  H.  Rowe 300.  00 

General,  No.  33734,  C.  C.  Wayland 500. 00 

Brown  County,  No.  33725.  L.  A.  Calking 300.  00 

Kewaunee  County,  No.  20729,  F.  H.  Eppling 200.00 

General 300.  00 

Aug.  24,  Fond  du  Lac  County ! 250.  00 

Aug.  25: 

Richland  County,  No.  33762,  G.  L.  Miner 300.  00 

Richland  County,  No.  33764,  N.  L.  James 300.  00 

Rock  County,  No.  33765,  D.  Atwood 100.  00 

Advertising,  No.  33752,  W.  C.  Bratz 43.  50 

Waushara  County,  No.  33757,  R.  H.  Rowe 21. 15 

Taylor  (?)  County,  No.  33753,  J.  Plivelich 35.00 

Aug.  26: 

General,  E.  A.  E.  ($200,  $175,  and  $25) 400.  00 

Advertising  50. 00 

Aug.  27 : 

Columbia  County,  No.  33802,  J.  B.  Marshall 100.  00 

Monroe  County,  No.  33815,  E.  W.  Hayes 50.  00 

La  Crosse  County,  No.  33804,  George  Gordon 300.  00 

Green  Lake,  Dun,  and  Fond  du  Lac,  No.  33805,  L.  W.  Thayer 600.  00 

City  of  Hartford,  No.  33801,  H.  H.  Smith 100. 00 

Green  Bay,  No.  33793,  William  Haslem 125.  00 

Chippewa  Falls,  No.  33794,  G.  E.  Doe 200.00 

Baraboo,  No.  33796,  U.  C.  Keller 150.  00 

Darlington,  No.  33797,  R.  E.  Orton 300.  00 

Advertising,  No.  33778,  Max  Sells 25.  00 

City  of  Phillips,  No.  33806,  James  Smith __  100.  00 

City  of  Fond  du  Lac,  No.  33808,  R.  La  Morse,  $250 450.  00 

General  75.  00 

Neilsville  150. 00 

Calumet  County,  No.  33817,  Frank  Eklund 25.  00 

Waukesha  County 50.  00 

Aug.  28: 

City  of  Oconto,  E.  A.  E.,  B.  Beyer 100. 00 

Advertising,  E.  A.  E.,  W.  B.  Raymond 42.  00 

Distributing  and  hanging  posters,  E.  A.  E.,  Wagner  and  Jennings.  50. 00 

Baraboo,  E.  A.  E.,  O.  L.  Gust 18.00 

Ashland,  No.  33826,  D.  G.  Sampson 100.  00 

Advertising,  No.  33822,  C.  E.  Brady 200.  00 

Dane  County,  E.  A.  E.,  A.  R.  Ames 50. 00 

Aug.  28 : 

Ozaukee  County,  No.  33825,  C.  O.  Larson 50.00 

City  of  Ashland,  E.  A.  E.,  L.  F.  Johnstad 100.  00 

Advertising,  No.  33827,  J.  M.  Reese 100.  00 

Advertising,  E.  A.  E.,  Rasmussen  Publishing  Co 200.  00 

General  (E.  A.  E.,  $15  and  $20) 50.00 

Advertising 150.  00 

Distributing  and  hanging  posters,  E.  A.  E.,  A.  W.  Barber 15.  00 


E.  A.  EDMONDS.  311 

Aug.  28 — Continued. 

Jefferson  County $200.  00 

Distributing  and  hanging  posters,  No.  33800,  H.  Hilsenhoff 25.  00 

Clark  County,  No.  33779,  J.  H.  Frank 100.  00 

Advertising 100.  00 

City  of  Portage,  No.  33781,  J.  H.  Wells 200.  00 

Medford,  No.  33782,  W.  Pflughoefft 126.  00 

Rock  County,  No.  33783,  W.  J.  Wheeler 600.  00 

General,  No.  33784,  Henry  Overbeck 71.  79 

Portage  County,  No.  33785,  J.  D.  Curran 250.  00 

Marshfield 35.  00 

Distributing  and  hanging  posters,  No.  33787,  Humphrey  & 

Williams 25.  00 

J.  T.  Sexton,  No.  33775 50. 12 

Aug.  29 : 

Dane  County 50.  00 

Racine  County,  E.  A.  E.,  J.  R.  Jones 100.  00 

Barron  County,  E.  A.  E.,  A.  T.  Hulbert 100.  00 

Oconto  County,  E.  A.  E.,  George  Beyers 300.  00 

Iowa  County,  E.  A.  E.,  J.  N.  Reese 50.  00 

Middleton,  E.  A.  E.,  E.  F.  Scherbel 52.  08 

Aug.  31 : 

Fond  du  Lac  County,  E.  A.  E.,  R.  H.  Morse 250.  00 

Distributing  and  hanging  posters,  E.  A.  E.,  M.  P.  Edwards 12.  00 

General  (E.  A.  E.,  $200,  and  H.  Bowman,  $20) 220.  00 

Eau  Claire  County,  E.  A.  E.,  J.  T.  Joyce 50.  00 

Advertising,  E.  A.  E.,  H.  H.  Morgan 73.  00 

Jefferson  County,  E.  A.  E.,  George  J.  Kispert 50.  00 

Distributing  and  hanging  posters,  E.  A.  E.,  M.  T.  Park 15.  00 

Taylor  County  ( ?),  No.  33854,  J.  Plivelich 40.  00 

J.  C.  Miller,  No.  33856 25.00 

Appleton,  E.  A.  E.,  C.  C.  Wayland 300.  00 

Chippewa  County  (?),  E.  A.  E.,  M.  C.  Ring 125.00 

General  one-half,  E.  A.  E.,  D.  H.  Grady 15.  00 

Racine  County,  E.  A.  E.,  J.  R.  Jones 150.  00 

Advertising,  E.  A.  E.,  C.  E.  Smith 56.  00 

Eau  Claire  County,  E.  A.  E.,  A.  Johnstone 50.  00 

Waupun,  E.  A.  E.,  M.  E.  Rank 22.  50 

Lancaster,  E.  A.  E.,  L.  H.  Stevens 200.  00 

Sept.  5 : 

E.  H.  McMahon,  No.  33961,  in  full 300.  00 

C.  M.  Hambright,  No.  33968,  in  full 300.  00 

J.  C.  Miller,  No.  33970,  in  full 300.  00 

Green  Lake  and  Waushara  Counties,  No.  33939,  C.  C.  Wellensgard-  250.  80 

General,  No.  33941,  E.  W.  Hayes $46.  00 

General,  No.  33942,  T.  J.  Sexton 60.  30 

Geueral,  No.  33949,  J.  Humphrey 60. 15 

166. 45 

J.  R.  Keyes,  No.  33954 ; 52. 40 

General,  No.  33955,  W.  E.  Powell 44.  00 

Ozaukee,  No.  33969,  C.  O.  Larson 254.  80 

Mauston,  No.  33959,  W.  J.  Fossbind«r 61.  00 

Richland  County,  No.  34000,  N.  L.  James 200.  00 

Kenosha  County,  No.  34001,  Fred  Reinold 111.  05 

Milwaukee  County,  cash,  R.  J.  White 150.  00 

General,  No.  33953,  E.  A.  Hamalrath,  $13.75;  No.  33965,  L.  B. 

Cox,  $50  and  $30.27 94.  02 

Racine  County,  E.  A.  E.,  J.  R.  Jones 183.  50 

Fond  du  Lac  County,  E.  A.  E.,  E.  A.  Morse 27.  00 

New  Medford,  E.  A.  E.,  W.  Pflughoeft 125.00 

Picket,  E.  A.  E.,  W.  V.  Jones 30.  00 

Appleton,  E.  A.  E.,  G.  A.  Dettman 25.  00 

Clark  County,  E.  A.  E.,  J.  H.  Frank 225.  00 

Sept.  11 : 

Distributing  and  hanging  posters,  E.  A.  E.,  J.  J.  Kfmelling 14.  75 

General,  E.  A.  E.,  Hoober,  $64.85 ; William  Halem,  $47 ; Rock 
Flint,  $80 191.85 


312 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 

Sept.  15 : 

General,  No.  34045,  Henry  Overbeck $100.  00 

Iron  County,  No.  34050,  A.  L.  Osbourne 154.  00 

Winnebago  County,  No.  34048,  O.  T.  Johnson 57.  76 

Advertising,  No.  33047,  Sup.  Tidende 150.  00 

Oconomowoc  (?),  Waukesha,  No.  33044,  A.  M.  Jones 150.00 


Total 46, 052.  29 

EXPENSES  IN  MILWAUKEE  COUNTY,  AS  REPORTED  BY  W.  R.  KNELL.  BILLS  PAID  BY 

CHECK. 

Check 

No. 

5.  L.  Breithaupt  Printing  Co.,  printing $36.  25 

8.  John  Calahan,  rent 25.  00 

9.  L.  Breithaupt  Printing  Co 159.  20 

10.  Knell,  Prengel  & Steltz  Co.,  cigars 29.50 

11.  Saxe  Sign  Co.,  signs 24.  35 

12.  H.  H.  West  Co.,  stationery 11.  20 

13.  Streissguth-Petran  Co.,  halftones  and  cuts 25.  65 

14.  Laudon  Electrotyping  Co.,  electros 14.  70 

15.  Remington  Typewriter  Co.,  rent 15.  00 

16.  Siekert  & Baum  Stationery  Co.,  stationery 37.  50 

17.  The  Standard  Paper  Co.,  case  of  envelopes 26.  24 

18.  William  C.  Kruel  Co.,  rent 46.00 

21.  Standard  Paper  Co.,  case  of  envelopes 26.  24 

22.  David  C.  Owen,  25,000  2-cent  stamps 500.  00 

26.  F.  D.  Schneider,  distributing 60.  00 

27.  Keystone  Printing  Co.,  advertising 15.  00 

29.  Edw.  Pepper,  distributing 60.  00 

30.  Keystone  Printing  Co.,  100,000  sample  ballots 125.00 

32.  H.  Sperber,  advertising 25.00 

83.  Cream  City  Bill  Posting  Co.,  50-20  sheet  posters 130.  00 

35.  Seikert  & Baum  Stationery  Co.,  stationery 5.  35 

36.  Standard  Paper  Co.,  case  of  envelopes 26.  24 

37.  Knell,  Prengel  & Steltz  Co.,  cigars 29.  50 

38.  Tossberg  Advertising  Co.,  printing  letters 25.  00 

39.  S.  E.  Tate  Printing  Co.,  cards 15.  00 

40.  Streissguth-Petran  Co.,  cut * — . 75 

41.  Waukesha-Roxo  Co.,  water 3.68 

42.  Schwaab  Stamp  & Seal  Co.,  rubber  stamps 2.  25 

43.  P.  J.  Sullivan,  on  account  distributing 50.00 

44.  L.  Breithaupt  Printing  Co.,  printing 199.  50 

45.  Juneau  Press,  Jewish  cards 15.  00 

47.  D.  C.  Owen,  50,000  1-cent  stamps 500.  00 

48.  D.  C.  Owen,  40,000  1-cent  stamps 400. 00 

50.  John  Calahan,  rent 10.00 

51.  Rossberg  Advertising  Co.,  printing  letters 7.  50 

52.  S.  E.  Tate  Printing  Co.,  Slavonic  cards 6.  50 

53.  Benoy  Printing  Co.,  advertising 12.  00 

54.  Remington  Typewriter  Co.,  rent 12.  00 

55.  Waukesha-Roxo  Co.,  water  and  ice 7. 10 

My  personal  check: 

612.  Lee  Merville,  expense  West  Allis  meeting 27.  50 

615.  Jones  Island  workers  on  primary  day  (2) 20.00 

619.  Rambler  Garage  Co.,  auto  hire 43.  50 

620.  S.  E.  Tate  Printing  Co.,  Slavonic  cards  (second  lot) 6.50 

629.  William  C.  Kruel  Co.,  1 chair  claimed  lost 2.  25 

633.  Knell,  Prengel  & Steltz  Co.,  cigars 13.  00 

639.  Wisconsin  Telephone  Co.,  rental,  etc 32. 10 


2,  864.  05 

CASH  DISBURSEMENTS. 

July  1,  expense  to  Wausau  and  return,  2 persons 21.60 

July  2,  expense  on  account  of  organization 7.65 

July  3,  rent  of  headquarters,  2 months 150.  00 

July  4,  expense  on  account  of  organization 9. 15 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


313 


July  9,  expense  on  account  of  organization $3.  75 

July  10,  expense  on  account  of  organization 15.  20 

July  11,  expense  on  account  of  organization 9.  65 

July  12,  expense  on  account  of  organization 14.  90 

July  13  : 

Expense  on  account  of  organization 1.  00 

Expense  on  account  of  organization 5.  60 

July  14 : 

Window  screens 1-  75 

Expense  on  account  of  organization 10.  40 

Wages  to  help,  week  ending  July  11 20.  00 

Expense  on  account  of  organization 5.  80 

July  15: 

Expense  1 man  to  attend  colored  picnic 5.  00 

Expense  on  account  of  organization 18.  70 

July  16: 

Hammer  and  screw  driver,  etc 1.  36 

Guse,  services 2.  00 

Expense  on  account  of  organization 7.  55 

I , 000  postage  stamps 20.  00 

Expense  on  account  of  organization 9.  25 

July  17,  expense  on  account  of  organization 17.  85 

July  18,  expense  on  account  of  organization 12.  05 

July  19,  expense  on  account  of  organization 18.  35 

July  20,  expense  on  account  of  organization 6.  55 

July  21 : 

Expense  on  account  of  organization 4.  60 

Expense  on  account  of  organization 16.  40 

The  Fowler  Towel  Supply  Co 1.  00 

July  22  : 

Livery  hire 2.  00 

Expense  on  account  of  organization 12.  35 

Wages,  week  ending  July  18 65.  55 

July  23 : 

Livery  hire 2.  50 

Tacks,  etc 1. 10 

Expense  on  account  of  organization 13.  55 

July  24 : 

Expense  on  account  of  organization 11.  70 

Boy  omitted  from  last  pay  roll 5.  00 

Tickets  for  Catholic  Forester  picnic 1.  00 

Tickets  for  West  Allis  Fireman’s  Tournament 1.  00 

July  25 : 

One  man  to  Allis-Chalmers’s  picnic  at  Waukesha 10.00 

Livery  hire 5.  00 

One  man  to  picnic  of  colored  church 5.  00 

Expense  on  account  of  organization 21.  65 

Expense  on  account  of  organization  in  towns 34. 10 

July  27 : 

Roberts’s  expense  looking  up  Welsh  voters . 75 

Car  tickets 1.  00 

Pay  roll,  week  ending  July  25 124.  00 

Expense  on  account  of  organization 15.  70 

July  28 : 

J.  F.  Haunty,  distributing 6.  00 

Expense  on  account  of  organization 15. 10 

July  29 : 

Expense  on  account  of  organization 8.  65 

Expense  obtaining  signatures  to  nomination  papers 184.  20 

500  2-cent  stamps : 10.  00 

Expense  on  account  of  organization 14.  50 

Wauwatosa  poll  lists  (typewritten) 10.00 

July  30 : 

Livery  hire  (4  days) 10.00 

Expense  checking  poll  lists  of  city  of  Milwaukee 130.  00 

Expense  on  account  of  organization 13.  75 


314 


E.  A.  EDMONDS, 


July  31 : 

One  man  at  Welsh  picnic 

Street  car  tickets 

Expense  cn  account  of  organization 

Aug.  1,  expense  on  account  of  organization 

Aug.  2,  expense  on  account  of  organization 

Aug.  3 : 

Pay  roll,  week  ending  Aug.  1 

Expense  on  account  of  organization 

Aug.  4 : 

Expense  to  McMahon 

Hammer,  etc 

Expense  to  Cohen 

Expense  on  account  of  organization 

Aug.  5 : 

Expense  billing  and  organizing  town  of  Greenfield. 

Expense  to  Cohen  and  others 

Expense  on  account  of  organization 

Aug.  6 : 

Expense  on  account  of  organization 

Expense  to  one  toucher 

Aug.  7,  expense  on  account  of  organization 

Aug,  8,  expense  on  account  of  organization 

Aug.  9: 

Expense  on  account  or  organization 

Expense  to  McMahon 

Aug.  10: 

Pay  roll,  week  ending  Aug.  8 

Services  by  National  Quartette 

Expense  on  account  of  organization 

Aug.  11 : 

Copying  18  ward  poll  lists 

Expense  to  H.  P.  K.  work  in  twenty-third  ward— 

Expense  on  account  of  organization 

Aug.  12 : 

City  directory 

Expense  on  account  of  organization 

Aug.  13 : 

Expense  to  F.  S.,  — ward 

Expense  to  old  soldier  for  frame 

Livery  hire 

Expense  colored  voters’  meeting 

Expense  on  account  of  organization 

Aug.  14 : 

Expense  to  Roberts  looking  up  Welsh  voters 

Expense  on  account  of  organization 

Touches  by  various  lesser  lights 

Aug.  15 : 

Expressman  taking  mail  to  post  office 

Expense  on  account  of  organization 

Aug.  16,  expense  on  account  of  organization 

Aug.  17 : 

Telephone  calls 

Expense  on  account  of  organization 

Pay  roll,  week  ending  Aug.  15 

Aug.  18 : 

Auto  hire 

Tickets  to  picnic  of  railway  trainmen 

Expense  on  account  of  organization 

Aug.  19,  expense  on  account  of  organization 

Aug.  20 : 

Tickets  to  picnic  of  electrical  workers’  union — 

Numerous  and  various  touches 

Expense  on  account  of  organization 


$5.00 

1.00 

7.  00 
13.  85 
7. 10 

143.  50 
6.  50 

1.50 
3.  00 
1.50 
9.40 


43.  95 

6.  50 
11.  40 

7.  35 
.50 

11.  45 
17.  45 

32. 10 
1. 35 

153.50 

10.00 

7.00 

10.  00 

4.00 
11.  65 


5.  00 
17.30 

2.00 
5.  00 

7.  50 

4.00 
11.  30 

2. 00 
16.  20 

3.  50 

.75 
17.  40 
23. 15 

1.  50 
19. 10 

142.  50 

5.  50 

2.  00 
14.  65 
21.35 

5.  00 
17.00 

8.  45 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


315 


Aug.  21 : 

Hall  rent  West  Allis  meeting $15.  00 

Expense  with  delegation  of  railway  employees 5. 40 

Expense  on  account  of  organization 22. 10 

Aug.  22 : 

Livery  hire 5.  00 

Expense,  two  men  at  Jewish  picnic 6.  00 

Expense  on  account  of  organization 14.  70 

Aug.  23 : 

Expense,  trip  through  Ghetto  (3  men) 35.00 

Livery  hire 2.00 

Tickets  for  benevolent  society 2.  00 

Expressman,  hauling  mail 2.  50 

Expense,  to  McMahon 2.  05 

Expense  on  account  of  organization 9.  30 

Aug.  24 : 

Pay  roll,  week  ending  Aug.  22 174.  85 

Expense,  picnic  at  Waukesha,  street  railway  employees 20.  00 

Tickets,  Company  D,  Wisconsin  National  Guard 10.  00 

Additional  pay  roll,  week  ending  Aug.  22 3.  40 

Advertising,  colored  men’s  papers 5.  00 

Services,  National  Quartette  (various  occasions) 16.00 

Expense  on  account  of  organization 32.  75 

Aug.  25 : 

Touch  by  two  old  soldiers 2.00 

Touch  by  two  “heelers” 2.00 

Expense  on  account  of  organization 17.  40 

Aug.  26 : 

Advertising,  bartenders’  program 4.  00 

Expense  on  account  of  organization 22.  30 

Aug.  27,  expense  on  account  of  organization 18.  70 

Aug.  29,  expense  on  account  of  organization 17.  65 

Aug.  30 : 

Expense  on  account  of  organization 31. 15 

Tickets,  game  of  Milwaukee  Baseball  League 2.  00 

Expense  with  Phoenix  and  Liberty  Clubs 10.  00 

Three  citizenship  papers 3.  00 

Expense,  to  McMahon 4.  00 

Two  teams,  primary  days,  town  of  Greenfield 12.  00 

One  team,  primary  day,  town  of  Wauwatosa 7.00 

Expense,  to  ward  and  town  managers,  including  conveyances, 

primary-day  workers,  etc__ 1 5,  833.  00 

Expense,  to  Greek  manager  and  primary-day  workers 110.  00 

Expense,  to  Hebrew  manager  and  primary-day  workers 45.  00 

P.  J.  Sullivan,  balance,  distributing 70.00 

Final  pay  roll 155.  50 

Advertising,  Italian  paper 10.  00 

Towell  Brothers,  advertising 34.  85 

Patterson  Typewriter  Co.,  letters,  etc 11S.  45 

Advertising  in  colored  men’s  paper 5.  00 

E.  H.  Daniels  & Co.,  tacks,  etc 1.  20 

Seikert  & Baum  Stationery  Co 6.  20 

Fowler  Towel  Supply  Co 1.  00 

Advertising,  aldermanic  ball  game  program 15.  00 

Humphrey,  Welsh  primary-day  workers  (not  in  total) 20.00 

Auto  to  West  Allis  meeting  (Spehn) 8.  00  ' 

Wilson  Detective  Agency,  watching  mail  (?) 12.00 

Charles  S.  McGinn,  distributing 75.  00 

Keystone  Printing  Co.,  printing,  etc 60.  75 


9,  239. 16 


1 This  sum  was  not  expended  in  one  day,  but  was  gradually  paid  out  to  the  various 
ward  managers  as  the  work  progressed. 


316 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Recapitulation. 


Amount  disbursed  in  cash $9,  239. 16 

Amount  disbursed  by  check 2,  864. 05 


12, 103.  21 

Credits — 

Stamps  returned  to  postmaster $100.  00 

Stamps  on  hand 17.  80 

Envelopes  on  hand,  20£M _ 12.  30 

Cigars  on  hand 6.  50 

L.  Breithaupt  Printing  Co 60.  00 

Other  supplies  and  material  on  hand  and  useable 

( estimated ) 20.  00 

216. 60 


Actual  and  net  amount  disbursed 11,  886.  61 

Amount  received 11,  600.  00 


Disbursements  in  excess  of  receiptes 286.  61 


Aug.  5: 

Pay  of  help  and  office  expense  from  July  1 1, 101.  91 

Office 65.  50 

Pay  roll 211.  40 

Aug.  10,  office 132.00 

Aug.  14,  office 161. 15 

Aug.  15,  pay  roll 362.  50 

Aug.  18,  office—.. 146.  25 

Aug.  22: 

Office 168.  60 

Pay  roll 387.  80 

Aug.  25,  office 159.  95 

Aug.  28: 

Office 161. 15 

Pay  roll 365.  85 

Aug.  29,  pay  roll 142.  75 

Aug.  31,  office 104.  75 

Sept.  5 : 

Office 130.  35 

Pay  roll 42.  00 

Office 230.  07 


Total 4,  074.  38 


TELEPHONE. 

July  1 to  Aug.  4 

Aug.  5 

Aug.  18 

Aug.  18 

Aug.  19 

Aug.  19,  No.  33645 

Aug.  24 

Aug.  24 

Sept.  5,  No.  33937 

Sept.  5 

Sept.  5 


4.  65 
.30 
1.  60 

1.  05 

2.  25 
73.  55 

.80 
.40 
156.40 
14.  65 
.35 


256.  00 


From  Aug.  1 to  Sept.  8. 

Aug.  5 

Aug.  13 

Aug.  19 


7. 45 
.85 
1.50 
1.  85 


TELEGRAPH  EXPENSES. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


317 


Aug.  24 $0.  30 

Sept.  5,  Western  Union  Telegraph  Co.,  No.  33936 8.  53 

Sept.  9,  sundry  telegrams 12.  85 

Sept.  18,  Western  Union  Telegraph  Co.,  No.  33665 3.  67 


37.00 

POSTAGE  STAMPS. 

From  July  1 to  Aug.  4,  cash 1,  914.  00 

Aug.  5,  cash 200. 00 

Aug.  7,  cash 200.  00 

Aug.  8,  cash 200. 00 

Aug.  10,  cash 200.00 

Aug.  10,  cash 200.  00 

Aug.  12,  cash 400.  00 

Aug.  11,  cash 200.00 

Aug.  13,  cash 200.  00 

Aug.  14,  cash 600.  00 

Aug.  15,  cash 200.  00 

Aug.  17,  cash 200.  00 

Aug.  18,  cash 200.  00 

Aug.  19,  cash 400.  00 

Aug.  20,  cash 800.  00 

Aug.  22,  cash 600.  00 

Aug.  24,  cash 805.  00 

Aug.  27,  cash 1,  200.  00 

Aug.  26,  cash 400.  00 

Aug.  25,  cash 200.  00 

Aug.  28,  cash 200.  00 

Aug.  26,  cash 300.  00 


9,  819.  00 

NEWSPAPER  ADVERTISING. 

Aug.  1: 

Sundry  advertising,  R.,  E.  B.  Usher 205.  55 

Sundry  advertising,  R.,  E.  B.  Usher 94.  55 

Sundry  advertising,  R.,  E.  B.  Usher 107.  50 

Sundry  advertising,  R.,  E.  B.  Usher 92.  30 

Minneapolis  Tidende,  C.  D.,  No.  93753 563.  79 

H.  Rasmussen,  cash 333.  33 

Sundry  advertising,  No.  33375,  Usher 73.  05 

Sundry  advertising,  No.  33387,  Usher 250.  70 

Aug.  7,  Neillsville  Times.  No.  33461 50.  00 

Aug.  8,  Rasmussen  Publishing  Co.,  cash 333.  33 

Aug.  13,  Rustone,  No.  33548 25.  00 

Aug.  15: 

Ranger,  No.  33580 50.  00 

Smith,  Oconto  Falls,  No.  33581 100.00 

Aug.  18: 

Rasmussen  Publishing  Co.,  cash 333.  34 

Bailey,  No.  33625 200.  00 

Aug.  19: 

Wisconsin  Agriculturist,  No.  33646 63.00 

Superior  Tidende,  No.  33654 75.  00 

Minneapolis  Tidende,  No.  33658 1, 000.  00 

Aug.  22,  the  Koch  Advertising  Agency,  No.  33755 302.  91 

Aug.  26,  the  Koch  Advertising  Agency,  No.  33772 3,  000.  00 

Aug.  Cl,  Narden  Tribune,  No.  33857 20.00 

Sept.  15,  Daily  Jewish  Courier,  No.  33908 150.  00 

Sept.  5: 

The  Kuryer  Publishing  Co.,  No.  33915 250.  00 

Wisconsin  Agriculturist,  No.  33934 475.  44 

Minneapolis  Tidende,  No.  33938 24.00 

Richland  Rustic,  No.  33923 12.  90 

Marshfield  Times,  No.  33951 15.  00 

River  Falls  Times,  No.  33956 14.  70 


318 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Sept.  14 : 

Koch  Advertising  Agency,  No.  34027 $3,  304. 17 

Minneapolis  Journal,  No.  34030 100.  00 

Minneapolis  Tidende,  No.  34029 540.  00 

Aug.  10,  sundry  advertising,  No.  33496,  Usher 5.  00 

Aug.  24,  sundry  advertising,  R.,  Usher 100.  00 

Aug.  25,  sundry  advertising,  No.  33756,  Usher 4.  00 

Sept.  14,  sundry  advertising,  No.  34026 156.  40 

Aug.  1,  sundry  newspapers 270. 00 

Aug.  22,  Waldbote 1.  80 


12,  696.  76 

SUNDRY  BILLS. 

July  31: 

Wisconsin  Agriculturist,  R 760.  25 

Wisconsin  Agriculturist,  C.  D.,  No.  93676 362.  42 

Evening  Wisconsin,  No.  33255 419.  50 

Kreul  Co.,  No.  33256 140.49 

Underwood  Typewriter  Co.,  No.  33257 4.00 

C.  C.  Patterson,  No.  33258 46.  50 

Fowler  Manufacturing  Co.,  No.  33259 6.  00 

Saxe  Sign  Co.,  No.  33260 1.  50 

Capital  Reliance  S.  & S.  Co.,  No.  33261 3.  85 

Wells  Power  Co.,  No.  33262 . 88 

Wells  Building  Co.,  No.  33263 90.  88 

Telephone  company,  No.  33264 35.  00 

Standard  Paper  Co.,  No.  33265 93.  75 

Sickert  & Baum,  No.  33266 *5.  40 

West  Co.,  No.  33267 4.  50 

Austin 6.  85 

Whitehead  & Hoague,  N.  D.,  No.  343069 502.  25 

C.  C.  Patterson,  No.  33399 31.  25 

A.  A.  Brown,  No.  33398 3.  75 

Telephone  Co.,  No.  33397 1. 00 

Hammersmith,  No.  33396 5.  75 

Sullivan  Printing  Co.,  No.  33395 4.  00 

Smith  Premier  Co.,  No.  33394 6. 40 

Standard  Paper  Co.,  No.  33393 16.  85 

Van  de  Kamp  & Lorberter,  No.  33392 290.  00 

Kreul  Co.,  No.  33391 27.  30 

Siekert  & Baum,  No.  33390 20.  00 

Wisconsin  Agriculturist,  C.  D.  No.  93790 338.  52 

Aug.  10,  T.  H.  Coldner,  No.  33494 14.  00 

Aug.  15,  Johnson 24.  50 

Aug.  18,  E.  F.  Smith,  No.  33621  28.  00 

Aug.  19: 

H.  M.  Allen,  No.  33641 12.  55 

L.  M.  Lederer,  No.  33642  42.  00 

L.  Breithaupt,  No.  33643 660.  00 

Nee  Ska  Ra,  No.  33644 7.  25 

Yahr  & Lange,  No.  33647 4.  75 

H.  J.  Paas,  No.  33648 10.  00 

L.  A.  Meyer,  No.  33649 9.  00 

Milwaukee  Drug  Co.,  No.  33650 3.  83 

A.  A.  Brown,  No.  33651 28.  00 

H.  H.  West  Co.,  No.  33652 20.  80 

John  V.  Deum,  No.  33653 5. 00 

Fowler  Manufacturing  Co.,  No.  33655 1.  50 

Free  Press,  No.  33656 • 45 

C.  C.  Patterson,  No.  33657 14.  75 

Keystone  Printing  Co.,  No.  33659 53.  00 

Mandel  Engraving  Co.,  No.  33660 278.  35 

Standard  Paper  Co.,  No.  33661 3.  55 

Meyers  News  Bureau,  No.  33362 49.  40 

Wells  Building  Co.,  No.  33663 105.  00 

Underwood  Typewriter  Co.,  No.  33664 4.  00 

Gimbel  Bros.,  No.  33666 .45 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


319 


Aug.  19 — Continued. 

G.  V.  Bush,  N.  D.  No.  343238 $12.  00 

Van  de  Kamp  & Larberter,  No.  33667 775.  50 

Bowron  & Murray  Co.,  No.  33668 22.  40 

Kreul  Co.,  No.  33669 118.  25 

Whithead  & Hoag,  N.  D.  No.  343239 110.  10 

Sickert  & Baum,  No  33670 35.  32 

L.  S.  Jackson,  No.  33671 1.  00 

Aug.  25 : 

Anderson  Printing  Co.,  No.  33754 147.  00 

Staii ffu  cher,  No.  33758 9.  50 

The  Courier  Printing  Co.,  No.  33759 30.  00 

Aug.  26 : 

Herald  Printing  Co.,  No.  33774 17.  50 

N.  Jeray,  No.  33855 11.  00 

Sept.  5 : 

H.  M.  Allen,  No.  33904 11.  75 

A.  A.  Brown,  No.  33905 44.  50 

Cream  City  Bill  Posting  Co.,  No.  33906 351.  00 

Dever  Bros.,  No.  33907 95.  73 

Fowler  Manufacturing  Co.,  33909 . 75 

T.  J.  A.  Griffiths,  No.  33910 60.  00 

A.  A.  Hume,  No.  33911 11. 10 

C.  B.  Henschel,  No.  33912 200.  00 

Keystone  Printing  Co.,  No.  33913 278.  00 

Kreul  Co.,  No.  33914 7.  50 

I.  N.  Lederer,  No.  33916 18.  75 

Whitehead  & Hoag,  No.  33935 356.  97 

L.  A.  Meyer  Co.,  No.  33917 . 75 

Mandel  Engraving  Co.,  No.  33918 65.  70 

Meyers  News  Service  Co.,  No.  33919 6.  60 

Nee  Ska  Ra,  No.  33924  8.  00 

Parsons  Printing  Co.,  No.  33921 42.  50 

Hotel  Pfister  (cigars),  No.  33922 70.70 

Siekert  & Baum,  No.  33925 14.  55 

S.  E.  Tate  Printing  Co.,  No.  33926 43.  25 

Underwood  Typewriter  Co.,  No.  33928 4.  00 

Union  R.  & C.  Co.,  No.  33929 3.  00 

Van  de  Kamp  & Larberter,  No.  33930 641. 15 

Wells  Building  Co.,  No.  33931 12.  80 

Wells  Power  Co.,  No.  33932 16.  34 

West  Side  Printing  Co.,  No.  33933 3.  50 

C.  A.  Eastman,  No.  33940 7.  50 

S.  E.  Tate  Printing  Co.,  No.  33947 6.  50 

Kewaunee  Printing  Co.,  No.  33948 15.  00 

Fond  du  Lac  County  names,  No.  33950,  H.  T.  Sackett 60.  00 

Sundry  advertising,  cash 16.  75 

P.  B.  Haver  Printing  Co.,  No.  33957 72.  00 

Smith  Premier  Co.,  No.  33962 6.  50 

Sundries  (part  No.  33963,  Wells  Co.,  $3.26) 210.62 


8,  662. 28 

CIRCULATING  NOMINATION  PAPERS. 

Aug.  8: 

V.  H.  Janda,  No.  33475 3.  55 

F.  Eklund,  No.  33476 7.  56 

T.  Salverson,  No.  33477 6.  00 

L.  A.  Weikel,  No.  33478 2.00 

T.  C.  Myer,  No.  33479 3.00 

S.  A.  Holdridge,  No.  33480  (not  cashed) .25 

W.  F.  Frook,  No.  33481 5.  00 

O.  D.  Brace,  No.  33482 3.  00 

J.  P.  Mallory,  No.  33483 1.  00 

Van  Houtan,  No.  33049 9.  50 


40.  86 


320 


E.  A.  EDMONDS, 


EXPRESS. 

Aug.  13,  American,  No.  33544 $16.  86 

Aug.  14.  United  States,-  No.  33550 22.  90 

Aug.  20,  United  States,  No.  33682 31.  28 

Aug.  25: 

American,  No.  33763 40.  70 

United  States,  No.  33760 6.85 

Aug.  28: 

United  States,  No.  33823 49.  86 

American,  No.  33859 8.  38 

Sept.  5: 

American,  No.  33903 10.42 

United  States,  No.  33927 48.62 


235.  87 

SUNDRIES,  SMALL. 

July  7 : 

Traveling  expenses 22.  63 

Sundries 1.  50 

Miller 6.  75 

July  8: 

Sundries 4.  30 

Sundries 8.  25 

Traveling  expenses ^ 22.  40 

Sundries 2.  50 

Sundries 1.  (X 

Rowe,  half 3.  5'  * 

Cigars 10.75 

Traveling  expenses 11.30 

July  10: 

Sundries 9.  20 

Kenosha 9.  50 

Traveling  expenses , 17.05 

July  20,  Sundries 6.  30 

July  21,  Beach 6. 15 

July  23,  Johnson 12.  50 

July  24 : 

Sundries 4.  30 

Reilly 15.  00 

Traveling  expenses 4.  60 

Sundries 33.00 

July  25: 

Sundries 7.  01 

Madison 26.  76 

Sundries . 15 

July  31,  Sundermann 2.35 

Aug.  1: 

Sundries 11. 45 

Sundries 18.  95 

Traveling  expenses 11.  95 

Sundries 1.  30 

Aug.  5,  Sundries 4.20 

Aug.  6: 

Ashland 27.  75 

Sundries 11.  25 

Aug.  10: 

Traveling  expenses 11.  05 

Meyer 3.  00 

Aug.  13,  Eklund,  No.  33545 1.  00 

Aug.  14: 

Traveling  expenses,  No.  33551  (Lambeck) 10.95 

Coblentz,  No.  33552 10.00 

Aug.  17 : 

F.  R.  Huth,  No.  33561 5.  00 

Howe 2. 00 


E.  A.  EDMONDS, 


321 


Aug.  18,  Livery $2.  00 

Sundries 8. 40 

Pfister  (cigars) 4.40 

Sundries 1.  50 

Traveling  expenses,  No.  33622  (Lambeck) 28.  04 

Northup,  No.  33631 25.  00 

Aug.  19,  sundries 9.  30 

Aug.  20: 

Langemark  (2  checks,  No.  336S0  and  No.  33676) 5.00 

Bradley,  No.  33684 5.00 

O’Brien,  No.  33690 15.  00 

Traveling  expenses 29.90 

Aug.  22: 

Traveling  expenses 38.  66 

McDonald,  No.  33751 2.  50 

Traveling  expenses 50.  00 

Aug.  24: 

Hotel  Meyer,  Janesville , 17.  50 

Railway  fare 11.  20 

Cigars 4.  00 

Sundries 12.  25 

Cigars 2.  00 

Sundries 16.  00 

Traveling  expenses G.  05 

Aug.  25,  Thompson,  No.  33761 7.  00 

Aug.  27,  Johnson 1.  25 

Sept.  5: 

Traveling  expenses 19.  90 

Sundries 20.  00 

Berlin  A.  & I.  Assn.,  No.  33946 150.  00 

Malone,  No.  33943 3.  00 

Sundries,  No.  33944  (Lambeck) 33.65 

Waters,  No.  33945 2.00 

Traveling  expenses 42.  45 

Hill 25.  00 

Traveling  expenses 31.  40 

O’Neill 22.  50 

Sundries : 12.  70 

Sept.  6,  sundries 5.  40 

Sept.  8,  sundries 8.  00 

Sept.  15: 

Wright  Drug  Co.,  No.  34046 5.  00 

Traveling  expenses 113.14 

Sundry  expenses 250.  00 


Total 1,  420.  63 

Oct.  16: 

Hotel  bills 10.  70 

J.  B.  Beach,  No.  34274 150.  00 

Republican  Farmer,  No.  34275 10. 25 

L.  E.  Evans,  No.  34276 79.  75 

Platteville  Journal,  No.  34277 1.  50 

Republican  Observer,  No.  34278 3.  25 

Remington  Co.,  No.  34279 4.  00 

Wells  Power  Co.,  No.  34280 . 35 

Sentinel  Co.,  No.  34281 1.05 

Wisconsin  Telephone  Co.,  No.  34282 105.  39 

J.  R.  Grey,  No.  34283 52.  75 

E.  H.  Hamelrath,  No.  34284 13.  00 

W.  Wilson,  No.  34285 70.  00 

Evening  Wisconsin,  No.  34286 . 50 

E.  J.  Rogers,  No.  34287 131.  79 

E.  J.  Kempf,  No.  34288 42.  75 

W.  E.  Powell,  No.  34289 50. 00 

Saxe  Sign  Co.,  No.  34290 1.  50 

T.  J.  Dexton,  No.  34291 171. 10 

15235°— vol  1—11 21 


322 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Oct.  16— Continued. 

Register  and  Friend,  No.  34293 $2.  80 

J.  B.  Marshall,  No.  34294 65.  00 

Marion  Advertiser,  No.  34295 25.00 

Randolph  Advance,  No.  34296 2.38 

R.  Rowe,  No.  34287 48.  34 

Sun  Republic,  No.  34298 20.  00 

J.  Smith.  No.  34299 112.  50 

A.  Hudson,  No.  34300 6.  50 

M.  Northup,  No.  34301 20.  00 

Tate  Printing  Co.,  No.  34382 6.50 

F.  R.  Huth,  No.  34303 60.  00 

G.  Arnett,  No.  34304 30.  00 

Kewaunee  Printing  Co.,  No.  34305 76.  20 

Wisconsin  Agriculturist,  No.  34306 420.  21 

Nee  Ska  Ra,  No.  34307 6.  00 

Wells  Power  Co.,  No.  34308 17. 05 

Anderson  Publishing  Co.,  No.  34309 266.  20 

Wayne  Smith,  No.  34358 75.  00 

F.  Parsons,  No.  34359 6.  00 

L.  Barney,  No.  34360 2.  00 

C.  D.  Smith,  No.  34362 112.  00 

J.  Ratz,  No.  34361 1.  50 

O.  L.  Gust,  No.  34373 60.  00 

Lew  Ryerson,  No.  34372 5.  00 

American  Citizen,  cash 5.00 

W.  R.  Knell,  No.  34357 286.  61 

Cary,  Upham  & Black,  R 57.  39 

F.  H.  Bulger,  No.  34327 25.00 

Catholic  Sentinel,  No.  34374 10.00 

L.  Barney,  No.  34422 3.00 

Western  Union,  No.  34428 10.  57 

Sacket,  No.  34429 42.00 

L.  H.  Stevens,  No.  34591 200.  00 

Sundries 203.  27 


Total 3, 188.  65 


SUMMARY. 


General  expenses  in  organizing  State 46,  052.  29 

Milwaukee  County 11,  600.  00 

Office  expense 4,  074.  38 

Telephone 256.  00 

Telegraph 37.00 

Postage  stamps 9,  819.  00 

Newspaper  advertising 12,  696.  76 

Sundry  bills 8,  662.  28 

Nomination  papers 40.  86 

Express  bills 235.  87 

Sundry,  small 1,  420.  63 

Bills  after  Sept.  1 3, 188.  65 


Total 98,  083.  72 


The  Chairman.  Has  counsel  before  him  the  report  that  was  used 
by  Senator  Sutherland  in  his  examination  of  the  witness  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  No.  I do  not  think  that  I care  to  spend  anytime 
on  that.  Mr.  Black  tells  me  that  he  has  in  his  office  a copy  of  this 
particular  pamphlet,  to  which  the  chairman  referred. 

The  Chairman.  I think  the  record  had  better  show  that  the  report 
submitted  to  the  Wisconsin  Legislature  on  March  18,  from  which 
Senator  Sutherland  has  read,  came  with  the  papers  from  the  gov- 
ernor of  the  State  of  Wisconsin  to  the  United  States  Senate,  and 
passed  into  my  hands  as  chairman  of  the  subcommittee  in  the  ordi- 
nary course  of  reference.  That  will  give  it  a status  in  the  record. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


323 


Mr.  Littlefield.  That  identifies  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I think,  also,  that  the  following  memorandum 
should  be  furnished  as  a part  of  the  examination,  the  memorandum 
being  furnished  by  Mr.  Edmonds,  showing  the  names  of  the  local 
managers  with  whom  he  had  arrangements  for  special  compensation, 
together  with  the  amount  of  that  compensation,  according  to  his  best 
recollection. 

(The  paper  referred  to  was  marked  “ Exhibit  Edmonds  B,”  and  is 
as  follows:) 

Exhibit  Edmonds  B. 


Names. 

Page. 

Recollec- 
tion as  to 
recompense 

Names. 

Page. 

Recollec- 
tion as  to 
recompense 

E.  H.  McMahon 

588 

i $100 

Dr.  Frank 

589 

$200 

J.  C.  Miller 

588 

i 100 

C.  O.  Larson 

589 

50 

C.  M.  Hambright 

588 

UOO 

J.  T.  Kelley 

590 

2500 

J.  R.  Keyes 

588 

i 50 

Wm.  Haslem 

590 

UOO 

T.  J.  Sexton 

588 

1100 

R.  H.  Morse 

590 

100 

A.  R.  Ames 

589 

200 

U.  C.  Kellar 

591 

1100 

J.  W.  Wypszinski 

589 

50 

W.  Pflughoefft . 

594 

50 

i Per  month.  2 Speeches. 


Others  may  have  asked  for  and  received  compensation,  but  these  are  all 
have  any  recollection  of. 


E.  A.  Edmonds. 


I 


The  Chairman.  The  record  will  also  contain  the  statement  of  elec- 
tion expenses  filed  under  the  law  on  behalf  of  Isaac  Stephenson. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I think  that  is  already  in. 

The  Chairman.  Then  the  record  will  contain  it.  It  will  not  be 
necessary,  of  course,  to  put  it  in  twice. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Mr.  Edmonds,  your  attention  has  just  been  called 
to  the  fact  that  at  one  time  shortly  prior  to  the  payment  of  the 
$30,000  by  Senator  Stephenson  there  were  more  or  less  conferences 
between  yourself  and  the  other  managers  with  the  Senator  with  ref- 
erence to  the  contribution  of  additional  funds  for  carrying  on  the 
campaign.  Be  kind  enough  to  state  to  the  committee  whether  or  not 
at  that  time  there  was  not  a period  of  something  like  10  days  when 
the  Senator’s  campaign  was  practically  at  a standstill,  awaiting  his 
determination  whether  he  would  go  on  and  furnish  additional  funds 
to  enable  you  to  further  prosecute  it. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  during  this  period  of  10  days  had  you  then, 
or  at  the  beginning  of  this  period  of  10  days,  substantially  exhausted 
the  funds  at  the  disposal  of  Mr.  Puelicher  and  Mr.  Van  Cleve?  I do 
not  say  exhausted,  but  substantially  exhausted. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  At  the  earliest  date  of  those  10  days ; yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  the  Senator  informed  that  unless  addi- 
tional funds  were  furnished  by  him  the  campaign  would  come  prac- 
tically to  a standstill  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes.  He  was  informed  that  the  campaign  would 
come  to  a standstill  so  far  as  the  expenditure  of  money  was  con- 
cerned, and  these  men  with  whom  I had  contracted  and  agreed  with 
for  work  would  be  called  in.  As  the  matter  was  stated,  the  cam- 
paign would  end. 


324 


E.  A.  EDMUNDS. 


Mr.  Littlefield.  The  Senator,  as  I understand  it,  did  very  vig- 
orously object  to  the  amount  of  money  that  the  campaign  was  cost- 
ing him  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  are  able  to  state  that  the  Senator  felt,  as  the 
result  of  your  conference  during  this  period  of  10  days,  that  too 
much  money  was  being  expended  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I believed  he  did. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  I understand  that  the  Senator  made  any 
specific  criticism  as  to  the  manner  in  which  the  money  was  being 
expended? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  did  not  to  me. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  Senator’s  position  was,  without  going  into 
details,  that  the  whole  campaign  up  to  date  had  cost  him  more  than 
he  expected? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  was. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  know  that  the  Senator’s  original  con- 
templation was  that  the  campaign  would  not  cost  him  more  than 
probably  $30,000  or  thereabouts? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I have  not  any  idea. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Mr.  Littlefield,  I would  suggest  to  you  that 
the  testimony  wTould  be  perhaps  more  valuable  if  you  did  not  lead 
the  witness  quite  so  much. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I am  cross-examining  him. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I understand  that.  However,  you  may 
take  your  own  course  about  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I appreciate  the  suggestion  made  by  the  Sen- 
ator. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I think  you  realize  that  the  testimony 
might  be  more  valuable  if  the  witness  were  not  led  quite  so  much. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I was  proceeding  upon  the  hypothesis  that  I 
was  conducting  the  ordinary  cross-examination.  Of  course,  I appre- 
ciate that  the  witness  was  our  manager,  and  also  appreciate  the  sug- 
gestion of  the  Senator. 

Mr.  Edmonds,  state  whether  or  not  in  any  of  your  conferences 
with  Senator  Stephenson,  from  the  time  when  he  first  made  the 
arrangement  with  you  in  the  latter  part  of  June  or  during  this 
period  of  the  10  days’  practical  suspension  of  work,  he  said  anything 
to  you  with  reference  to  his  original  expectation  as  to  the  cost  of  the 
campaign. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  I think  he  at  no  time  ever  told  me  what 
he  expected  to  spend  in  the  campaign. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  was  the  fact  during  these  10  days  when 
you  were  awaiting  his  decision  ? During  that  period  did  you,  or  did 
you  not,  make  any  new  contracts  with  new  managers? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  My  judgment  is  that  during  the  earlier  days  1 did, 
or  attempted  to  do  so,  but  possibly  not  during  the  whole  period  of 
10  days;  but  the  campaign  was  at  a standstill.  I was  unable  to 
determine  whether  we  could  go  on  with  the  campaign. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  was  the  fact  about  men  being  in  the  field, 
to  whom  the  sums  to  be  paid  for  compensation  and  expenses  had  not 
been  advanced?  Were  there  men  of  that  character  at  work  in  the 
field  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  so. 


15.  A.  EDMONDS. 


325 


Mr.  Littlefield.  Had  you  any  way  of  making  good  your  engage- 
ments with  them,  unless  Senator  Stephenson  advanced  additional 
money  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  None;  unless  I paid  it  myself. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Of  course,  I mean  outside  of  your  own  personal 
money. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  frequently  was  the  question  as  to  whether 
or  not  additional  money  should  be  advanced  by  the  Senator  dis- 
cussed between  you  and  the  Senator  in  this  period  of  10  days? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  During  this  period  of  10  days  I do  not  think  at  all, 
until  I wrote  him  a letter. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Explaining  the  situation? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  hear  from  the  Senator  in  relation  to  the 
letter,  by  phone  or  otherwise? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  By  phone,  and  confirmed  by  letter,  to  my  best 
recollection. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  that  at  the  expiration  of  the  period  of  10 
days? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  To  which  I referred,  yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  whether  or  not  it  was  at  that  time  that  the 
Senator  finally  determined  to  go  on  with  the  campaign  and  furnish 
the  additional  funds. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know  as  to  that.  I know  that  he  sent  the 
$30,000. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  that  the  time  when  his  determination  was 
indicated  to  you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Mr.  Edmonds,  you  were  about  to  or  did  state 
a particular  sum? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I referred  to  t?  e $30,000. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  This  period  of  10  days  ended  substantially  with 
the  receipt  of  the  $30,000  check  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  this  check  go  to  Mr.  Puelicher,  or  did  it  come 
direct  to  you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  did  not  come  to  me. 

Senator  Sutherland.  There  was  a payment  on  July  30  of  $10,000, 
and  then  on  August  7 of  $30,000,  and  on  the  20th  of  $15,000. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  There  was  a period  of  practically  10  days.  I do 
not  know  the  exact  amounts.  When  I say  “ 10  days,”  I do  not  mean 
that  you  are  confined  to  just  10  days,  but  a period  of  approximately 
that  amount  of  time.  As  I understand  it,  the  $30,000  check  came  to 
you  after  a period  of  something  like  10  days,  more  or  less,  during 
which  you  were  awaiting  the  receipt  of  funds  from  the  Senator  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  statement  is  correct,  with  the  exception  of  the 
fact  that  it  came  to  the  bank,  and  not  to  me. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  what  I mean.  Is  it  a fact  that  during 
that  period  the  Senator  was  considering  this  question  as  to  whether 
he  would  have  the  campaign  continued  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  matter  had  been  put  up  to  him,  had  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Not  by  me. 


326 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  not  know  that  it  had  been  put  up  to  him 
by  somebody? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I believe  it  to  have  been ; yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  By  Mr.  Puelicher,  I suppose? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  your  understanding  of  the  situation  is  that 
he  took  about  that  period  of  time  to  consider  it  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  As  to  that  I do  not  know. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Your  knowledge  is  that  something  like  10  days 
elapsed  before  he  finally  decided  to  go  on  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  My  knowledge  is  that  during  a period  of  about  10 
days  we  were  short  of  funds,  and  the  campaign  lapsed. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  it  not  also  your  knowledge  that  the  Senator’s 
attention  was  called  to  the  fact  about  10  days  before  he  paid  in  the 
$30,000? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  My  belief  is  so,  but  not  my  knowledge. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I would  like  to  ascertain,  if  I can,  a little  more 
in  detail  about  this  matter  of  organizing.  You  have  frequently 
stated,  in  answer  to  inquiries,  that  money  was  placed  in  the  hands  of 
various  people  by  you  for  organization? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I will  ask  you  whether  or  not  that  term  “ organ- 
ization,” as  you  call  it,  has  a reasonably  well-defined  and  well- 
understood  meaning  among  the  men  with  whom  you  were  dealing, 
from  a political  point  of  view? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I believe  it  has. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I will  ask  you  whether  or  not  the  compensation 
and  expenses  of  managers  who  were  to  take  charge  of  the  campaign 
in  particular  localities  were,  or  were  not,  part  of  an  organizing  ex- 
pense, according  to  your  understanding? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  They  were. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I will  ask  you  whether  or  not  the  securing  of 
signatures  to  petitions,  which  petitions  were  to  be  the  basis  of  the 
right  of  Senator  Stephenson  to  enter  the  primary  as  a candidate, 
prior  to  the  30  days  preceding  the  date  of  the  election,  was,  or  was 
not,  an  organizing  expense,  according  to  your  understanding  of  the 
term  “ organizing  ” ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  say  it  was ; yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  when  I say,  “ according  to  your  understand- 
ing of  the  term,”  I would  be  glad  to  have  you  to  keep  in  mind  that 
it  applies  to  all  the  questions  that  I am  about  to  put  along  that  line, 
and  to  the  sense  in  which  you  have  used  the  term  as  a witness.  Do 
I make  myself  clear? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  so. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Be  kind  enough  to  state  whether  or  not  the  ex- 
pense of  circulating,  distributing,  and  posting  advertising  matter, 
lithographs,  and  posters  in  the  various  localities  was  or  not,  in  your 
understanding,  a proper  organizing  expense. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  was  a proper  organizing  expense. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  include  that  when  you  say  that  you  au- 
thorized men  to  do  organizing  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  include  that  as  an  item  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


327 


Mr.  Littlefield.  Be  kind  enough  to  state  whether  or  not  campaign 
meetings,  sums  paid  to  speakers,  and  for  the  renting  of  halls  and  the 
hiring  of  bands  were  within  the  sense  in  which  you  use  the  term 
“ organizing  ” a proper  organizing  expense. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  consider  that  a legitimate  expense. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  include  that  in  the  term  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Were  there  some  campaign  meetings  in  the  in- 
terest of  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I believe  so. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  At  which  speeches  were  made  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I believe  so. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Can  you  approximate  the  number  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I can  not.  They  were  under  the  direction  of  the 
local  managers. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I understand  they  were  under  the  direction  of 
local  men.  Would  you  say  that  there  were  25? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No;  I would  not  make  a statement  as  to  the  amount. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Wherever  there  were  campaign  meetings  was 
there  an  expense  of  hiring  halls  and  bands? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  I do  not  know,  because  it  was  entirely  in  the 
hands  of  the  local  managers. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  whether  or  not  your  attention  at  any  time 
was  called  to  the  fact  that  a local  band  had  been  employed  by  repre- 
sentatives of  some  of  the  other  candidates — Mr.  Hatton,  Mr.  Cook, 
or  Mr.  McGovern — and  that  that  resulted  in  a rivalry  between  the 
local  managers  and  the  bidding  up  of  the  prices  of  the  bands — simply 
as  an  illustration  of  a feature  in  that  campaign.  Was  that  ever  called 
to  your  attention  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  now  recall  any  such  instance. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  whether  or  not  the  term  “ organize,”  in  the 
sense  in  which  you  have  used  it  includes  sums  paid  by  managers  for 
automobiles  and  teams  in  going  about  the  locality  for  the  purpose  of 
engaging  men  in  each  precinct,  in  their  particular  locality,  to  canvass 
and  ascertain  what  Republicans  were  in  favor  of  or  willing  to  sup- 
port the  Senator? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  consider  that  within  the  term  “ organize  ” ; 
yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  If  I understood  the  question  correctly,  it  rather 
included  whether  there  was  any  such  expense. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  No;  I asked  him  whether  or  not  an  expense  of 
that  kind  would  be  included.  Please  state  whether  or  not  the  ex- 
pense of  men  thus  employed  in  each  precinct  to  travel  about  the  pre- 
cinct and  present  the  qualifications  and  claims  of  the  Senator  and 
meet  the  arguments  that  were  being  made  all  over  the  State  in  the 
interest  and  in  favor  of  candidates  Hatton,  Cook,  and  McGovern 
would  be  properly  included  in  the  term  “ organizing  expenses,”  or 
“ organization.” 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I believe  it  would  be  included  properly. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  it  or  not  within  your  knowledge  that  during 
this  campaign  it  was  necessary  for  representatives  of  the  Senator  to 
go  about  among  the  Republicans  in  the  various  localities  and  meet  the 
arguments  and  criticisms  and  assaults,  if  I may  use  that  term,  that 


328 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


were  made  by  representatives  of  the  other  candidates  upon  the 
Senator  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  is  certainly  true. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Mr.  Hatton  had  been  in  the  field  about  15  months, 
had  he  not  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall  the  length  of  time. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Well,  quite  a long  period  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Mr.  Cook  had  been  in  the  campaign  nearly  a 
year? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  A long  time ; yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  Mr.  McGovern  had  been  in  the  campaign 
some  time? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  whether  or  not  it  is  true  that  when  you 
began  this  campaign  without  the  slightest  organization  you  had  to 
work  up  against  the  whole  tide  running  against  the  Senator? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  We  certainly  did. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Were  men  scattered  pretty  much  all  over  the 
State,  so  far  as  the  organization  of  the  other  gentlemen  would  allow 
them  to  scatter  them,  who  were  engaged  in  personally  canvassing  the 
Republicans  in  the  various  sections? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  was  so  reported  to  me. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Endeavoring  to  pledge  the  support  of  Repub- 
licans to  the  various  candidates?  * 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  have  stated  that  you  found  a large  number 
of  the  friends  of  Senator  Stephenson,  on  account  of  the  lateness  of 
his  getting  into  the  campaign,  already  pledged  to  the  support  of  the 
other  candidates? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  I so  stated. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Were  those  men  who  were  friends  of  the  Senator, 
who  had  pledged  themselves  to  the  other  candidates  in  advance  of 
knowing  that  the  Senator  was  to  be  a candidate,  gentlemen  who  were 
distributed  pretty  generally  over  the  State? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  say  so.  In  each  locality  there  were  some 
who  pledged  themselves  to  other  candidates  before  the  Senator’s 
candidacy  was  announced. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  make  any  effort  to  enlist  any  of  those 
gentlemen  thus  pledged? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Most  assuredly — anyone  I saw. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I mean  men  who  were  already  pledged  to  the 
other  candidates? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  succeed  in  getting  many  of  the  Senator’s 
friends  back? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I hoped  so,  and  believe  that  some  of  them  did  come 
back. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  These  other  campaigns  were  all  thoroughly  under 
way,  were  they  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I will  ask  you  whether  or  not  it  is  a fact,  if  it  is, 
that  in  the  developments  of  this  campaign  rather  vigorous  and  active 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


329 


criticisms  were  made  on  the  Senator  by  the  various  gentlemen  who 
were  acting  in  the  interests  of  the  other  three  candidates  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  so  consider  them,  and  did  so  consider  them 
at  that  time;  yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  there  any  way,  in  your  judgment,  of  meeting 
these  criticisms — not  to  say  assaults — that  were  being  made  by  the 
representatives  of  the  other  candidates  in  their  personal  canvass  of 
the  Republicans  throughout  the  State  other  than  by  procuring  men  to 
go  out  and  meet  the  Republican  voters  and  answer  the  arguments 
and  the  criticisms? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I knew  of  no  other  way,  except  that  and  by  adver- 
tising and  by  letters. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  whether  or  not  you  considered  the  time  and 
the  expenses  of  men  employed  for  the  purpose  of  going  about  and 
canvassing  and  discussing  with  and  arguing  with  people  and  meeting 
these  criticisms  and  assaults  upon  the  Senator  a legitimate  expense 
and  within  the  scope  of  the  term  “ organization  ” as  you  have  used  it. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I certainly  so  considered  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I will  inquire  of  you  whether  or  not  you  would 
consider,  or  did  consider,  within  the  legitimate  scope  of  the  term 
“ organizing,”  as  you  have  used  it,  the  expenses  incurred  in  procuring 
lists  of  names  of  Republicans  in  the  various  sections  for  the  purpose 
of  enabling  you  at  the  headquarters  to  mail  out  to  them  literature  in 
the  interest  of  Senator  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  say  that  any  expense  attached  to  receiving 
such  lists  and  reporting  to  me  was  legitimate. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  consider  that  an  item  that  was  involved 
in  the  term  “ organization  ” or  “ organizing,”  as  you  have  used  the 
term  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  whether  or  not  you  considered  the  hiring  of 
teams  and  men,  or  automobiles  and  men,  as  the  case  may  be,  to  get 
voters  to  the  polls  on  election  day,  who  otherwise  would  not  be  likely 
to  go  and  vote,  within  the  scope,  in  your  judgment,  of  the  term 
“ organization  ” or  u organizing,”  as  you  have  used  it  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  is  one  of  the  items  that  I have  referred  to. 

The  Chairman.  In  connection  with  that  question  and  similar  ques- 
tions 1 desire  to  put  in  the  record  the  provision  of  the  statute  under 
which  these  charges  are  filed,  section  338,  which  reads  as  follows: 

338.  Bribery  in  connection  with  caucus. 

Sec.  4542ft.  Every  person  who,  by  bribery  or  corrupt  or  unlawful  means, 
prevents  or  attempts  to  prevent  any  voter  from  attending  or  voting  at  any 
preliminary  meeting  or  caucus  mentioned  in  sections  11a  to  lli,  or  who  shall 
give  or  offer  to  give  any  valuable  thing  or  bribe  to  any  officer,  inspector,  or 
delegate  whose  office  is  therein  created,  or  who  shall  give  or  offer  to  give  any 
valuable  thing  or  bribe  to  an  elector  as  a consideration  for  some  act  to  be  done 
in  relation  to  such  preliminary  meeting,  caucus,  or  convention,  or  who  shall 
interfere  with  or  in  any  manner  disturb  any  preliminary  meeting,  caucus,  or 
convention  held  under  said  provisions  shall  be  punished  as  provided  in  sec- 
tion 4542a. 

I read  that  at  this  point,  because  that  is  the  section  of  the  law  under 
which  these  charges  are  made,  and  the  language  in  that  section,  “ as 
a consideration  for  some  act  to  be  done  in  relation  to  such  preliminary 
meeting,  caucus,  or  convention,”  are  the  words  that  are  repeated  in 
each  of  the  statutes  which  were  sent  to  the  committee  by  the  governor. 


330 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Mr.  Littlefield.  Were  all  of  the  other  candidates  in  this  campaign 
carrying  on  their  organization  upon  the  same  basis  to  which  I have 
just  called  your  attention? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I believe  that  to  be  true. 

The  Chairman.  What  others  were  doing  is  entirely  immaterial. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  In  the  term  44  organization,”  or  44  organization 
expense,”  did  you  consider  the  expense  of  a final  canvass  to  ascertain, 
so  far  as  you  might  be  able,  the  men  to  be  brought  home  and  for 
whom  teams  would  have  to  be  sent  on  election  day  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  would  be  considered  legitimate,  and  under  the 
term  44  organizing.” 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Would  you  consider  legitimate  the  expense  of  em- 
ploying workers  at  the  polls  on  election  day  to  check  up  the  vote  and 
send  for  those  who  had  not  voted  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I would  consider  that  a part  of  the  organizing  work ; 
yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I understand  that  you  had  conversations  with 
practically  all  of  these  men  whom  you  employed.  Did  you  discuss 
with  them  the  details  involved  in  organizing? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I have  no  recollection  of  having  done  so.  I assume 
that  I did.  I believe  that  I did,  in  some  instances. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  When  you  say  you  have  no  recollection  of  having 
done  so,  do  you  mean  that  you  have  no  recollection  of  it  in  any  par- 
ticular instance? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  may  state  what  you  did  generally  under 
such  circumstances. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know  that  I can  explain  my  talks  with 
these  men  any  more  fully  than  I have. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I do  not  intend  to  raise  an  objection  to  the 
question,  nor  do  I desire  to  exclude  this  testimony;  but  it  has  ap- 
peared in  the  record  heretofore  that  this  witness  was,  so  it  is  claimed, 
practically  without  political  experience;  but  now  you  are  seeking  to 
make  an  expert  of  him.  I am  not  referring  to  this  particular  ques- 
tion, but  to  this  line  of  questions. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I submit  this  to  the  consideration  of  the  com- 
mittee, and  I will  ask  its  ruling.  This  is  the  witness  who  did  a great 
many  of  these  things 

Senator  Pomerene.  I understand  that. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I understand  it  is  not  only  competent,  but  per- 
haps necessary  for  us  to  show  what  the  witness  himself  understood, 
and  what  he  did  and  why  he  did  it.  I do  not  think  that  goes  quite 
so  far  as  to  undertake  to  say  that  he  is  an  expert.  I am  simply 
showing  the  acts  and  conduct  of  the  witness. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Your  examination  smacked  of  the  expert  char- 
acter. I will  not  object  to  your  going  on. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  It  is  intended  to  be  illuminative.  Mr.  Edmonds, 
you  may  state  whether  or  not  when  you  had  your  conversations  with 
the  gentlemen  whom  you  employed  for  the  purpose  of  organizing 
these  various  sections,  you  did  or  did  not  discuss  with  them  any  of 
the  details  to  which  your  attention  has  been  called,  that  are  involved 
in  the  term  44  organizing.” 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


331 


Mr.  Edmonds.  I certainly  believe  that  in  some  of  the  conversations 
I talked  over  these  matters.  I have  no  recollection  that  in  any  par- 
ticular instance  I did. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  have  no  recollection  that  in  any  particular 
instance  you  did  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  had  the  management  of  the  campaign? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  In  the  office  here  in  Milwaukee  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  engaged  something  like  TO  men;  or  how 
many  men  did  you  engage,  putting  it  roughly  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall.  I think  I stated  first  that  I engaged 
approximately  one  for  each  county. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Then  there  may  have  been  60  or  70  men  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  The  records  will  show  that. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  percentage  of  these  men  were  not  known  to 
you  at  the  time  you  examined  them? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I can  not  recall  now. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Fifty  per  cent? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  not  think  as  many  as  that ; no,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  As  to  those  who  were  not  known  to  you,  what 
course  did  you  pursue  before  you  engaged  them  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I endeavored  to  learn  of  their  character  and  reputa- 
tion, and  that  was  learned  from  someone  of  whom  I inquired,  some 
person  or  persons. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  whether  or  not  you  mean  by  that  that  you 
had  a personal  conference  with  someone,  or  a conference  over  the 
phone. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  might  have  been  either  way. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Were  your  inquiries,  under  such  circumstances, 
confined  to  one  person  or  did  they  extend  to  more  than  one;  I mean 
generally. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall  any  particular  instance  now,  but  I 
assume  that  1 inquired  of  a man  with  whom  I was  acquainted ; some- 
times several  men  and  sometimes  only  one. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  long  a time,  as  a rule,  was  occupied  by  you 
in  your  conferences  with  these  gentlemen  whom  you  employed  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  is  very  hard  to  say. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I mean  roughly  speaking. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  From  half  an  hour  to  three  or  four  hours. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  many  people  would  you  meet  in  a day  at 
the  headquarters? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know;  a great  many  men  whom  I would 
meet  would  not  take  more  than  two  or  three  minutes.  Others  would 
take  a longer  time.  I can  not  recall,  but  I presume  40  or  50.  I was 
busy  all  the  time  meeting  people.  In  fact,  that  very  materially  in- 
terrupted the  work  that  I had  to  do  in  the  way  of  sending  out  let- 
ters, and  so  forth. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  do  any  business  over  the  long-distance 
telephone  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 


332 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Mr.  Littlefield.  Can  you  give  the  committee  any  approximate 
estimate  of  the  number  of  long-distance  telephone  calls  you  would 
answer,  on  an  average,  daily? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  would  be  very  hard  for  me  to  say.  The 
telephone  bill  would  perhaps  be  better  evidence  of  that. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I am  simply  getting  your  best  judgment  of  it 
now. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  would  be  very  difficult  for  me  to  say ; anywhere 
from  25  to  50,  probably. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Could  you  give  any  estimate  of  the  number  of 
conversations  .that  you  had,  not  only  with  the  men  whom  you  actually 
employed,  but  other  men  who  were  interested  in  the  campaign,  both 
personal  conversations  and  conversations  over  the  telephone,  during 
this  period  of  something  like  52  days,  which  was,  I think,  the  num- 
ber of  working  days  that  you  had  for  your  campaign? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think  I could.  I was  busy  with  that  kind 
of  work  from  8 o’clock  in  the  morning  until  anywhere  from  11  o’clock 
at  night  to  2 or  3 o’clock  in  the  morning. 

The  Chairman.  I should  naturally  expect  to  find  those  items  on 
the  bill  of  the  telephone  company.  Is  there  a bill  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I believe  there  is  a bill  specifying  the  telephone 
charges. 

The  Chairman.  Showing  each  call? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  would  not  find  a statement  of  the  conversa- 
tions on  the  telephone  bill. 

The  Chairman.  You  would  find  the  item  stating  that  there  was  a 
conversation. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Not  as  to  the  people  who  called  at  the  office. 
Your  question  was  about  conversations  that  he  had,  in  the  office  or 
over  the  telephone. 

The  Chairman.  I was  not  asking  with  reference  to  that.  I was 
suggesting  that  there  was  better  evidence  of  the  number  of  telephone 
calls,  perhaps,  than  the  recollection  of  the  witness. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  it  not  a fact  that  during  the  progress  of  this 
campaign  you  had  thousands  of  conversations  with  different  people? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I presume  it  would  run  up  into  the  thousands.  I 
had  not  thought  of  it  in  that  way. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I understand  you  to  say  you  never  asked  any  of 
the  gentlemen  whom  you  selected  to  help  you  whether  or  not  there 
had  been  any  unlawful  expenditure  of  money.  Is  that  the  fact? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  remember  ever  having  put  that  question 
up  to  a man. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  anything  occur  during  the  whole  campaign 
that  would  have  required  such  an  inquiry  by  you?  Did  any  report 
come  to  you  that  would  lead  you  to  make  such  an  inquiry  of  an^  of 
the  gentlemen  with  whom  you  made  your  engagements? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall  any  such  instance  and  do  not  believe 
there  was,  because  I think  if  there  had  been  I would  have  inquired. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  have  already  stated,  but  I would  like  to 
have  you  state  in  this  connection,  the  character  of  the  men  whom  you 
employed ; first  with  reference  to  their  capacity  to  do  their  work,  and 
next  with  reference  to  the  question  of  their  integrity  and  character. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


333 


Senator  Pomerene.  The  witness  has  already  stated  that  as  to 
many  of  these  men  he  knew  nothing.  How  could  he  testify  as  to  their 
character  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  He  has  also  testified  that  he  did  not  employ  any 
man  until  he  had  inquired  of  men  who  did  know  as  to  his  character. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  would  have  reference  simply  to  their 
reputation. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  he  believed  these  men  to  be  when  he  em- 
ployed them.  I understand  him  to  say  that  when  he  did  not  know  a 
man  he  took  pains  to  inquire  of  others  concerning  him  before  he 
engaged  him. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  used  the  word  u character,”  and  I assumed 
that  you  were  using  it  in  its  technical  legal  meaning,  and  in  contra- 
distinction from  reputation,  character  being  what  a man  is  and 
reputation  what  he  is  known  or  believed  to  be. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I should  like,  as  far  as  this  witness  is  concerned, 
to  have  him  state  what  sort  of  men  he  understood  he  was  employing, 
as  bearing  upon  his  good  faith  and  his  integrity. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  If  I have  made  the  statement  in  the  record  that  I 
employed  men  whom  I did  not  know  anything  about,  I want  to  cor- 
rect it.  Many  men  were  not  personally  known  to  me 

Senator  Pomerene.  Except  by  inquiry? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Some  of  these  men  were  not  known  to  me  person- 
ally, but  in  every  instance  inquiry  was  made,  so  that  I felt  and  be- 
lieved that  I had  a proper  estimate  of  their  reputation  and  character. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Will  you  be  kind  enough  to  state  to  the  com- 
mittee what  sort  of  men  you  believed  you  were  employing  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  None  but  men  of  good  reputation,  who  could  natu- 
rally be  intrusted  wTith  the  amount  of  money  placed  in  their  hands 
for  organization  work. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  were  asked  if  you  knew  whether  these  men 
to  whom  you  intrusted  funds  in  the  campaign,  under  the  circum- 
stances to  which  you  have  testified,  did  not  keep  all  the  money  and  I 
understood  you  to  say  that  you  did  not  know. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I did  not  know.  They  made  no  report  to  me. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  intend  to  have  any  inference  drawn  from 
that  that  in  your  judgment  any  of  these  men  did  keep  the  money  that 
was  intrusted  to  them? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  dislike  to  believe  anything  of  the  kind, 
and  would  not  like  to  have  an  intimation  of  that  kind  go  into  the 
record.  I do  not  believe  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Has  any  information  ever  come  to  you,  except 
the  guess  of  that  committee,  of  $30,000  being  misappropriated,  which 
has  just  been  called  to  your  attention  this  morning?  Has  any  infor- 
mation ever  come  to  you  from  any  reliable  source  that  would  lead 
you  to  believe  that  any  of  these  gentlemen  who  were  under  you  in  the 
campaign  as  local  or  other  managers  had  kept  any  of  the  money  that 
you  intrusted  to  them  and  used  it  for  their  own  purposes,  or  other 
than  the  purposes  for  which  the  money  was  intrusted  to  them  by  you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  From  no  reliable  source;  no,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Has  that  suggestion  ever  been  made  anywhere, 
except  in  the  columns  of  some  political  newspaper  in  discussing  this 


334 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


campaign,  in  making  assaults  upon  Senator  Stephenson  and  his 
management,  to  your  knowledge  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  say  that  that  statement  would  cover  those 
who  have  made  such  suggestions. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  effectively  was  the  State  of  Wisconsin 
advertised  and  posted  with  the  posters  and  lithographs  issued  in 
the  interest  of  Senator  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  would  be  very  difficult  to  state. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  So  far  as  you  know.  I do  not  ask  you  to  go  into 
it  in  detail. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Not  nearly  as  thoroughly  as  we  had  expected  to  be 
able  to  do ; and  so  far  as  organization  in  the  way  of'  getting  lists  was 
concerned,  we  had  no  information  of  that  kind  at  all. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  pay  or  authorize  to  be  paid  to  any  of 
the  gentlemen  who  represented  you  any  sums  without  an}'  under- 
standing as  to  the  purpose  for  which  the  sums  were  to  be  used? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I believe  in  every  instance  where  I had  a conver- 
sation with  a man  we  talked  over  in  greater  or  less  degree  not  only 
the  situation  in  the  territory  in  which  he  lived,  but  the  expenditures 
as  well.  I have  no  personal  definite  recollection  at  this  time  of 
what  was  said  in  any  particular  instance. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I understand  that.  Please  state  what  the  fact 

is,  so  far  as  you  have  knowledge  of  the  fact,  as  to  whether  or  not 
gentlemen  like  Mr.  Perrin,  Mr.  Riordan,  Mr.  Gordon,  and  the  others 
would  or  would  not  have  supported  Senator  Stephenson  if  money 
had  not  been  placed  by  you  in  their  hands  for  the  purposes  which 
you  have  indicated? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  believe  there  is  any  possible  question  about 

it.  There  is  no  question  in  the  minds  of  any  of  those  who  know 
these  men. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Have  you  any  doubt  about  it  yourself  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Not  a particle. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  whether  or  not  that  is  true  of  all  the  men 
whom  you  employed. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I believe  that  to  be  the  case  in  every  instance. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Now,  Mr.  Edmonds,  I should  be  very  glad  to 
have  you  take  this  list  that  you  have  put  in  here  this  morning,  as  to 
which  the  general  inquiry  was  made.  I rather  feel  it  incumbent 
upon  us  to  see  that  the  details  are  taken  care  of.  I should  be  very 
glad  to  have  you  take  this  list  and  go  right  through  it,  so  that  I 
need  not  keep  repeating  the  questions,  and  state  to  whom  the  money 
was  paid,  the  amount,  the  circumstances  under  which  it  was  paid, 
and  what  you  know  about  it,  and  the  purposes  for  which  it  was  paid. 
So  far  as  you  have  already  gone  over  arrangements  made  with  men 
whose  names  are  repeated  here,  of  course  it  is  understood  you  do 
not  have  any  occasion  to  repeat  the  conversation.  I do  not  want  to 
fill  the  record  up  in  that  way,  and  I would  suggest,  if  the  committee 
have  no  objection,  that  when  you  reach  the  name  of  a man  as  to 
whom  you  have  already  explained,  you  simply  say,  “ I have  made  a 
full  explanation  as  to  this  name.”  I suppose  there  is  no  objection 
to  that.  In  other  words,  please  be  kind  enough  to  go  through  the 
list,  and  when  you  reach  a name  as  to  which  you  have  made  no 
explanation  be  land  enough  to  make,  in  your  own  way,  according 
to  your  recollection,  a full  explanation  of  all  you  know  about  it,  of 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


335 


the  date,  and  the  circumstances  under  which  it  was  done,  and  the 
purposes  for  which  the  money  was  paid.  Do  I make  myself  clear? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I believe  so. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Start  with  the  list  and  go  right  down  through  it. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  One  hundred  dollars  to  J.  H.  Frank.  That  has 
been  explained.  That  is  a part  of  the  expenditure  which  was  to  be 
made  in  that  case  of  the  money  which  had  to  be  paid  to  him. 

City  of  Portage,  J.  H.  Wells 

Mr.  Black.  He  is  not  giving  the  dates. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  So  that  we  can  be  sure  to  have  each  one  identified 
give  the  dates  as  you  go  along  and  that  will  locate  the  items. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  is  marked  here  “August  28.” 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Follow  right  along  here  so  as  to  give  the  date, 
and  then  give  the  item. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  J.  H.  Wells  was  the  organizer  employed  in  Colum- 
bia County.  He  was  paid  $200.  The  same  general  arrangements 
were  made  with  him,  and  the  same  general  talk  had  that  I had  with 
others  in  regard  to  organizing  work.  I had  that  same  talk  with  him 
in  regard  to  organizing  work  in  that  county.  The  next  item  under 
the  same  date 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  is  the  date? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  August  28;  Medford  W.  Phlughhoeft,  $126.  My 
recollection  of  that  is  not  very  clear.  I remember  the  name  and  the 
fact  that  he  did  work  among  the  Germans  in  German  communities. 
The  next  item  under  the  same  date  is  “ Rock  County,  W.  G. 
Wheeler,  $600.”  Mr.  Wheeler  was  employed  by  me,  or  given  this 
money  rather,  without  any  compensation  to  himself,  to  organize 
Rock  County. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  there  any  compensation  to  Mr.  Phlugh- 
hoeft or  was  it  all  for  expenses  and  disbursements  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Have  you  stated  whether  there  was  or  not  any 
compensation  to  Wells? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  To  my  best  recollection  there  was  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  was,  then,  for  disbursements? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Go  right  along  now. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  The  next  item  under  the  same  date  is  “ General, 
Henry  Overbeck,  $71.79.”  I do  not  recall  the  particular  item,  but 
I know  that  Mr.  Overbeck  was  at  work  for  us  and  sent  out  from  the 
office  at  different  times,  and  I assume  that  this  was  an  expense.  The 
next  item,  under  the  same  date,  is  “ Portage  County,  J.  D.  Curran, 
$250.” 

The  Chairman.  What  is  the  date  of  that  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  August  28.  Mr.  Curran  was  our  organizer  in  Port- 
age County.  I am  not  certain  that  I had  a conversation  with  him  or 
talked  with  him  otherwise  than  by  phone. 

The  next  item  under  the  same  date  is  “ J.  T.  Sexton,  $50.12.”  That 
is  one  of  the  items  which  has  been  referred  to  and  explained 
heretofore. 

The  next  item  is  “ Racine  County,  J.  R.  Jones,  August  29,  $100.” 
That  has  been  explained  before. 

Under  the  same  date,  “ Barron  County,  A.  T.  Hulbert,  $100.” 
That  is  an  item  I do  iiot  recall.  It  was  undoubtedly  arranged  for 


336 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


by  me,  but  I do  not  even  remember  the  man.  I do  not  know  who 

he  is  now. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  would  you  say  that  sum  was  for,  so  far 
as  you  have  any  recollection  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  say  it  was  for  organizing  work  in  Barron 
County,  because  I have  no  other  record  of  an  expenditure  in  Barron 
County  in  the  office. 

The  Chairman.  At  this  point,  in  view  of  the  testimony  which  the 
witness  has  just  given,  the  committee  will  require  this  witness  to  file 
a list  of  the  men  employed  as  organizers,  the  counties  they  were  to 
organize,  and  the  amounts  paid  them,  with  the  dates.  It  appears 
that  one  man  was  an  organizer  in  a large  number  of  counties. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is,  the  committee  would  like  to  have  that 
information  in  summarized  shape. 

The  Chairman.  We  want  that  statement.  We  want  this  witness  to 
file  it  as  a part  of  his  testimony. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Mr.  Edmonds,  you  understand  what  is  required, 
do  you  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  With  the  explanation  that  the  statement  will  have  to 
be  made  from  this,  as  to  amounts,  and  my  best  recollection. 

The  Chairman.  You  will  make  a statement  for  which  you  will  be 
responsible.  What  did  you  say  was  the  name  of  the  man  who  organ- 
ized a large  number  of  counties? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No  one  that  I have  mentioned  at  this  time. 

The  Chairman.  The  reason  for  requiring  this  list  is  apparent.  I 
will  not  interrupt  the  examination. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  like  to  explain 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Make  such  explanation  as  you  desire. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  like  to  make  the  explanation  that  if  I stated 
that  a man  was  an  organizer  in  different  counties,  my  statement  was 
incorrect. 

The  Chairman.  You  made  that  statement  with  reference  to  Mr. 
Overbeck,  did  you  not,  that  he  had  charge 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No;  he  was  sent  out  from  the  office  as  one  of  what 
were  yesterday  termed  “ political  scouts.” 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I notice  that  you  did  not  give  the  purpose  for 
which  the  $250  was  paid  to  Mr.  Curran. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  For  organizing  in  that  county. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  next  item  is  Oconto  County. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  The  same  date,  August  29,  George  Beyer,  $300. 
George  Beyer  did  organization  work  in  Oconto  County. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  was  the  money  paid  to  him  for  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  For  that  purpose. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  recollect  whether  that  was  for  his  dis- 
bursements, or  did  it  include  any  sum  for  his  compensation  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall  now,  but  I do  not  believe  any  of  it 
was  for  compensation.  He  is  a man  of  considerable  wealth,  and  that 
was  not  necessary. 

“ Iowa  County,  J.  N.  Riece,  $50.”  I do  not  recall  that,  but  my 
present  belief  is  that  this  is  an  item  of  advertising.  I think  Mr.  Riece 
is  a newspaper  man.  The  next  item  under  the  same  date,  “ Middle- 
ton,  D.  F.  Sherbel,  $32.08.”  I remember  the  man  but  I do  not  recall 
the  particular  amount  paid  or  just  what  it  was  for.  I remember  that 
he  did  work  for  us,  and  brought  in  information  at  my  suggestion. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


337 


This  was  undoubtedly  his  expense.  The  next  item  is,  “August  31, 
R.  H.  Morse.”  Whether  that  has  been  referred  to  or  not  I do  not 
know.  At  any  rate,  Mr.  Morse  was  the  organizer  for  the  Stephenson 
campaign  in  Fond  du  Lac  County. 

The  Chairman.  The  committee  will  take  a recess  at  this  point  until 
2 o’clock.  I will  say  at  this  time  that  it  is  evident  that  this  witness 
can  not  be  promised  that  he  will  be  free  to-day.  His  testimony  this 
morning  has  given  evidence  of  the  necessity  of  some  further  ex- 
amination. 

(At  12  o’clock  and  30  minutes  p.  m.  the  subcommittee  took  a recess 
until  2 o’clock  p.  m.) 

AFTER  RECESS. 

At  the  expiration  of  the  recess  the  subcommittee  reassembled. 

TESTIMONY  OF  E.  A.  EDMONDS— Resumed. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  When  we  took  the  recess  we  were  down  to  the 
item  of  “ R.  H.  Morse.” 

The  next  item  is  “ Distributing  and  hanging  posters,  M.  P.  Ed- 
wards.” If  the  subcommittee  please,  outside  of  the  question  of 
-organizing  I am  not  going  to  spend  very  much  time  about  other 
items.  I want  the  witness  to  be  more  particularly  careful  about  the 
organizing  expenses. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  item  explains  itself  in  so  far  as  I can  tell. 
The  only  reason  I include  it  in  my  list  is  that  it  is  marked  “ E.  A.  E.” 
I do  not  recall  the  man  himself. 

The  next  item  under  the  same  date,  “ $220  ” — “ $200  to  E.  A.  E.,” 
and  “ H.  Bowman,  $20.”  I no  doubt  received  the  $200,  and  it  was 
used  for  the  same  purpose. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  was  the  $20  paid  Mr.  Bowman  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall.  I had  no  reason  to  doubt  that 
it  was. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Just  read  that  item  as  it  is  contained  here  in 
the  printed  account. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  “ General  (E.  A.  E.,  $200;  H.  Bowman,  $20),  $220.” 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Who  is  the  “ H.  Bowman  ” ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I am  not  positive,  but  I think  Harry  Bowman,  from 
Waukesha  County. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  he  one  of  the  deputy  game  wardens? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  have  any  present  recollection  as  to  that 
item  of  $20  to  Mr.  Bowman? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  I do  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  know  where  it  was  paid  to  him,  whether 
at  headquarters  or  elsewhere? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I have  not  any  recollection. 

“ Eau  Claire  County,  J.  T.  Joyce,  $50.”  I remember  having  sent 
to  Mr.  Joyce  some  amount.  I do  not  recall  this  particular  amount. 
I know  that  Mr.  Joyce  was  a friend  of  Senator  Stephenson  in  that 
compaign,  and  through  some  source  it  was  suggested  that  I send  him 
this  amount.  I do  not  recall  the  circumstances. 

15235°— VOL  1—11 22 


338 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Mr.  Littlefield.  For  what  purpose  was  the  $50  sent  to  Mr.  Joyce? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I am  unable  to  state  now,  but  my  judgment  would 
be  that  it  was  either  for  money  expended  already  by  him  in  the  cam- 
paign or  to  be  expended. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  For  what  purpose?  That  is,  for  what  purpose 
expended?  Have  you  any  knowledge  of  the  details? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not ; no,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  the  best  you  can  say  about  it  is  that  you 
understood  it  to  be  expended  for  purposes  involved  in  the  organizing 
in  the  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes.  Mr.  Joyce  was  a very  reputable  banker  in  that 
city. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  say  he  is  a banker? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  next  item  under  the  same  date  is  “Advertising,  H.  H.  Morgan, 
$73.”  I do  not  recall  this  particular  item.  I known  that  I saw  Mr. 
Morgan  two  or  three  times,  or  oftener,  perhaps,  during  the  cam- 
paign. Mr.  Morgan  was  in  Madison  and  did  a good  deal  of  work  for 
Senator  Stephenson,  I believe.  In  just  what  manner  I do  not  know. 

The  next  item  is  “ Jefferson  County,  George  Kispert,  $50.”  That 
has  been  already  explained. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  that  money  advanced  to  him  for  the  pur- 
poses you  have  already  explained  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  under  the  arrangement  you  have  already 
testified  to? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  next  item  under  the  same  date  is  “ Distributing  posters,  M.  T. 
Park,  $15.”  That  was  for  services  performed. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  item  says  “ Distributing  and  hanging  post- 
ers.” 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  does  the  term  “ hanging  posters  ” mean? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Usually  that  would  mean  inside,  because  when  they 
were  placed  outside  they  were  tacked  up. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  mean  in  show  windows? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  next  item  is  “Appleton,  C.  C.  Whalen.” 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  should  be  changed  so  as  to  read  “ Wayland.” 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes.  The  item  is  for  $300.  This  was  one  of  the 
items  paid  to  Mr.  Wayland  in  accordance  with  contract. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  the  date  of  that  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  The  same  date — August  31. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  whether  or  not  that  is  one  of  the  items  as  to 
which  you  have  already  made  as  full  explanation  as  you  can. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  that  was  under  the  contract,  an  amount  paid 
him. 

The  next  item  is  “ Chippewa  County,  M.  C.  Ring,  $125.”  Two 
amounts  paid  him  under  my  agreement  I have  already  testified  to 
with  him.  This  is  an  amount  paid  to  him. 

The  next  item  on  that  same  date  is  “ General,  D.  H.  Grady,  $15.” 
I can  not  recall  what  that  is.  I remember  having  some  transaction 
with  Mr.  Grady,  whereby  he  did,  I think,  some  legal  work;  but  as 


E.  A.  EDMONDS.  339 

to  what  it  was  I do  not  know.  He  is  a Democrat  and  was  not  working 
for  Senator  Stephenson. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  is  he,  a lawyer  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  is  a lawyer ; yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  do  not  remember  what  that  was  paid  to  him 
for,  do  you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  I can  not  recall  just  what  the  services  were. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  it  to  reimburse  him  for  some  bill  that  he 
had  paid? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  is  my  judgment,  but  I am  not  positive.  It 
possibly  was  paid  in  advance,  though  the  date  would  indicate  it  was 
for  services  already  rendered. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  remember  whether  it  was  for  some  bill 
that  had  been  paid  by  Mr.  Grady  where  he  had  advanced  money  to 
some  one  for  advertising? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  I do  not  now  recall. 

The  next  item  is  44  Racine  County,  J.  R.  Jones,  $150.”  This  is  one 
of  the  items  paid  Mr.  Jones  on  the  agreement  made  with  him  pre- 
viously and  heretofore  explained. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  whether  or  not  that  was  advanced  to  him 
under  the  arrangement  and  for  the  purposes  for  which  you  have 
already  testified? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  next  item  on  the  same  date,  “Advertising,  C.  E.  Smith,  $56.” 
My  recollection  is  that  C.  E.  Smith  is  the  editor  of  a paper  in  Wash- 
ington County. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Well,  that  being  the  case,  what,  in  accordance 
with  your  best  recollection,  was  the  $56  paid  for? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  For  advertising,  as  stated,  or  for  newspaper  work. 

The  next  item,  44  General,  W.  E.  Powell  ” 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  goes  down  under  the  date  of  September  5, 
does  it  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  September  5,  $44. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Have  you  already  made  a statement  in  relation 
to  Powell  ? My  recollection  is  that  you  have  not. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Very  well.  State  briefly  and  concisely  just  ex- 
actly what  that  was  for,  so  far  as  you  can  recall. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  now  recall  just  what  the  services  were.  Mr. 
Powell’s  home  was  in  Waukesha  County,  I believe,  and  in  the  pre- 
cinct where  he  lived  he  did  certain  work,  for  which  he  was  paid.  But 
just  what  it  was  I do  not  now  remember.  I do  not  recall  that  I ever 
had  any  agreement  with  him. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Are  you  able  to  state  any  more  definitely  the  char- 
acter of  the  work  done? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  I am  not.  Undoubtedly  at  that  time  he 
explained  to  me,  but  I do  not  recall  now. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  recollect  whether  that  was  paid  to  him 
in  person  or  sent  to  him  by  mail  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  next  item  is  44  Ozaukee  County,  C.  O.  Larson,  $254.” 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  this  the  same  Larson  about  whom  you  have 
already  explained? 


340 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  whether  or  not  this  sum  was  sent  to  him 
under  the  agreement  and  for  the  purposes  that  you  have  already 
explained. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  was  paid  to  him  under  the  agreement  ; yes,  sir. 

The  next  item  is  “ Richland  County,  N.  L.  James,  $200.” 

Mr.  Littlefield.  This  is  the  first  time  his  name  has  occurred,  is 
it  not  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Well,  explain  about  that. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  My  recollection  is  that  the  efforts  of  N.  L.  James, 
whom  I first  met  during  the  campaign,  were  not  confined  entirely  to 
Richland  County. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  In  the  first  place,  tell  the  committee  who  Mr. 
J ames  is,  if  you  know. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Mr.  N.  L.  James  is  an  old  soldier,  living  somewhere 
in  Richland  County,  a very  pronounced  “ stalwart,”  an  old  friend, 
I believe,  of  Senator  Stephenson,  and  who  was  one  of  the  first, 
among  the  first,  to  advocate  and  to  urge  the  nomination  of  Senator 
Stephenson. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  whether  or  not  he  was  a man  of  means. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know  that  I have  been  informed. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  do  not  know  about  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  what  was  done  with  him. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I have  no  particular  recollection  of  the  conversation 
I had  with  him,  but  his  work  was  in  general  to  do  work  for  Senator 
Stephenson  wherever  he  saw  fit  in  his  locality.  I think  he  had  been 
a member  of  the  State  senate ; at  least,  he  was  a very  prominent  man 
in  political  life  for  a good  many  years  in  Wisconsin. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  know  what  business  he  was  engaged  in 
at  the  time? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  If  I did  know  it,  I do  not  remember  it  now. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Have  you  ever  had  a conversation  with  him 
that  resulted  in  his  taking  pay  or  employment  and  the  payment  of 
money  to  him  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  As  to  that,  I do  not  recall.  I know  I talked  with 
him  at  different  times.  My  best  judgment  would  be  that  he  rendered 
services  and  worked  for  Senator  Stephenson  and  announced  that  he 
had  expended  so  much  money,  and  he  was  paid  in  that  way,  though 
I am  not  positive  as  to  that. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  say  you  had  several  talks  with  him.  What 
was  the  subject  matter  of  the  conversation? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  As  to  the  condition  of  the  campaign  in  his  locality 
and  where  he  had  been  during  that  period. 

The  next  item  is  “ Kenosha  County,  Fred  Remold.”  My  best  recol- 
lection of  that  item  is  that  a check  was  sent  to  Fred  Reinold — whether 
in  person  or  by  mail  I am  not  sure — in  payment  for  services  rendered. 
As  to  where  I got  the  idea,  about  the  services,  just  what  he  had  done, 
or  why  he  was  entitled  to  that  amount  of  $111.05,  I am  not  able  to 
recall  now. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Do  you  mean  to  distinguish  between  services 
rendered  and  “ organization  ” ? 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


341 


Mr.  Edmonds.  No;  I should  refer  to  services  rendered  in  organiza- 
tion. I meant  to  distinguish  in  this  way,  that  I do  not  remember 
ever  having  seen  this  man,  but  I do  recall  the  name,  and  that  he  had 
to  do  with  the  campaign. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  was  the  nature  of  the  services  he  was 
rendering  in  the  campaign?  That  is,  how  would  you  characterize 
them  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  To  the  best  of  my  recollection  he  had  been  working 
for  Senator  Stephenson  in  an  effort  to  get  out  a large  vote  in  Kenosha 
County. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  is  the  date  of  the  last  several  items? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  September  5.  The  next  item  is  44  Milwaukee 
County,  R.  J.  White,  cash.”  I remember  having  paid  to  Mr.  White 
an  amount  of  money,  whether  $150  or  $100  I was  not  certain,  until 
this  called  it  to  my  attention.  Mr.  White  was  one  of  the  managers, 
or  assisted  in  the  management  of  the  county  campaign,  and  I often 
saw  him,  and  I believe  at  this  time,  as  his  record  will  show,  the  funds 
in  the  hands  of  the  county  campaign  committee  had  been  exhausted, 
and  my  recollection  is  that  he  reported  to  me  that  he  had  overpaid 
this  amount,  and  needed  it,  and  it  was  paid  to  him. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  say  the  funds  had  been  exhausted  in  the 
county  campaign.  State  whether  or  not  you  refer  to  the  Milwaukee 
County  campaign. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  have  stated  so;  j^es,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  With  the  exception  of  some  items  on  the  latter 
end  of  the  account,  is  it  or  not  true  that  the  Milwaukee  campaign 
was  conducted  independently  of  your  general  headquarters  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  except  for  this  item  and  one  other,  as  far  as  I 
know. 

The  next  item  is  44  General,  $94.02.”  I put  that  item  down,  because 
while  it  reads  in  the  book  [referring  to  44  Exhibit  49,”  p.  595]  44  Gen-  . 
eral,  No.  33965,  L.  B.  Cox,  $50  and  $30.27,”  I remember  the  $50. 

Senator  Pomerene.  L.  B.  Cox? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  has  been  referred  to  in  previous  testimony.  As 
to  the  $30.27,  I have  no  recollection. 

The  next  item  is  44  Racine  County,  J.  R.  Jones,  $183.50.”  This 
agreement  has  been  testified  to,  and  this  is  simply  a payment  in  view 
of  the  contract  made  earlier  in  the  campaign. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  whether  or  not  that  was  disbursed  for  the 
same  purposes  you  have  already  described,  in  connection  with  Mr. 
Jones,  and  whether  or  not  this  sum  that  was  paid  to  Mr.  Jones  of 
$183.50  was  disbursed  through  Mr.  Jones  for  that  same  purpose  and 
under  the  same  conditions  that  you  have  already  described  in  relation 
to  Mr.  Jones. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes.  I meant  to  state  that,  if  I did  not. 

This  item,  which  is  the  next  one,  of  44  Fond  du  Lac  County,  E.  A. 
Morse,”  is  a mistake.  That  is,  the  location  is.  That  is  not  Fond  du 
Lac  County.  I remember  distinctly  the  $27  that  was  paid  to  E.  A. 
Morse.  He  was  a Congressman  at  the  time  and  was  running  for 
Congress,  and  I had  seen  him  some  time  during  the  campaign,  and 
had  agreed  with  him  that  whatever  expenses  he  had  in  connection 
with  his  campaign  where  he  could  work  in  with  Senator  Stephenson’s 
interests,  we  would  divide  up,  and  this  amount  was  paid  in,  because 
he  told  me  that  was  the  amount  that  he  had  expended. 


342 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Senator  Sutherland.  How  much  do  you  say  that  was? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  $27. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  I understand  you  to  say  that  that  was 
half  of  his  expense  in  the  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir.  That  was  half  of  certain  expenses  that  he 
had  paid  in  conection  with  his  campaign  and  Senator  Stephenson’s. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  expenses? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  remember,  but  I think  that  was  part  print- 
ing and  part  hall  rent.  That  is  my  best  judgment  now.  He  told  me 
at  the  time. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Had  he  had  previous  authority  to  expend  this 
money  in  the  interest  of  the  Senator,  or  did  he  report  to  you  that  it 
was  done  during  his  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir.  I saw  him  during  the  campaign,  I am  quite 
sure,  and  agreed  with  him  that  we  would  stand  such  part  as  we 
agreed  upon. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  He  was  a candidate,  was  he  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  was  a candidate  for  Congress;  yes. 

The  next  item  is  “ New  Medford,  W.  Pflughhoeft,  $152.”  This 
is  the  item  paid  to  him  in  accordance  with  the  earlier  arrangement,  as 
testified. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Are  these  dates  all  of  September  5? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  All  September  5. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  whether  or  not  that  was  paid  for  the  pur- 
pose you  have  already  described  in  connection  with  Mr.  Pflughhoeft. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  To  the  best  of  my  knowledge. 

The  next  item  is,  “Appleton,  G.  A.  Dettman,  $25.”  This  man  re- 
ceived, I think,  once  before  a small  amount.  I explained  about  it. 
It  was  for  the  same  purpose. 

The  next  item  is,  “Clark  County,  J.  H.  Frank,  $225.”  This  is 
• the  Dr.  Frank  referred  to  before. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  whether  or  not  that  sum  was  paid  to  him 
by  you  for  the  purposes  and  under  the  circumstances  that  you  have 
already  described  in  connection  with  Dr.  Frank. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I believe  it  to  have  been  so  expended.  September 
11,  “ distributing  posters,  A.  J.  Knelling,  $14.75.”  I remember  the 
name  because  of  the  spelling.  I do  not  remember  the  man.  I do 
not  remember  where  he  did  the  work.  In  fact,  I did  not  spend  the 
money  if  my  recollection  is  correct,  because  I was  not  here  on  Sep- 
tember 11,  but  I have  endeavored  to  make  the  explanation  because 
the  initials  “ E.  A.  E.”  are  opposite  that  amount. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  recollect  whether  a man  of  this  name  was 
engaged  in  distributing  and  hanging  posters? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes ; I remember  that  man’s  name. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  recollect  that  he  was  engaged  in  that 
work  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  is  my  recollection  of  it ; yes,  sir. 

The  next  item  is,  “ General,  $191.85.”  That  is  under  the  same 
date.  The  explanation  here  in  the  State  investigation  is,  “ General, 
E.  A.  E.,  Hoober,  $64.85 ; William  Halem,  $47 ; Rock  Flint,  $80.” 
Were  it  not  for  the  fact  that  my  initials  are  associated  with  this,  I 
should  not  have  put  it  on  my  list,  because  I do  not  recall  any  except 
the  item  of  $80,  and  I do  not  recall  the  payment.  I remember  hav- 
ing made  an  agreement  with  Rock  Flint,  whereby  he  was  to  do  or- 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


343 


ganizing  in,  I think,  his  home  county,  Dunn,  but  I was  not  present 
on  September  11  when  that  amount  was  paid. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Then  Rock  Flint  is  the  name  of  an  individual? 
I had  a notion  that  it  was  a locality. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  An  individual;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  have  any  recollection  about  Mr.  Hoober 
and  Mr.  Halem? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No;  I am  inclined  to  believe  that  William  Halem 
should  be  William  Haslam. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  A gentleman  about  whom  you  have  heretofore 
testified  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  he  the  gentleman  who  was  the  deputy  game 
warden? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  he  was  on  a vacation  at  that  time,  and  was  em- 
ployed by  me. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  say  “on  a vacation.”  Will  you  be  kind 
enough  to  say  what  you  mean  by  that.  I understand  it  to  have  been 
stated  that  they  were  receiving  a per  diem.  State  whether  or  not 
there  is  any  specific  time  that  is  allowed  these  gentlemen  for  a vaca- 
tion. I do  not  know  what  the  fact  is  and  I do  not  know  that  you 
know. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  would  be  a matter  of  statute,  would  it 
not? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Not  necessarily.  I do  not  know  how  that  might 
be.  I do  not  wish  to  prompt  the  witness,  but  I understand  the  real 
fact  to  be  that  they  are  on  a per  diem,  and  if  they  are  allowed  to  go 
away,  the  per  diem  ceases,  and  they  are  treated  as  being  on  a vaca- 
tion. Mr.  Edmonds,  do  you  know  anything  about  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  My  belief  in  the  matter  is  that  the  game  wardens  are 
paid  $3  per  day  and  expenses,  or  were  at  that  time  at  least,  and  they 
would  turn  in  their  time  for  each  day’s  work — they  were  not  hired 
by  the  month — and  that  this  man  had  his  vacation  at  this  time  and 
received  no  pay  from  the  State. 

The  next  item  is,  September  15,  “ Henry  Overbeck,  $100.”  I have 
placed  that  on  the  list,  not  because  I was  here  on  September  15  and 
remember  the  payment  but  because  Mr.  Overbeck  was  working  for 
us,  and  was  undoubtedly  paid  this  amount  and  probably  by  my  au- 
thority. I have  testified  to  his  work  before. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  next  item  is  “ Iron  County,  A.  L.  Osborn, 
$154.” 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Iron  County,  A.  L.  Osborn,  $154.  This  item,  as 
well  as  the  next  two  on  this  list  [referring  to  Exhibit  Edmonds  A],  I 
do  not  recall  the  payment  of.  In  fact,  I was  not  present  when  they 
were  paid.  I remember  having  had  a conversation,  either  by  phone 
or  in  person,  with  Mr.  Osborn  relative  to  work  that  he  would  do  for 
us  in  Iron  County,  and  undoubtedly  this  was  a bill  paid  after  he  had 
rendered  the  service.  He  had  written  a letter,  probably,  stating  that 
it  was  due. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  sort  of  work  was  he  to  do  for  you  in  Iron 
County  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  “ organizing  ” is  the  term  that  would  ex- 
plain it  as  well  as  any  I can  use.  He  had  milling  interests,  I believe, 
up  in  that  county.  The  advertising  was  in  the  Superior  Tidente. 


344 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Mr.  LrrTLEFiELD.  What  about  the  Johnson  item,  Winnebago 
Counties  and  the  Tidente? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  The  Superior  Tidente  is  the  name  of  a paper;  $150. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  about  the  Johnson  item,  Winnebago 
County  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I have  no  recollection  of  that.  I do  not  know  who 
O.  C.  Johnson  is. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  about  the  Superior  Tidente  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  was  paid  for  services  in  the  campaign.  I have 
no  recollection  of  having  made  the  agreement  now,  though  the  name 
being  so  peculiar,  it  comes  to  me  as  being  one  of  the  papers  that  was 
with  us.  I think  it  is  a Swedish  paper. 

The  next  item  is  “ Oconomowoc,  A.  M.  Jones,  $150.”  I do  not  re- 
member anything  about  this  particular  item.  My  judgment  would 
be  that  Mr.  Jones  was  paid  more  than  $150,  but  I do  not  find  it  any- 
where here.  I know  he  was  in  the  office,  and  I talked  the  matter  over 
with  him  of  doing  the  work  in  Oconomowoc  and  Waukesha  Coun- 
ties, but  this  is  the  only  item  I have  seen. 

Senator  Pomerene.  How  much  more  was  he  to  get  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall  that.  I should  think  it  was  a larger 
amount  than  that,  as  Waukesha  was  a large  county,  and  he  was  a 
very  well  known,  influential  politician. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Is  that  still  owing  him  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know.  It  is  possible  that  this  is  the  only 
amount  he  expended,  and  the  only  amount  he  called  for ; because  com- 
ing here  September  11,  it  would  be  supposed  that  that  was  in  full 
payment. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  sort  of  work  was  he  to  do  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Organizing  in  Waukesha  County. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  In  what  sense  do  you  use  that  term  “organiz- 
ing”? You  have  described  it. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  the  general  sense  explained  at  different  times  dur- 
ing the  examination. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I notice  on  this  exhibit  that  you  have  filed  you 
have  “items  passed  yesterday  and  not  checked  by  me,  that  possibly 
accounted  for  during  the  examination;  advertising,  John  M.  Piece, 
page  594.” 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I am  not  certain  whether  I explained  those  or  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I think  instead  of  taking  your  time  to  go  back 
over  your  examination,  we  had  better  go  through  them  briefly,  so  as 
to  be  sure  to  get  your  explanation. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  The  item  for  J.  M.  Piece  is  near  the  top  of  page  594. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I see  there  are  two  items,  one  August  28  and  the 
other  August  29. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I explained  relative  to  the  other  item  this  morning. 
1 think  he  is  a newspaper  man.  I think  this  was  paid  for  advertis- 
ing. That  is  my  recollection. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Pichland  County,  N.  L.  James,  $300.  You  have 
already  explained  this  afternoon  about  an  item  of  $200  to  N.  L. 
James.  Now  here  is  an  item  of  $300.  Where  did  you  find  that  in  the 
account  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  August  25.  The  two  items  are  together. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  on  page  593  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


345 


Mr.  Littlefield.  Richland  County,  state  what  you  know  about 
that;  or,  so  as  to  make  it  more  brief,  state  whether  or  not  this  sum 
that  appears  to  have  been  paid  to  Mr.  N.  L.  J ames  of  $300  on  August 
25,  was  or  was  not  under  the  arrangement  for  the  purposes  and  under 
the  circumstances  to  which  you  have  already  testified  in  relation  to 
Mr.  James  in  connection  with  the  $200  item. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I believe  that  was  the  case,  paid  for  the  same  pur- 
poses as  the  $200  item. 

Under  the  same  date,  G.  L.  Miner,  $300,  Richland  County. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  August  25.  What  about  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  My  recollection  in  regard  to  that  is  very  faint.  I 
remember  the  name  Grant  L.  Miner.  I do  not  recall  when  I saw  him, 
or  if  I saw  him  at  all.  The  amount  indicated  here  does  not  appeal 
to  me  as  being  the  amount  Mr.  Miner  received,  but  I have  no  reason 
to  doubt  the  correctness  of  this  statement. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Then  you  have  no  definite  recollection  as  to  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  I have  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  whether  or  not  it  is  your  belief  that  that 
was  expended  for  organization  purposes  in  that  county. 

Senator  Pomerene.  It  is  not  a question  of  belief,  is  it? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  No;  not  strictly  speaking,  except  I suppose  this 
witness  would  be  allowed  to  go  further  than  other  witnesses  in  that 
regard. 

Senator  Pomerene.  No;  you  are  asking  specifically  for  belief,  and 
it  is  a question  of  memory. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes ; I am  aware  that  I am  a little  outside  of  the 
line.  Can  you  state,  Mr.  Edmonds,  in  relation  to  that,  whether 
you  have  any  recollection  about  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  I have  stated  the  best  recollection  I have 
in  regard  to  it.  The  next  item  on  the  same  page  is  “ Calumet, 
Frank  Ekland,  $25.” 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  about  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I remember  that  name,  because  of  the  peculiar 
spelling,  and  that  very  little  work  for  our  candidate  was  done  in 
Calumet  County,  because  it  was  known  to  be  very  strongly  in  favor 
of  one  of  the  other  candidates,  Mr.  Cook.  This  man  in  some  man- 
ner, and  for  services  that  I believed  at  that  time  to  have  been  per- 
formed for  Senator  Stephenson,  received  $25. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Have  you  any  knowledge  as  to  what  those 
services  were? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir ; none  at  all. 

On  the  same  page,  Ashland,  D.  G.  Sampson,  $100. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  My  notes  would  indicate  that  you  have  already 
explained  about  that,  but  I do  not  undertake  to  have  any  recollec- 
tion in  regard  to  it. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  his  name  appears  in  another  place,  and 
that  he  was  doing  work  for  Senator  Stephenson  in  the  way  of  or- 
ganizing in  that  county. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  whether  or  not  the  money  was  paid  to  him 
for  that  purpose? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  was,  and  for  no  other.  On  page  593,  the  last 
item,  $18,  O.  L.  Gust,  Baraboo,  Sauk  County.  I can  not  now  recall 
O.  L.  Gust.  The  name  is  familiar,  but  not  this  expenditure  of  $18. 


346 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  have  sufficient  recollection  so  that  you 
are  able  to  state  that  he  was  doing  any  work  for  you  in  the  cam- 
paign, and  if  so  what  work? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  The  only  work  he  could  possibly  have  been  doing 
was 

Senator  Pomerene.  It  is  not  a question  of  possibility;  it  is  a 
question  of  recollection. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  question  is  whether  you  have  any  recol- 
lection, so  as  to  be  able  to  state  what  he  was  doing? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  I have  not.  On  page  592  there  are  two 
items,  Juneau  County,  J.  T.  Hanson,  $250,  and  another  item  to  the 
same  man  of  $150. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  $250  item  comes  first  under  date  of  August 
19,  and  the  $150  item  comes  under  date  of  August  30. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  about  those? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  was  for  advertising  in  Juneau  County.  The 
reason  I did  not  check  that  when  going  over  it  before  was  that  the 
name  J.  T.  ITanson  did  not  then  appear  to  be  the  name  of  the  organ- 
izer in  Juneau  County.  Whether  it  is  a misprint  or  not,  I am  not 
sure.  The  man  whom  I emploj^ed  there,  I am  quite  certain,  was  a 
banker,  and  I agreed  with  him  to  pay  him  $400.  As  I say,  it  does 
not  seem  to  me  that  his  name  was  Hanson. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  was  the  banker’s  name? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I can  not  recall.  This  is  the  only-  amount  paid  in 
that  county,  and  I do  not  know  whether  my  recollection  is  at  fault. 

Senator  Pomerene.  How  do  you  account  for  this  being  here,  or 
can  you  account  for  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  make  up  this  list  from  which  you  have 
been  testifying — the  list  that  is  printed  in  the  proceedings,  marked 
“ Exhibit  49  ”? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Then,  as  to  Juneau  County,  are  you  able  to  state 
that  you  actually  did  have  an  organizer  there? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  I had  an  organizer  there,  and  arranged  with 
him.  My  recollection  is  that  I arranged  with  him  for  $400,  and  my 
judgment  is  that  part  of  that  was  for  services. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  But  whether  the  man  Hanson  whose  name  is 
here,  as  apparently  the  organizer  for  that  county,  is  the  correct  name 
of  the  man  whom  you  employed,  as  I understand,  you  are  not  able  to 
say* 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I am  not  able  to  say ; no,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Have  you  any  way  of  ascertaining  definitely 
who  the  man  was  there  who  was  a banker,  whom  you  think  you 
employed  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Will  you  ascertain? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  think  that  by  making  inquiries  I could 
determine.  I have  not  done  so. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Do  you  know  what  bank  he  was  connected 
with  ? 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


347 


Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  the  bank  in  Mauston,  but  I am  not  certain. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Will  you  make  efforts  to  refresh  your  recollec- 
tion about  that,  ancl  give  us  the  name  if  you  can? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I will.  This  is  probably  the  name,  but  it  does  not 
make  itself  clear  to  me.  That  concludes  the  items. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  If  I recall  correctly,  I understood  you  to  say  in 
answer  to  Senator  Sutherland’s  inquiries,  that  at  the  time  you  had 
the  conversation  which  resulted  in  the  employment  of  Mr.  Stone, 
chief  game  warden,  at  which  time  reference  was  made  to  other  deputy 
wardens,  you  knew  that  the  game  warden’s  force  had  been  an  active 
and  efficient  force  in  political  campaigns.  Did  you  know^  whether  or 
not,  or  did  you  mean  by  the  statement  of  “ years  before,”  that  there 
was  a period  during  which  they  were  active  politically  and  then  a 
period  intervening  when  the  activities  ceased? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir.  I meant  to  state  that  years  before,  when  I 
knew  of  the  conditions,  that  was  the  case;  but  from  1902  or  1903  until 
1908,  when  I took  charge  of  this,  I was  very  busily  engaged  in  busi- 
ness operations  and  took  no  interest  in  politics  in  Wisconsin. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Then,  is  it  a fact  that  you  are  simply  giving,  in 
answer  to  the  question,  the  result  of  your  own  personal  knowledge,  in 
a sense,  resulting  from  your  political  experience  at  that  time? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I knew  of  it  from  experience  in  1900  to  1902. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Just  exactly  whether  the  activity  and  efficiency 
continued  from  that  time  on,  I understand  you  are  not  able  to  state? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  it  continue  after  you  took  charge  of  this 
campaign  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  As  far  as  I know,  they  were  a pretty  active  force. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Had  you  any  reason  to  doubt  that  their  activity 
and  efficiency  continued  in  political  campaigns  from  the  time  you  first 
knew  them  until  the  employment  by  you  of  Mr.  Stone? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I had  no  reason  to  doubt  it;  no,  sir.  I believed  it 
was  an  active  force. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  real  fact  is  that  everybody  in  the  State  knew 
it,  did  they  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  so. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  had  there  not  been,  as  a matter  of  fact,  a 
good  deal  of  discussion  about  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  has  been  pretty  generally  known  and  discussed  in 
the  papers  and  otherwise. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  people  who  did  not  have  the  benefit  of  their 
services  were  complaining,  I suppose,  more  than  the  people  who  did. 
That  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  all  of  the  questions  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  I desire  to  interrogate  you  in  regard  to  the  specific 
charges  that  are  contained  in  the  record  sent  to  the  Senate  of  the 
United  States  by  the  governor  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin.  I will  read 
these  charges  and  then  interrogate  you  in  regard  to  them  separately. 
On  page  4 of  what  is  now  known  as  Senate  Document  No.  53,  but 
which  is  the  communication  sent  to  the  Senate  by  the  governor  of 
Wisconsin,  there  is  the  following: 


348 


E.  A.  EDMONDS, 


SPECIFIC  CHARGES. 

To  the  honorable  Senate  and  Assembly  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin: 

I,  John  J.  Blaine,  an  elector  of  tlie  State  of  Wisconsin  and  a member  of  the 
State  senate,  upon  information  and  belief,  do  hereby  specifically  charge  and 
allege : 

1.  That  Isaac  Stephenson,  of  Marinette,  Wis.,  now  United  States  Senator  and  a 
candidate  for  reelection,  did,  as  such  candidate  for  such  reelection,  give  to  one 
E.  A.  Edmonds,  of  the  city  of  Appleton,  Wis.,  an  elector  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin 
and  said  city  of  Appleton,  a valuable  thing,  to  wit,  a sum  of  money  in  excess  of 
$106,000,  and  approximating  the  sum  of  $250,000,  as  a consideration  for  some  act 
to  be  done  by  said  E.  A.  Edmonds  in  relation  to  the  primary  election  held  on  the 
1st  day  of  September,  1908,  which  consideration  was  paid  prior  to  said  primary 
election,  and  that  said  Isaac  Stephenson  was  at  the  time  of  such  payment  a can- 
didate for  the  Republican  nomination  for  United  States  Senator  at  such  primary, 
and  did,  by  such  acts  as  above  set  forth,  violate  section  4542b  of  the  statutes. 

Are  you  the  E.  A.  Edmonds  referred  to  in  that  charge  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Did  Senator  Stephenson  give  you  the  sum  of 
$100,000,  or  any  sum,  as  a consideration  for  some  act  to  be  done  by 
you  in  relation  to  the  primary  elections  referred  to? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Senator  Stephenson  placed  in  my  hands,  or  under 
my  control,  certain  moneys  for  the  purpose  of  using  them  in  the 
interest  of  his  candidacy  for  the  United  States  Senate. 

The  Chairman.  What  sum  of  money  did  he  place  in  your  hands  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  A check  for  $5,000. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  place,  subject  to  your  control,  any  other 
or  further  sum  of  money  as  stated  in  that  charge  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  At  various  times  stated  amounts. 

The  Chairman.  Give  the  aggregate  sum. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  As  nearly  as  I can  recall,  approximately  $100,000. 

The  Chairman.  These  are  the  same  sums  in  regard  to  which  you 
have  already  testified,  are  they? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Were  there  any  other  sums  of  money,  in  addition 
to  the  sums  in  regard  to  which  you  have  already  testified,  given  you 
by  Senator  Stephenson  or  placed  under  your  control  by  him  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  not  from  him  or  from  any  other  source. 

The  Chairman.  The  second  charge  is  as  follows : 

That  said  Isaac  Stephenson  did,  prior  to  said  primary,  pay  to  said  Edmonds, 
above  mentioned,  sums  with  the  design  that  said  Edmonds  should  pay  to  other 
electors  of  this  State,  out  of  said  sums  above  mentioned  and  other  sums  of 
money  received  by  said  Edmonds  from  said  Isaac  Stephenson,  prior  to  said 
primary,  sums  ranging  from  $5  per  day  to  $1,000,  in  bulk,  as  a consideration 
for  some  act  to  be  done  in  relation  to  said  primary  by  said  electors  for  said 
Isaac  Stephenson  as  such  candidate  in  violation  of  said  section. 

Is  that  statement  true  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Wherein  is  it  not  true? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  is  a pretty  long  statement.  One  of  the  things 
that  appeals  to  me  as  not  being  true  is  that  neither  of  those  sums  is 
in  violation  of  the  law. 

The  Chairman.  Then  we  will  waive  that  last  statement  “ in  viola- 
tion of  said  section.”  Did  he  give  you  those  sums,  or  any  of  them,  to 
pay  to  other  electors  of  the  State? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  To  other  electors  of  the  State? 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


349 


The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  I should  say  that  he  understood  that  in  his 
payment  of  the  money. 

The  Chairman.  Then  the  statement  of  facts,  aside  from  the  final 
clause  “ in  violation  of  said  section,”  is  substantially  correct,  is  it  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  There  are  a good  many  items  in  there  enumerated, 
but  I should  say  it  is  substantially  correct. 

The  Chairman.  There  are  only  two  items.  It  says  “ from  $5  per 
day  to  $1,000  in  bulk.”  That  is  correct,  is  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  There  was  no  limitation  as  to  that  amount,  but 
that  was  the  way  I handled  it. 

The  Chairman.  There  were  such  items? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  The  third  charge  is : 

That,  with  full  knowledge  and  with  instructions  from  said  Isaac  Stephenson 
as  to  how  and  for  what  purposes  said  sums  were  to  be  expended,  said  sums 
were  so  paid,  as  above  stated,  to  said  Edmonds  by  said  Isaac  Stephenson  and 
that  said  sums  were  paid  as  above  stated  for  the  purpose  above  stated  and 
also  for  the  purpose  of  bribing  and  corrupting  a sufficient  number  of  the 
electors  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin  to  encompass  the  nomination  of  said  Isaac 
Stephenson  at  said  primary  for  the  office  of  United  States  Senator. 

Is  that  charge  true? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Absolutely  untrue. 

The  Chairman.  Is  any  part  of  it  true? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  believe  so,  as  I recall  the  reading  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  The  fourth  charge  is: 

That,  in  pursuance  of  the  purposes  and  design  above  stated,  said  Isaac  Ste- 
phenson did,  by  and  through  his  agents,  prior  to  said  primary  pay  to  one  U.  G. 
Keller,  of  Sauk  County,  an  elector  of  this  State,  the  sum  of  $300  as  a considera- 
tion for  some  act  to  be  done  by  said  Keller  for  said  Stephenson  preliminary  to 
said  primary. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  As  to  the  amount,  I am  not  certain.  Some  amount 
was  paid  him. 

The  Chairman.  Through  whom? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Through  me. 

The  Chairman.  For  Isaac  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  in  his  behalf. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Will  the  chairman  be  kind  enough  to  read  the 
last  few  words? 

The  Chairman.  I am  going  to  do  so,  and  I will  read  them  in  order 
that  this  may  be  intelligently  presented.  Appended  to  the  portion 
that  I have  read  of  the  fourth  charge  is  the  statement  “corruptly 
and  unlawfully.”  Did  you  make  this  payment  corruptly  or  unlaw- 
fully ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  How  did  you  make  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  a perfectly  lawful  manner. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  is  a conclusion. 

The  Chairman.  Yes.  Describe  what  constituted  the  manner. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  The  manner  of  the  payment? 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  one  of  the  items  in  your  list? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I believe  so.  I am  sure  it  was  in  the  list. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  there  any  statement  in  here  as  to  Keller? 


350 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Mr.  Edmonds.  I am  quite  certain  it  is  in  the  list. 

Senator  Pomerene.  He  testified  concerning  an  item  of  $150  to 
Keller — I have  a memorandum  of  it  on  my  notes — possibly  some 
others. 

The  Chairman.  That  money  was  paid  by  you  as  campaign  man- 
ager for  Senator  Stephenson,  was  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  And  it  was  so  stated  by  Senator  Stephenson  in 
his  testimony  that  it  was  as  his  campaign  manager  that  you  paid 
that  money,  was  it?  You  were  present  when  Senator  Stephenson 
testified  to  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall  his  making  a statement  of  this  par- 
ticular item.  Did  he? 

The  Chairman.  I will  merely  let  it  go  in  the  record.  It  is  on 
page  70  of  Senator  Stephenson’s  testimony. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  the  testimony  before  the  legislative  com- 
mittee, not  before  this  subcommittee. 

The  Chairman.  It  will  be  now  before  this  subcommittee. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes.  But  I just  simply  wanted  to  identify  it. 

Mr.  Black.  You  referred  to  a payment  by  Stephenson  to  Keller? 

The  Chairman.  That  conclusion  goes  to  the  capacity  in  which  he 
paid  it.  Because  of  that  testimony  they  have  evidently  selected  it 
from  a number  of  other  payments. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Will  the  chairman  be  kind  enough  to  give  us 
the  page  so  that  I can  have  it? 

The  Chairman.  I did.  I will  give  you  both  of  those.  Page  70 
of  Mr.  Stephenson’s  testimony,  page  2261  of  Mr.  Keller’s  testimony. 

You  say  you  paid  that  money  to  Mr.  Keller  as  Senator  Stephen- 
son’s representative? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I am  not  going  to  read  the  record  to  the  chair- 
man, but  I would  like  to  ascertain  what  you  are  referring  to. 

The  Chairman.  I am  referring  to  it  merely  because  it  is  in  these 
specific  charges. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  statement  in  the  record  by  Mr.  Stephenson 
is  that  he  “ supposed  Mr.  Edmonds,”  etc. 

The  Chairman.  Yes.  I am  not  attempting  to  apply  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I understand — simply  to  identify  it. 

The  Chairman.  But  I go  through  these  specific  charges  in  order 
that  when  the  man  who  made  them  is  before  the  committee  we  will 
have  an  opportunity  to  ask  him,  and  this  witness  who  is  charged 
to  have  made  the  payment  will  have  notice  that  that  question  will 
be  investigated. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Now  have  you  anything  to  say  in  regard  to  the 
purpose  for  which  you  gave  Mr.  Keller  that  money  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  was  for  the  purpose  of  reimbursing  him  for  time 
and  expense  in  furthering  the  interests  of  Senator  Stephenson’s 
campaign. 

The  Chairman.  Who  was  Mr.  Keller? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Pie  was  formerly  clerk  of  the  court  of  Sauk  County. 

The  Chairman.  You  paid  this  to  him  in  money? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall ; I do  not  think  so. 

The  Chairman.  But  you  paid  it  to  him  ? 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


351 


Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir.  In  answering  that  question  in  the  affirma- 
tive, Senator,  I am  not  certain  as  to  the  amount,  but  there  was  an 
amount  paid. 

The  Chairman.  This  charge  is  that  it  was  paid  “ as  a considera- 
tion for  some  act  to  be  done  by  said  Keller  for  said  Stephenson  pre- 
liminary to  said  primary,  corruptly  and  unlawfully.”  Is  that  true? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  part  of  it  is  not  true? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  was  not  paid  him  for  services  to  be  performed 
corruptly  or  unlawfully. 

The  Chairman.  Was  it  paid  for  services  preliminary  to  the  pri- 
mary election? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  For  work  done  preliminary  to  the  primary  cam- 
paign. 

The  Chairman.  The  fifth  specific  charge  is: 

That  in  further  pursuance  of  such  purposes  and  design,  said  Isaac  Stephen- 
son, by  and  through  his  agents,  prior  to  said  primary,  paid  to  one  Hambright, 
of  Racine,  Wis.,  large  sums  of  money  as  a consideration  for  some  act  to  be 
done  by  said  Hambright  for  said  Stephenson  preliminary  to  said  primary, 
said  Hambright  being  then  an  elector  of  this  State,  corruptly  and  unlawfully. 

Did  you  pay  any  sum  of  money  to  Mr.  Hambright  preliminary  to 
the  primary  election  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose  did  you  pay  him  the  money? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  He  was  employed  by  me — no  he  wTas  employed  by 
the  headquarters,  and  his  movements  were  directed  by  me  in  an  effort 
to  secure  information  in  regard  to  the  campaign  that  would  enable 
me  more  successfully  to  conduct  the  general  campaign  for  Senator 
Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  What  do  you  mean  by  “headquarters”? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  The  Milwaukee  headquarters  of  the  Stephenson 
campaign.  I make  that  distinction  because  he  was  one  of  the  men 
employed  before  I took  charge. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I think  he  is  what  you  call  a scout? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  that  the  same  man? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  true,  is  it  not,  that  Mr.  Hambright  rendered 
an  account  of  the  expenditure  of  these  moneys  to  you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Not  to  me;  perhaps  to  the  office. 

The  Chairman.  At  pages  2759-2763  I find  Exhibit  117,  which  pur- 
ports to  be  C.  M.  Hambright’s  account  of  Stephenson  campaign  ex- 
penses. Was  that  brought  to  your  attention? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir.  I did  not  know  that  he  rendered  an 
account. 

The  Chairman.  In  the  expense  account  we  find,  among  other  items, 
on  J uly  9,  “ Sundries,  $5.35.”  Have  you  any  knowledge  as  to  what 
constituted  that  item  of  sundries? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  None  whatever. 

The  Chairman.  On  page  2761  I find  the  item  of  “Cigars,  $1.50.” 
Do  you  know  anything  about  that  item — for  whom  those  cigars  were 
purchased  ? 

Mr,  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 


352 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


The  Chairman.  On  August  1 1 find  44  Extra  meals,  $3.”  Have  you 
any  knowledge  as  to  whom  those  extra  meals  were  purchased  for? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I have  not. 

The  Chairman.  I find  on  August  7 44  Sundries,  $17.02.”  Have  you 
any  knowledge  as  to  what  items  were  included  within  44  Sundries  ” ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  I find  on  August  29  44  Sundries,  $11.86.”  Have 
you  any  knowledge  as  to  the  items  that  are  included  writhin  that 
charge? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  this  statement  ever  come  to  your  notice  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  not  to  my  best  knowledge  and  belief. 

The  Chairman.  I beg  pardon? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Not  to  my  best  recollection  and  belief. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  an  exhibit  in  the  testimony  of  C.  M.  Ham- 
bright,  who  appeared  before  the  committee  on  March  24,  1909. 
Were  you  present  there  at  that  time? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  At  the  investigation?  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  mean  when  Hambright  testified? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I was  not  there  when  Hambright  testified;  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Has  your  attention  ever  been  called  to  this  testi- 
mony that  was  taken  before  the  joint  committee? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No.  sir;  not  to  have  me  read  it  or  go  over  it  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  You  never  have? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I never  have. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  never  interested  yourself  to  know  what 
facts  were  testified  to  by  the  witnesses  before  that  committee  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I certainly  never  have  taken  interest  enough  in  it  to 
read  the  testimony  before  the  investigating  committee. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  read  over  the  testimony  that  you 
gave  before  the  committee? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I never  have  read  it  over. 

The  Chairman.  You  seem  to  have  completely  divorced  yourself 
from  this  question  of  the  regularity  of  Senator  Stephenson's  elec- 
tion since  September,  1908,  have  you  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Since  the  end  of  my  connection  with  the  campaign, 
yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  you  appeared 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Of  course  I appeared  before  a committee  and  testi- 
fied since  that  date. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  appear  before  the  committee? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  One  of  the  first  witnesses,  early  in  the  testimony; 
I do  not  recall ; I think  I was  the  second  or  third  witness,  perhaps. 

The  Chairman.  You  appear  as  the  first  witness  in  volume  2,  but 
I do  not  find  a date. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I appeared  at  different  times  before  the  committee; 
I think  three  different  times  before  the  two  committees. 

The  Chairman.  May  4, 1909 ; was  that  the  date  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall  the  date. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  receive  accounts  with  such  items  as  that 
without  question,  44  Sundries,  $17.02,”  and  44  Sundries,  $11.86,”  from 
those  that  you  had  employed  in  Senator  Stephenson’s  behalf? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Those  accounts  were  not  rendered  to  me  and  I did 
not  pay  them. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


353 


The  Chairman.  Were  you  in  the  habit  of  receiving  statements  with 
such  items  unexplained? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  I do  not  think  I received  a statement  of  that 
kind  during  the  campaign. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  not? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think  I did. 

The  Chairman.  I have  called  your  attention  to  it,  and  it  is  one  of 
the  specific  charges  contained  in  this  record. 

The  sixth  charge  is : 

That  in  further  pursuance  of  the  purposes  and  design  above  stated,  said  Isaac 
Stephenson  did,  by  and  through  his  agents,  prior  to  said  primary,  pay  to  one 
Roy  Morse,  of  Fond  du  Lac,  Wis.,  then  an  elector  of  this  iftate,  the  sum  of  $1,000 
as  a consideration  for  some  act  to  be  done  by  said  Morse  for  said  Isaac  Stephen- 
son preliminary  to  said  primary. 

Did  you  pay  him  such  a sum? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think  so.  I paid  him  some  amount,  but  I 
do  not  think  that  was  the  amount.  I think  it  was  less  than  that. 

The  Chairman.  The  testimony  of  Roy  L.  Morse,  at  page  2553  of 
the  record  of  testimony  before  the  joint  committee,  discloses  the  fact 
that  you  made  several  payments  to  him — one  of  $450,  one  of  $250,  one 
of  $700,  one  of  $200,  and  some  other  items. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  At  what  page  does  the  chairman  get  that? 

The  Chairman.  I was  reading  from  page  2557  and  that  which 
follows  it. 

You  did  pay  him  such  sums  of  money;  for  what  purpose  did  you 
pay  him  that  money? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I did  not  get  what  the  witness  said,  if  the  chair- 
man please. 

The  Chairman.  He  has  not  answered. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  As  to  paying  the  amounts  indicated  there,  that 
would  not  be  my  recollection  of  it;  but  I paid  him  some  amounts, 
aggregating  several  hundred  dollars. 

The  Chairman.  Aggregating  how  much? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Several  hundred  dollars.  I am  not  certain  as  to 
the  amount. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  If  it  be  important,  if  the  chairman  please,  can 
not  the  witness  have  the  opportunity  to  look  over  Exhibit  49  and 
pick  them  out  and  give  them  to  the  chairman  correctly  ? 

The  Chairman.  I think,  for  the  purpose  of  this  examination,  that 
the  payment  of  any  sum  of  money  is  probably  sufficient.  I am  having 
these  consolidated. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Then  if  the  amount  be  not  important,  there  is 
no  need  of  going  over  the  details.  The  witness,  I understand,  says 
he  did  pay  him  sums  of  money. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  For  the  purpose  of  organizing  the  voters  of  Fond 
du  Lac  and  neighboring  counties — Fond  du  Lac  County  particu- 
larly— in  an  effort  to  secure  as  large  a vote  as  possible  at  the  polls 
for  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  It  was,  then,  for  some  act  to  be  done  by  said  Morse 
for  said  Isaac  Stephenson,  preliminary  to  said  primary,  was  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

15235°— vol  1—11 23 


354 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


The  Chairman.  It  is  charged  here  that  it  was  corruptly  and  un- 
lawfully done.  Was  it  corruptly  and  unlawfully  done,  this  act  of 
paying  him  the  money  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  The  seventh  specific  charge  is: 

That  in  furtherance  of  such  purposes  and  design  said  Isaac  Stephenson,  by 
and  through  his  agents,  prior  to  said  primary,  paid  to  divers  persons,  then 
electors  of  the  county  of  Grant,  Wis.,  ranging  from  $5  per  day  and  upward,  as 
a consideration  for  some  act  to  be  done  by  said  several  electors  for  said  Isaac 
Stephenson  preliminary  to  said  primary. 

Were  such  sums  paid  with  your  knowledge? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  There  were  several  sums — that  is,  there  were,  I 
should  say,  more  than  one  sum  paid  to  persons  in  Grant  County  for 
the  purpose  of  organizing  that  county  in  the  interests  of  Senator 
Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  Who  paid  them ; did  you  pay  them  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  They  were  paid  through  my  instructions  at  least. 

The  Chairman.  Acting  as  the  representative  of  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  charged  here  that  they  were  corruptly  and 
unlawfully  paid. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  None  of  them  were. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  to  whom  these  items  were  paid  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Grant  County  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes.  Can  you  name  any  of  them? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  L.  II.  Stevens,  for  one. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  was  paid  to  Stevens  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I can  not  recall  the  amount. 

The  Chairman.  Was  it  more  than  $5? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose  was  it  paid  to  Stevens? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  For  the  purpose  of  organizing  the  county,  in  an 
effort  to  get  out  the  full  vote  for  Senator  Stephenson  at  the  primary 
election. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  name  others  than  Stevens  in  Grant 
County 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  To  whom  more  than  the  sum  of  $5  was  paid  for 
any  purpose  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  I do  not  now  recall  any  of  them. 

The  Chairman.  Were  there  others? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know  of  any  others ; no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  The  eighth  specific  charge  is : 

That  in  further  pursuance  of  such  purposes  and  design,  said  Isaac  Stephen- 
son, by  and  through  his  agents,  prior  to  said  primary,  did  pay  to  divers  persons 
who  were  at  such  time  electors  in  this  State  a consideration  for  some  act  to  be 
done  for  said  Isaac  Stephenson  by  such  electors  preliminary  to  such  primary. 

Were  such  payments  made  through  you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I failed  to  get  just  that  question  ? I took  it  to  mean 
that  other  amounts  w7ere  paid  to  other  persons  in  the  State? 

The  Chairman.  The  payment  there  is  of  a consideration  not  speci- 
fied to  have  been  in  money.  Was  any  consideration  given  to  any  other 
person  or  to  any  persons  for  such  purposes  through  you  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Unlawfully  and  corruptly  ? No,  sir. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


355 


The  Chairman.  Omit  the  words  “ unlawfully  and  corruptly.”  Was 
any  consideration  at  all  given  by  you  as  the  representative  of  Senator 
Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  To  other  persons  than  those  named?  Yes,  sir;  in 
different  parts  of  the  State. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  it  was  not  corruptly  and  unlawfully  done? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  was  not. 

The  Chairman.  The  ninth  specific  charge  is: 

That,  in  further  pursuance  of  such  purposes  and  designs,  said  Isaac  Stephen- 
son, by  and  through  his  agents,  prior  to  said  preliminary,  did  pay  to  electors 
of  this  State,  who  were  of  a different  political  opinion,  and  who  held  to  other 
political  principles  than  that  of  the  Republican  Party,  more  particularly  Demo- 
crats, sums  of  money  as  a consideration  for  some  act  to  be  done  by  such  electors 
for  said  Isaac  Stephenson  preliminary  to  said  primary. 

Is  that  true? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No  such  sums  were  paid  by  me,  and  I do  not  believe 
it  to  be  true  in  any  instance. 

The  Chairman.  Were  any  sums  of  money  paid  to  persons  other 
than  Republicans  for  services  to  be  rendered  by  them  on  behalf  of 
Senator  Stephenson  at  the  primaries  or  before? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  one  particular  instance  that  I recall  now ; yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Was  that  the  case  of  Tilton? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  that  was  Mr.  Grady. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Grady,  $15? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  $15,  referred  to  to-day. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose  was  that  paid? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  My  best  recollection,  it  was  for  some  service  per- 
formed by  him  of  a legal  character;  just  what  I do  not  recall  now. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  no  further  explanation  to  make  of  it 
than  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir.  I know  of  no 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Let  me  ask  here.  Was  there  any  effort  made  to 
influence  his  vote  in  the  primary  b}7  that  payment? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  None  whatever. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Or  any  expectation  on  your  part  to  be  influenced? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  None  whatever. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  was  it  in  any  way  influenced,  so  far  as  you 
know  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know  whether  or  not  he  was  influenced 
by  the  payment  of  this  money? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  I have  no  means  of  knowing. 

The  Chairman.  The  tenth  specific  charge  is : 

That,  iu  further  pursuance  of  such  purposes  and  design,  said  Isaac  Stephen- 
son, by  and  through  his  agents,  prior  to  such  primary,  did  offer  to  pay  to  Edward 
Pollock,  of  Lancaster,  Wis..  certain  sums  of  money,  as  editor  of  the  Teller,  a 
newspaper  published  in  said  city  of  Lancaster,  Wis.,  and  to  other  editors  of 
newspapers  who  were  at  such  time  electors  of  this  State,  for  the  purpose  of 
purchasing  the  editorial  support  of  such  editors,  and  as  a consideration  of  some- 
thing to  be  done  relating  to  such  primary. 

Is  that  true? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  remember  this  particular  individual,  and  I 
do  not  think  I can  answer  the  question — it  was  a long  one.  I do  not 
think  I can  answer  the  statement  without  having  that  again. 


356 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


The  Chairman.  “ That,  in  further  pursuance  of  such  purposes  and 
design,  said  Isaac  Stephenson,  by  and  through  his  agents,  prior  to 
such  primary,  did  oner  to  pay  to  Edward  Pollock,  of  Lancaster, 
Wis.”  Now,  to  avoid  confusion,  is  that  true? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall  having — knowing 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  say  it  is  not  true  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  I can  not  say. 

The*  Chairman.  Because  you  may  be  confronted  by  an  affirmative 
statement  from  some  one  that  it  is  true. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir.  I can  not  say. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  One  moment.  I beg  pardon 

The  Chairman.  Just  a moment,  till  I finish. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Now,  I want  to  be  candid  with  you  and  give  you 
an  opportunity  to  answer  whether  or  not  through  you,  as  the  repre- 
sentative of  Senator  Stephenson,  any  such  offer  was  ever  made  to 
Edward  Pollock? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Just  a moment.  I submit,  if  the  chairman 
please,  that  the  witness  ought  to  be  allowed  to  answer  that  irre- 
spective of  whether  somebody  is  expected  to  come  on  and  confront 
him  with  a statement. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  it  was  rather  a friendly  act  toward  the  wit- 
ness and  entirely  within  the  privilege  of  the  subcommittee. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  may  be ; of  course,  it  is  within  the  privilege 
of  the  subcommittee  to  ask  any  question. 

The  Chairman.  We  are  investigating,  and  we  are  anxious  that  the 
witnesses  shall  be  treated  candidly  and  fairly,  and  that  where  it  is 
necessary  to  call  their  attention  to  the  special  importance  of  a matter 
about  which  they  are  interrogated,  that  they  should  have  notice  of  its 
importance,  and  it  seems  to  me  that  rather  than  being  a subject  of 
objection  it  should  be  rather  one  of  congratulation. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I regret  that  we  did  not  appreciate  the  signifi- 
cance of  it  until  suggested  by  the  chairman. 

The  Chairman.  This  witness,  I will  say,  has  indicated  that  he 
desires  to  be  excused  for  a few  days,  and  during  the  time  he  is 
absent  it  is  entirely  probable  that  the  party  making  these  charges 
will  be  here  to  testify,  and  the  witness  should  be  placed  upon  notice 
of  that  fact,  so  that  he  may  give  the  very  closest  attention  to  the 
answers  to  such  questions. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  being  the  purpose,  I have  not  any  objection. 

Senator  Pomerene.  If  I may  ask  here,  in  view  of  this  charge, 
is  there  any  Wisconsin  statute  on  the  subject  of  newspaper  advertis- 
ing or  the  purchase  of  the  editorial  influence  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I will  ask  Brother  Black  to  answer  that.  So 
far  as  I am  concerned,  my  attention  has  not  been  called  to  any.  I 
do  not  know  what  the  fact  is. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Do  you  know,  Mr.  Black? 

Mr.  Black.  There  was  not  at  the  time  of  this  primary. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Is  there  since? 

Mr.  Black.  There  was  some  bill  passed  at  the  last  session  relating 
to  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  While  I have  not  examined  it  with  great  care, 
my  advice  was  that  there  was  not  any  statute  that  had  even  the 
remotest  relation  to  newspaper  advertising  or  contracts  in  any  way. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


357 


Senator  Pomerene.  This  charge  is  made  so  specific  here  I was  a 
little  curious  to  know  whether  there  was  any  statute  on  the  subject. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  My  advice  is  that  there  is  not. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  doubtless  made  under  section  338,  which  I 
have  read  into  the  record. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  I think  very  likely. 

The  Chairman.  I intended  that  this  statute  should  be  read  imme- 
diately preceding  the  examination  in  regard  to  these  specific  charges; 
but  counsel  proceeded  to  examine  the  witness,  thus  interjecting  some 
testimony  between  it  and  such  examination,  and  I think  when  we 
have  it  printed,  we  will  print  this  section  of  the  statute  immediately 
preceding  the  testimony  in  regard  to  these  specific  charges,  because 
they  refer  to  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  We  will  be  very  glad  to  have  it  done  in  that  way. 

The  Chairman.  And  it  was  undoubtedly  intended  that  these 
charges  should  come  within  the  language  of  the  statute,  which  is 
“ for  some  act  to  be  done  in  relation  to  such  preliminary  meeting,” 
etc. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Is  there  any  Wisconsin  decision  of  any  of  your 
courts  here  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  term  “ preliminary  meeting  ? ” 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I do  not  think  so. 

Mr.  Black.  I do  not  recall  any. 

Senator  Pomerene.  The  purpose  of  my  question  is,  is  that  broad 
enough  to  cover  the  matter  of  the  primary  ? 

The  Chairman.  “ Meeting,  caucus,  or  convention.” 

Senator  Pomerene.  Preliminary  meeting? 

Mr.  Black.  I took  your  question,  Senator  Pomerene,  in  relation  to 
a law  respecting  advertising,  to  mean  specifically  advertising  in 
newspapers,  and  not  as  relating  to  the  section  to  which  the  chairman 
has  referred. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Yes.  My  further  question  was  whether  or  not 
there  was  any  judicial  determination  of  the  term  “ preliminary  meet- 
ing? ” 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I had  Brother  Black  examine  the  authorities 
with  reference  to  the  construction  of  this  statute — that  is,  I requested 
him  to  do  so — and  the  information  I got  from  his  office  was  that  it 
had  not  been  judicially  construed  by  the  courts.  Of  course,  if  there 
has  been  any  case  it  has  simply  escaped  his  investigation. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  there  was  no  offer  to  pay  Edward  Pollock 
any  sum  of  money  for  his  newspaper  support  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I did  not  mean  to  deny  the  statement  made  there, 
because  I do  not  recall  having  made  such  a tender  to  him. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  pay  Edward  Pollock  any  sum  of  money  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Not  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge  and  belief. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  chairman  notices  this  is  an  offer  to  pay ; no 
allegation  here  of  any  payment ; simply  an  offer  to  pay. 

The  Chairman.  I am  asking  the  question  merely  to  get  at  the  facts. 
Did  you  offer  to  pay  him  any  sum  of  money  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Not  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge  and  belief. 

The  Chairman.  Did  anyone  representing  Senator  Stephenson  offer 
to  pay  him  any  sum  of  money  for  his  support  in  a newspaper  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Not  so  far  as  I can  recollect.  I make  that  statement 
in  that  manner,  Senator,  because  at  different  times  efforts  were  made, 
by  telephone  and  by  letter,  to  interest  and  urge  upon  different  editors 


358 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


in  different  localities  their  support,  and  the  use  of  their  papers  for 
Senator  Stephenson;  so  it  is  possible  that  he  was  solicited,  but  I do 
not  recall  it. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know  by  whom  he  was  solicited? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Might  it  be  that  you  telephoned  him,  or  solicited 
him  to  support  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I am  quite  sure  that  I did  call  up  different  persons, 
and  he  may  have  been  one ; but  I do  not  recall  it  now. 

The  Chairman.  When  you  called  newspaper  men  up  in  that  way, 
did  you  make  a statement  to  them  as  to  what  compensation  they 
might  receive  for  it  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  My  best  recollection  is  that  in  talking  with  news- 
paper men  they  usually  called  me  up.  I think  the  newspaper  frater- 
nity, as  a rule,  were  the  ones  who  solicited  assistance. 

The  Chairman.  This  tenth  specification  or  specific  charge  proceeds 
to  say  “ and  to  other  editors  of  newspapers  who  were  at  such  time 
electors  of  this  State.”  Did  you  call  up  any  papers,  or  did  you  pay 
any  papers  any  sum  of  money  for  their  support  of  Senator  Stephen- 
son? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I paid  newspaper  publishers  in  the  State  for  sup- 
port of  Senator  Stephenson — possibly  that  is  not  a fair  statement — 
at  least,  to  further  the  candidacy  of  Senator  Stephenson.  They  were 
paid  for  space  in  their  papers. 

The  Chairman.  For  favorable  comment? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  state  to  what  papers  you  paid  sums  of 
money  for  Senator  Stephenson  to  procure  the  support  of  such  papers  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  One  of  them  I think  I testified  to  yesterday  as  the 
Wausau  Record-Herald. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  did  you  pay  that  paper? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  My  recollection  is  not  complete;  $100  or  $150. 

The  Chairman.  What  other  paper  can  you  recollect  having  paid 
money  to  for  such  purpose? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  The  Oconto  Falls  Herald. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  did  you  pay  that  paper? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I am  not  certain,  but  I think  $100. 

The  Chairman.  Name  another  one,  can  you? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  recall  another  one ; no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  This  specification  charges  that  such  payment  was 
made  “ for  the  purpose  of  purchasing  the  editorial  support  of  such 
editors.”  Is  that  true? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  not  contract  with  the  paper  when  you 
made  the  payment,  or  at  some  time,  that  it  should  give  Senator 
Stephenson’s  candidacy  its  editorial  support? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  My  best  judgment  is  that  they  were,  in  both  in- 
stances, favorable  to  the  senatorial  candidacy  of  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  Had  they  so  expressed  themselves  prior  to  your 
payment  or  contract  to  pay  them  money  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I am  unable  to  say  now. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  proceed  to  the  eleventh  specification 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Will  the  chairman  close  up  with  the  inquiry  as 
to  “ corruptly  and  unlawfully,”  so  as  to  clean  that  up  ? 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


359 


The  Chairman.  Yes.  I thought  I had,  in  this  case. 

These  payments,  were  they  made  corruptly  or  unlawfully? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  no  instance. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  a legal  conclusion.  I hardly  think  the 
witness’s  testimony  on  the  subject  adds  anything  to  the  facts. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  may  be  true;  but,  of  course,  it  charac- 
terizes the  charge.  The  charge  without  that  does  not  amount  to 
anything. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  a part  of  the  charge. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes ; I would  like,  if  it  be  agreeable  to  the  chair- 
man, as  he  goes  along  with  the  charges,  as  you  have  done  already,  to 
give  him  the  opportunity  to  negative 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  he  will  be  given  that  opportunity. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Do  you  remember  the  men  with  whom  you 
made  the  arrangement  for  this  newspaper  support? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  the  instance  of  the  Wausau  paper,  J.  L.  Sturte- 
vandt ; and  I think  T.  F.  Reynolds  in  the  other  instance. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Was  he  a member  of  the  legislature? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Proceed  now  to  the  eleventh  specific  charge: 

That  said  Isaac  Stephenson  did,  prior  to  such  primary,  by  and  through  his 
agents,  promise,  and  agree  to  pay  to  one  Lester  Tilton,  a then  resident  and 
elector  of  this  State,  and  residing  at  the  city  of  Neillsville,  Wis.,  a sum  in  excess 
of  $500  to  procure  or  aid  in  procuring  the  nomination  of  said  Lester  Tilton  to 
the  assembly  of  this  State  from  Clark  County,  and  did  offer  to  give  to  said 
Lester  Tilton  a sum  in  excess  of  $500  if  said  Lester  Tilton  would  become  a can- 
didate for  the  assembly  from  said  Clark  County,  if  said  Lester  Tilton  would 
support  said  Isaac  Stephenson  for  the  office  of  United  States  Senator,  all  of 
which  is  in  violation  of  sections  4542b  and  4543b  of  the  249th  statute. 

Omitting  the  allegation  that  it  is  in  violation  of  the  statutes,  did 
you  have,  or  have  knowledge  of,  such  a transaction  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  any  statement  to  make  in  regard  to  this 
charge,  as  to  its  truth  or  falsity? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  So  far  as  I am  concerned  it  is  not  true,  and  I do  not 
believe  it  to  be  true. 

The  Chairman.  Upon  what  do  you  base  the  belief  that  it  is  not 
true? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I am  inclined  to  believe  my  opinion  is  prejudiced, 
on  account  of  my  disbelief  in  the  information  in  hand  that  this  man 
had,  who  made  the  charges. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  to  this  item,  Exhibit  120,  at  page  2810  of  the 
State  investigation,  that  that  refers.  Have  you  seen  that  exhibit? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  an  affidavit  made  by  Lester  Tilton,  on  the 
28th  of  January,  1909. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir ; I have  not  seen  it. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  say  that  no  person  made  such  a proposi- 
tion to  Mr.  Tilton? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No;  I do  not  make  that  statement.  I know  I did 
not. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  ever  had  any  knowledge  of  such  a propo- 
sition being  made? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 


360 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Mr.  Littlefield.  I will  ask  the  chairman  to  ask  him  if  he  ever 
authorized  such  a proposition  to  be  made. 

The  Chairman.  Yes.  Did  you  ever  authorize  any  such  proposi- 
tion to  be  made  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  I will  say  that  in  the  exhibit,  which  is  an  affidavit, 
Mr.  Tilton  denies  the  truth  of  the  allegation. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  He  denies  the  charge  altogether? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I was  just  running  my  eye  through  it,  and  I see 
there  is  nothing  said  about  Mr.  Edmonds. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  proceed  to  the  twelfth  specific  charge: 

That  said  Isaac  Stephenson  did,  by,  and  through  his  agents,  give,  and 
promise,  and  pay,  or  agree  to  pay,  to  other  electors  of  this  State  sums  of  money 
to  procure  or  aid  in  procuring  the  nomination  of  such  electors  to  the  senate  and 
assembly  of  this  State  other  than  those  electors  residing  in  the  district  where 
said  Isaac  Stephenson  resides. 

Is  that  true? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Not  in  my  case;  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  any  such  transaction  pass  under  your  notice? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  I will  say,  Mr.  Edmonds,  you  are  at  full  liberty 
to  enter  upon  the  consideration  of  these  charges,  because  they  are 
the  responsible  basis  of  the  investigation.  Have  you  nothing  more 
to  say  in  regard  to  that  charge  that  Mr.  Stephenson  did,  “by  and 
through  his  agents,  give  and  promise  and  pay  or  agree  to  pay  other 
electors  of  this  State  sums  of  money  to  procure  or  aid  in  procuring 
the  nomination  of  such  electors  to  the  senate  and  assembly  of  this 
State  other  than  those  electors  residing  in  the  district  where  said 
Isaac  Stephenson  resides?  ” 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I deny  having  done  so  as  his  agent.  I do  not  be- 
lieve, and  have  no  knowledge  of,  anything  of  that  kind  having  been 
done  by  any  agent  of  his,  or  any  man  who  was  working  for  him 
during  the  campaign. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  about  the  Senator  himself? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I have  no  knowledge  of  course  of  what  the  Sena- 
tor did ; but  I certainly  do  not  believe  that  he  did. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  under  another  section? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  The  thirteenth  specific  charge  is: 

That  E.  M.  Heyzer  and  Max  Sells,  prior  to  said  primary,  being  at  such  time 
employees  of  the  Chicago  & Northwestern  Railway  Co.,  a corporation  doing 
business  in  this  State,  did  contribute  and  agree  to  contribute,  free  services  as 
such  employees  for  the  purpose  to  defeat  the  candidacy  of  former  Assembly- 
man  E.  F.  Nelson,  from  the  district  embracing  Florence,  Forest,  and  Langlade 
Counties,  for  the  nomination  for  assemblyman  from  said  district,  all  of  which 
was  done  with  the  knowledge  and  consent  and  under  the  direction  of  said 
Isaac  Stephenson,  his  agents,  and  employees  contrary  to  chapter  492,  laws 
of  1905. 

Do  you  know  anything  of  that  transaction,  or  the  allegations  upon 
which  that  transaction  is  based  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Nothing  whatever. 

Senator  Sutherland.  To  what  does  that  refer? 

The  Chairman.  There  is  a statute  that  no  such  corporation  shall 
contribute,  et  cetera. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


361 


Senator  Sutherland.  I wondered  what  it  had  to  do  with  Senator 
Stephenson.  There  does  not  seem  a suggestion  that  it  was  with  his 
knowledge  or  consent  or  procurement. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  A great  many  intelligent  people  have  had  that 
same  wonder  ever  since  the  charge  was  made. 

Senator  Sutherland.  It  simply  seems  to  be  a statement  that  these 
people  for  some  purpose  went  out  to  defeat  these  candidates,  and  so 
far  as  the  charge  is  concerned,  it  does  not  seem  to  have  the  remotest 
connection  with  Senator  Stephenson  or  any  of  his  agents. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  We  agree  to  that,  Senator 

Mr.  Black.  There  never  was  a word  of  testimony  in  support  of 
that. 

The  Chairman.  I will  refer  to  that.  I have  notes  upon  that. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  As  I remember  it,  there  was  no  testimony  in  sup- 
port of  it. 

The  Chairman.  I have  some  notes  to  which  I will  call  attention 
in  a moment,  as  soon  as  I find  the  statute.  There  is  a provision  with 
reference  to  the  contribution  of  a corporation  to  a campaign  fund. 

Mr.  Black.  That  is  true. 

Senator  Sutherland.  My  inquiry  about  it  was  based  upon  the 
face  of  the  charge,  as  to  what  it  had  to  do  with  this  inquiry. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  one  of  the  specific  charges. 

Senator  Pomerene.  It  might  be  pertinent  in  an  inquiry  about  the 
officials  of  that  company. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  to  be  found  in  sections  318  to  322.  The 
statute  about  which  that  specific  charge  is  made  is  doubtless  section 
318,  which  reads  as  follows: 

No  corporation  doing  business  in  this  State  shall  pay  or  contribute,  or  offer, 
consent,  or  agree  to  pay  or  contribute,  directly  or  indirectly,  any  money! 
property,  free  service  of  its  officers  or  employees  or  thing  of  value  to  any 
political  party,  organization,  committee,  or  individual  for  any  political  purpose 
whatsoever,  or  for  the  purpose  of  influencing  legislation  of  any  kind,  or  to 
promote  or  defeat  the  candidacy  of  any  person  for  nomination,  appointment,  or 
election  to  any  political  office. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I did  not  want  to  take  up  any  time  on  the 
matter,  but  I simply  wondered  whether  there  was  concealed  in  the 
statement  something  that  had  not  attracted  my  attention.  For  the 
life  of  me  I could  not  see  what  it  had  to  do  with  Senator  Stephenson. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  did  not  know  but  that  there  might  be  some- 
thing latent  in  it. 

The  Chairman.  The  penalty  is  prescribed  in  section  322. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  I have  a reference  to  it  here,  page  2912  and  suc- 
ceeding pages.  This  matter  seems  to  have  been  gone  into  in  the 
hearing. 

Senator  Sutherland.  It  simply  occurred  to  me  that  we  ought  to 
occupy  the  time  of  this  inquiry  in  looking  into  matters  that  affected 
Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  I felt  that  these  specific  charges  should  receive 
special,  specific  attention;  otherwise  it  might  be  charged  that  we 
had  overlooked  the  indictment. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Mr.  Chairman,  I do  not  believe  anybody  will 
charge  that  you  have  overlooked  anything.  If  they  do,  you  may  call 
me,  if  you  want  a “ character  ” in  that  respect. 


362 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


The  Chairman.  One  of  the  most  difficult  things  in  the  world  is  to 
anticipate  what  men  may  charge. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I think  you  are  doing  very  well. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  any  knowledge  of  that  transaction 
whatever  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  employ  those  men,  either  Mr.  Hizer  or 
Mr.  Sells,  being,  as  they  were,  employees  of  the  Chicago  & North- 
western Railway  Co.,  to  do  anything  or  perform  any  service  during 
that  campaign? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  My  recollection  is  that  a sum  of  $25  has  been  stated 
as  having  been  paid  to  Mr.  Sells  in  our  report.  It  had  nothing  to 
do  with  anything  of  this  kind. 

The  Chairman.  With  what  did  it  have  to  do? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  As  to  the  exact  service  I do  not  recall  now.  He  was 
a very  warm  friend  of  Mr.  Hizer  and  other  friends  of  Senator 
Stephenson,  and  I think  was  favorable  to  his  candidacy. 

The  Chairman.  You  engaged  him,  knowing  that  he  was  the  agent 
and  representative  of  the  railroad  company,  did  you  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No.  I am  not  certain  that  I engaged  him,  and  do 
not  recall  now  how  he  happened  to  be  paid  the  $25. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  proceed  now  to  the  next  charge,  the  four- 
teenth : 

That  in  further  pursuance  of  the  purposes  and  design  above  set  forth  said 
Isaac  Stephenson,  by  and  through  his  agents,  did,  in  addition  to  paying  certain 
sums  as  above  set  forth,  offer  and  agree  to  pay  to  electors  of  this  State  prior  to 
said  primary  a premium  or  bonus  to  those  who  in  his  employ  carried  their  re- 
spective precincts  in  such  primary  for  said  Isaac  Stephenson  as  such  candidate. 

Do  you  know  of  any  such  arrangement  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  I certainly  do  not. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  any  knowledge  in  regard  to  the  matters 
and  things  charged  in  that  fourteenth  charge  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir;  none  whatever. 

The  Chairman.  The  fifteenth  charge  is  as  follows : 

That  said  Isaac  Stephenson,  if  claiming  an  election  by  virtue  of  receiving  a 
plurality  of  votes  at  such  primary,  then  said  Isaac  Stephenson  has  violated 
chapter  562  of  the  laws  of  1905,  by  failing  and  neglecting  to  file  his  expense 
account  as  provided  by  said  chapter. 

I think  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  inquire  of  you  anything  in  respect 
to  that,  further  than  to  inquire  whether  as  his  representative  you  did 
comply  with  the  statute  in  filing  the  expense  account. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  charge  is  that  if  he  claimed  the  election,  he 
violated  the  law. 

The  Chairman.  He  is  here  claiming  election. 

Mr.  Black.  But  not  by  virtue  of  receiving  a plurality  at  the 
primary. 

The  Chairman.  At  the  time  of  the  filing  of  these  specific  charges  he 
was  not  claiming  the  election. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  No. 

The  Chairman.  These  specific  charges  were  filed  January  26,  1909. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  He  never  claimed  the  election  by  virtue  of  receiv- 
ing a plurality  of  the  votes. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  rather  technical. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I think  so,  too. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


363 


The  Chairman.  And  we  need  waste  no  time  over  that.  It  seems  to 
me  the  fifteenth  and  the  sixteenth  charges  are  statements  of  a con- 
clusion rather  than  matters  about  which  this  witness  should  be  in- 
terrogated. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Mr.  Edmonds,  I understood  you  to  say,  in 
answer  to  questions  put  to  you  by  counsel,  that  Senator  Stephenson 
expected  $30,000  to  cover  his  expenses. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Oh,  no;  I beg  the  Senator’s  pardon.  I think 
you  have  misunderstood  me.  I tried  to  get  the  witness  to  testify  to 
that.  I supposed  he  knew  it.  To  be  perfectly  frank,  I do  not  know 
where  I got  the  information,  but  I had  it  in  my  mind  that  the 
Senator  started  in  with  the  idea  that  he  probably  would  have  to 
expend  about  $30,000  in  the  election,  and  I thought  Mr.  Edmonds 
knew  that.  He  said,  however,  he  did  not  know  it  and  could  not 
testify  to  it. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Then  I obtained  the  wrong  impression.  Is 
that  a correct  statement  of  the  matter  as  made  by  Mr.  Littlefield? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  that  is  a correct  statement. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Was  it  suggested,  so  far  as  you  know,  at  any 
time,  what  amount  he  was  willing  to  spend  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No;  he  never  made  known  to  me  the  amount  that 
he  was  willing  to  expend. 

Senator  Sutherland.  At  the  time  he  objected — or,  perhaps,  I had 
better  not  say  “ objected  ” — at  the  time  some  controversy  arose 
respecting  the  further  spending  of  sums  of  money,  was  it  stated  how 
much  had  then  been  expended  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Just  what  was  the  objection  that  Senator 
Stephenson  made?  Do  you  recall  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  my  talk  with  Senator  Stephenson  I wanted  to 
learn  from  him  the  amount  of  money  he  expected  to  expend.  He 
seemed  to  think  that  too  much  money  was  being  expended.  I en- 
deavored to  have  him  fix  an  amount  so  that  we  would  not  exceed  it. 
This  he  declined  to  do,  and  I endeavored  to  show  him  the  difficulty 
of  conducting  a campaign  without  knowing  how  much  I might  be 
allowed  to  expend;  but  I was  not  able  to  get  him  to  state,  and  he 
said  to  go  on  and  conduct  the  campaign — ■“  use  your  best  ability  in 
conducting  it,”  and  left  it  in  that  way. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Just  what  did  he  say,  as  near  as  you  can 
recall,  about  the  excess  of  expenditures? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  May  I suggest  that  the  Senator  [Mr.  Suther- 
land] is  willing  to  take  the  substance  of  what  he  said,  if  the  witness 
can  not  recollect  in  detail. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Yes. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  my  talk  I had  endeavored  to  show  him  that  his 
expenditure  was  not  in  excess  of  what  the  other  candidates  who 
might  be  called  leading  candidates  against  him  were  spending.  They 
were  spending  money  in  different  places,  and  it  would  be  very  diffi- 
cult for  him  to  win  unless  he  endeavored  in  every  possible  manner 
to  get  out  the  vote — organize  thoroughly  in  each  locality,  and  in  my 
discussion  of  that  matter  he  used  his  own  language  and  stated  that 
it  did  not  make  any  difference  how  much  those  fellows  paid,  that 
would  not  govern  him;  that  he  wanted  to  win  the  election,  but  he 
did  not  propose  to  buy  it.  I remember  his  using  that  particular  term. 


364 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Senator  Sutherland.  How  did  you  know  what  the  others  were 
paying  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Only  in  a general  way  as  I would  run  across  it  and 
get  reports  from  different  localities. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  did  not  learn  the  amount  they  were 
spending,  I suppose? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  But  you  learned  they  were  spending  money 
somewhat  lavishly? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Is  that  all  he  said  on  the  subject  of  spending 
too  much  monej^? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  is  all  I recall  now ; yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  he  make  any  further  complaint  about 
it  as  you  went  along? 

Mr,  Edmonds.  Not  to  me.  May  I explain  that  I did  not  conduct 
the  negotiations  with  him  for  this  money  except  at  this  particular 
time  I had  this  talk  with  him,  and  then  all  requests  for  money  came 
from  another  source.  The  custodian  of  funds  did  that. 

Senator  Sutherland.  At  the  time  he  was  complaining  about  the 
Jarge  expenditure  of  money,  did  he  ask  you  what  you  were  spending 
it  for? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I do  not  think  we  went  into  that  in  detail  at  all.  I 
do  not  think  he  inquired. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Or  why  there  was  any  necessity  of  spending 
as  much  as  you  were  doing? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I can  only  assume  we  did,  because  we  went  into  it 
quite  thoroughly,  but  as  to  our  talk,  I do  not  recall. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  tell  him  what  you  were  spending 
it  for? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  In  detail,  no,  sir;  just  in  this  manner  in  a general 
way,  that  we  were  contemplating  going  into  the  organization  of  each 
township  in  a county. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  mean  each  township  or  voting  precinct? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Usually  that  is  the  voting  precinct.  I should  have 
said  voting  precinct — for  the  purpose  of  organizing  thoroughly.  That 
matter  was  discussed,  and  he  said : No;  we  could  not  afford  to  do  that; 
that  would  cost  too  much  money. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Then  did  you  alter  your  plans  upon  that 
statement  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  My  recollection  is  that  that  talk  was  had  with  him 
before  any  definite  plan  had  been  determined  upon,  that  in  some  in- 
stances perhaps  I had  gone  that  far,  but  no  policy  had  been  adopted. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  say  in  addition  to  the  conversation  you 
wrote  him  a letter  about  the  necessity  of  expenditure,  as  I understood 
you  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  keep  a copy  of  that  letter? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  was  written  from  headquarters.  I think  a copy 
was  left  in  the  headquarters. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Can  you  procure  that  copy  and  produce  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I have  no  means  of  knowing  where  that  is.  I should 
be  glad  to  endeavor  to  produce  it. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Can  you  produce  that,  Mr.  Littlefield. 


B.  A.  EDMONDS. 


365 


Mr.  Littlefield.  I do  not  know  a thing  about  it,  but  I will  inquire. 
I will  surely  endeavor  to  do  it,  if  we  have  it.  So  as  to  be  sure  what 
we  have  in  mind,  that  is  a letter  that  was  written  by  Mr.  Edmonds  to 
Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Senator  Sutherland.  Yes;  a letter  he  testified  about.  This  talk 
was  about  August  7,  as  I understand  you.  That  is,  at  any  rate,  the 
payment  of  the  $30,000  which  was  made  in  response  to  that  talk  was 
made  on  August  7 ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  As  I think  of  it,  that  talk  that  I had  with  Senator 
Stephenson  was  at  the  time  I saw  him  in  relation  to  the  placing  of 
the  $5,000  in  the  National  Exchange  Bank,  rather  than  at  this  par- 
ticular time. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Which  $5,000  do  you  mean? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  There  is  only  one  that  was  given  to  him. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  There  was  only  one  $5,000  that  was  given  to  me. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  would  be  on  August  27  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  My  recollection  is  that  was  a good  deal  earlier. 

Senator  Sutherland.  There  is  an  item  of  $5,000  on  August  27. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Paid  to  me  ? 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is  the  only  item  of  $5,000  that  I find  in 
the  accounts  at  all.  Did  he  give  you  more  than  one  $5,000? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No;  and  I should  say  that  was  in  July  rather  than 
in  August. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Will  the  Senator  please  look  on  page  37? 

Senator  Sutherland.  I did  not  understand  he  meant  the  first  $5,000 
that  was  paid. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  There  was  only  one  $5,000  that  was  paid  to  me. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  mean  $5,000  that  was  paid  to  you  when 
you  first  took  hold  of  the  matter  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir.  That  was,  as  I should  think,  three  weeks 
later. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I do  not  understand  you.  Let  us  get  a fresh 
start.  When  was  this  talk  with  Senator  Stephenson  about  the  neces- 
sity of  the  expenditure? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  My  recollection  is  that  it  was  at  the  time  I asked 
him  to  place  the  $5,000  in  the  National  Exchange  Bank,  on  which 
I should  check. 

Senator  Sutherland.  When  was  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  My  recollection  is  that  it  was  late  in  July. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  was  placed  in  the  bank  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes.  He  gave  me,  I think,  a draft,  and  I placed  it 
in  the  bank  to  my  credit. 

Senator  Sutherland.  At  that  time  there  had  been  comparatively 
little  money  paid  over  by  him,  had  there? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Well,  I do  not  recall  how  much.  I have  no  means 
of  knowing. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Have  you  any  objection  to  looking  at  the  record? 

Senator  Sutherland.  No ; I would  like  to  see  that. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  It  is  page  37,  marked  “ Exhibit  1.”  There  is 
$12,000  that  had  been  paid  over  prior  to  that  date. 

Senator  Sutherland.  This  seems  to  be  in  accordance  with  what 
I have  already  stated.  There  is  a check  to  you  on  July  18,  $5,000. 
That  is  not  the  one  to  which  you  refer  ? 


366 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes ; that  is  the  one  to  which  I refer. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  was  paid  to  you  at  the  time  you  were 
first  employed,  as  I understood  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No.  If  I made  a statement  of  that  kind  you  mis- 
understood me.  There  was  no  money  paid  to  me  until  two  or  three 
weeks  after  I came  around  to  headquarters. 

Senator  Sutherland.  At  that  time  there  had  been  a check  of  $2,000 
paid  to  Van  Cleve  and  a second  check  of  $10,000  to  Van  Cleve,  mak- 
ing $12,000  in  all. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  that  is  true  according  to  this  statement,  though 
at  that  time  I did  not  know  the  amounts. 

Senator  Sutherland.  So  that  there  was  a lapse  in  your  activities 
because  of  the  lack  of  money,  say,  between  July  6 and  July  18? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  When  was  that? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  That  was  10  days  or  about  that  time  prior  to  the 
receipt  of  the  $30,000. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Then  I did  not  understand  your  testimony 
at  all. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I am  very  sorry  that  I have  not  made  myself  plain. 

Senator  Sutherland.  It  may  be  due  to  me. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  May  I make  this  suggestion?  As  I understand, 
Mr.  Edmonds  had  two  conversations  in  which  the  matter  of  finances 
were  discussed,  and  the  one  in  which  the  discussion  took  place  as  to 
whether  they  would  have  a detailed  precinct  organization,  if  I get 
it  right,  was  about  the  time  of  the  $5,000  payment ; the  one  when  this 
complaint  was  made  about  the  excessive  expenditures  being  along 
about  the  time  of  the  $30,000  talk. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Then  I am  all  wrrong. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  It  is  not  quite  correct.  I think  the  confusion  is  due 
to  my  lack  of  recollection  this  morning  and  yesterday,  when  I testified. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Suppose  you  take  an  absolutely  fresh  start 
and  tell  us  about  this  matter. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  The  impression  seems  to  have  gone  out  from  the 
testimony  that  has  been  given  that  I did  not  start  until  I received 
$5,000  to  start  in  with.  That  is  a mistake.  I came  down  here  with 
the  understanding  with  Mr.  Puelicher  and  Mr.  Van  Cleve  that  the 
money  would  be  in  the  bank  to  begin  business  with  whenever  I came, 
which  was  about  a week  later.  I arrived  soon  after  the  4th  of  July, 
I think.  Then,  on  the  18th,  according  to  this,  I received  a check  or 
a draft  for  $5,000.  I received  that  after  the  conversation  with  Sena- 
tor Stephenson,  in  which  I asked  him  to  place  this  amount  to  my 
credit  and  check  out  against  it. 

Senator  Sutherland.  But  that  was  not  after  any  complaint  about 
excessive  expenditures  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  During  that  conversation  was  the  time  when  he 
made  the  complaint.  I wanted  him  to  place,  as  I recall,  $10,000  to 
my  credit  in  the  bank,  and  at  that  time  he  objected  to  the  expendi- 
tures. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  was  on  July  18.  Was  it  after  he 
had  given  you  the  $5,000  that  he  complained  about  the  expenditures? 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


367 


Mr.  Edmonds.  During  the  conversation  with  me,  when  I asked  him 
to  do  this. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Was  there  any  subsequent  time  when  he 
complained  about  the  expenditure? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Not  that  I recall,  to  me. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Then  was  the  payment  of  this  $30,000  on 
August  7 after  a period  of  inactivity? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Because  of  the  shortness  of  funds? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Was  there  any  complaint  during  that  time 
about  the  excessive  use  of  money? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Not  to  me,  because  I had  no  conversation  with  him 
that  I recall. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Then  I misunderstood  the  situation. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  There  was  a shortage  of  money  in  the  bank.  The 
negotiations  for  funds  from  Senator  Stephenson  were  not  made 
directly  by  me — always  by  Mr.  Puelicher.  I looked  to  him  for  funds. 
When  they  were  not  there  I made  complaint  to  him. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  you  mean  that  prior  to  the  payment  of 
$30,000  and  after  the  payment  of  the  preceding  $10,000  there  had 
been  a period  of  inactivity  because  of  shortness  of  funds? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  As  to  when  any  given  amounts  were  placed  to  the 
credit  of  the  bank,  I do  not  know.  This  would  seem  to  confuse  the 
matter  somewhat — this  date,  $10,000  having  been  received  on  July 
30,  and  then  $30,000  on  August  7,  and  one  would  suppose  that  $10,000 
would  take  care  of  things;  but  for  almost,  if  not  quite,  10  days  be- 
fore the  receipt  of  that  $30,000  there  had  been  no  money  in  the  bank 
for  use  in  organizing  in  the  counties.  Whether  that  money — the 
$10,000 — and  other  sums  preceding  it  had  been  expended  in  the  pay- 
ment of  other  bills,  I do  not  know.  I know  there  was  a shortage. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  At  which  conversation  was  it,  if  the  Senator 
will  excuse  me,  that  Senator  Stephenson  objected  to  the  detailed 
precinct  organization? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  At  the  time  that  I asked  him  for  this  $5,000  to  be 
placed  to  my  credit  in  the  bank. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I understand  you  now. 

Senator  Pomerene.  When  was  it  you  had  this  conversation  with 
the  Senator  in  which  you  told  him  about  the  lavish  expenditures  of 
the  other  candidates  and  wanted  him  to  place  a limit  upon  the 
amount  you  were  to  put  in  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  At  this  particular  time — when  I got  the  $5,000  and 
it  was  placed  to  my  credit. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Then,  I did  not  understand  it. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I think  I am  at  fault  for  your  not  understanding  it, 
because  I was  confused  this  morning  in  the  dates.  I am  positive  now 
that  before  receiving  the  $30,000  I did  not  see  him. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Was  anyone  else  present  at  the  time  you  had 
this  conversation  with  him  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Where  was  it? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  At  Marinette. 

Senator  Pomerene.  At  his  home? 


368 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Mr.  Edmonds.  At  his  home. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  understood,  then,  from  that  conversation 
there  was  not  any  limit  placed  upon  you  at  all,  except  what  in  your 
judgment  was  necessary? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Yes;  rather  by  inference,  to  be  as  careful  as  pos- 
sible and  not  go  too  far,  but  no  limit  was  placed. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  he  make  any  inquiries  at  that  time  as  to 
how  this  money  was  being  expended? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Or  suggest  to  you  any  methods  of  expendi- 
ture? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Not  to  my  recollection,  except  as  I asked  him  about 
the  organization  of  precincts.  He  objected  to  that,  but  I do  not  recall 
any  other. 

Senator  Pomerene.  There  is  one  other  matter  I noticed  in  going 
over  these  charges.  Charge  15  refers  to  an  alleged  violation  of 
chapter  562.  Does  not  that  mean  chapter  502?  I have  before  me 
the  election  laws,  in  which  I note  that  the  section  requiring  the  filing 
of  the  account  seems  to  be  designated  as  section  4543B,  and  at  the 
end  of  it  chapter  502. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  page  is  that? 

Senator  Sutherland.  I am  looking  at  page  1T98.  I wondered 
whether  there  was  another  chapter. 

Mr.  Black.  No. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Mr.  Blaine’s  charge  15  refers  to  an  alleged 
violation  of  chapter  562. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Requiring  returns  to  be  filed? 

Senator  Pomerene.  Yes.  That  is  probably  a misprint,  is  it  not? 

Senator  Sutherland.  It  is  a misprint. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I wanted  to  be  sure  about  that.  No  other  sec- 
tion of  the  statute  was  called  to  my  attention. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  We  have  not  verified  that.  I presume  you  are 
right  about  it.  If  there  is  any  error  in  the  citation,  we  will  get  it 
right. 

Mr.  Black.  Section  502  of  the  laws  of  1905  is  the  citation  I have. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Probably  that  is  a typographical  error. 

Mr.  Black.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  With  reference  to  section  338,  has  there  been 
any  construction  of  that  section  by  the  attorney  general,  or  anybody 
else  whom  you  know  of? 

Mr.  Black.  I have  examined  the  decisions,  as  Mr.  Littlefield  has 
said,  and  I do  not  find  where  that  question  or  that  statute  has  been 
passed  upon.  You  ask  whether  there  has  been  any  ruling  of  the 
attorney  general.  I am  not  aware  of  any,  though  I have  not  inquired. 

Senator  Sutherland.  It  appears  to  be  a loosely  drawn  section, 
and  would  seem  to  require  considerable  construction  to  give  it  effect. 

Mr.  Black.  I do  not  know  that  there  has  ever  been  a prosecution 
under  that  section. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Our  view  is  that  the  statute  all  the  way  through 
is  characterized  by  the  first  sentence,  the  expression  “ bribery,  or  cor- 
rupt or  unlawful  means.”  Everything  else  is  in  the  alternative,  and 
in  our  judgment  relates  back  to  that  declaration.  Any  other  con- 
struction would  absolutely  eliminate  any  campaign  on  the  part  of 
any  candidate. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


369 


Senator  Pomerene.  When  was  your  primary  law  passed  ? 

Mr.  Black.  Originally  in  1903,  and  amended  in  1905. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I do  not  think  there  can  be  any  doubt  about  that 
as  a matter  of  legal  construction,  because  any  other  construction 
would  be  grotesque.  A man  could  not  do  anything  toward  promot- 
ing his  election,  unless  he  did  it  personally.  The  minute  he  stepped 
outside  of  himself,  he  would  be  committing  a crime. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I notice  in  the  last  section,  341,  a provision 
that — 

The  district  attorney  of  the  county  is  hereby  authorized  and  empowered  to 
conduct  prosecutions  for  violations  of  this  act,  upon  complaint  of  duly  qualified 
elector  of  the  caucus  district  in  which  such  violations  of  this  act  may  have 
occurred. 

Does  that  mean  that  no  one  else  can  make  a complaint? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  This  is  the  first  time  my  attention  has  been  called 
to  it.  It  would  seem  to  me  to  look  in  that  direction.  I would  say 
offhand  that  I should  doubt  somewhat  whether  it  could  be  confined  to 
that. 

Senator  Sutherland.  It  very  plainly  says: 

Upon  complaint  of  duly  qualified  elector  of  the  caucus  district  in  which  such 
violations  of  this  act  may  have  occurred. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  district  attorney  is  authorized,  on  the  com- 
plaint of  a duly  qualified  elector.  That  does  not  necessarily  exclude 
any  other  person. 

The  Chairman.  As  to  a taxpayer’s  right  to  sue  under  certain  sec- 
tions, it  is  coextensive  with  that  of  the  attorney  general. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Of  course,  but  that  that  is  on  the  civil  side,  and 
this  is  a criminal  prosecution. 

Mr.  Sutherland.  What  is  the  purpose  of  extending  the  right  to  a 
qualified  elector? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  mean  of  confining  it  to  a qualified  elector? 

Senator  Sutherland.  No  ; in  your  view  it  would  not  confine  it  to 
him.  If  it  does  not  confine  it  to  him,  it  must  extend  it  to  him. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  In  the  absence  of  this  statute  I suppose  any- 
body could  make  a complaint. 

Senator  Sutherland.  The  only  object  for  a provision  of  that  kind 
must  be  either  to  extend  the  right  to  the  elector  to  do  something 
that  he  would  not  otherwise  have  a right  to  do  or  to  confine  it  to  the 
elector.  I am  speaking  of  statutory  construction  generally. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I should  think  perhaps  the  purpose  of  the  act 
might  be  to  do  that,  but  I should  doubt  somewhat  whether  a com- 
plaint made  by  anybody,  of  a violation  of  a criminal  statute,  would 
not  be  competent. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I never  heard  of  any  statute  before  where 
the  right  to  file  a criminal  complaint  was  either  extended  to  par- 
ticular individuals  or  confined  to  them. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  So  as  to  limit  it  to  a particular  channel. 

The  Chairman.  I suggest  that  this  is  in  harmony  with  the  spirit 
from  which  the  law  emanated.  The  statute  is  evidently  passed  in 
response  to  a demand  that  the  individual  shall  have  a right  to  go 
around  the  officer  in  the  event  of  the  officer  failing  to  enforce  the 
law.  I am  rather  inclined  to  think  it  is  intended  to  meet  some  such 
idea. 

15235°— vol  1—11 24 


370 


B.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Mr.  Littlefield.  On  general  principles  there  is  no  occasion  for 

specifying  the  complainant. 

The  Chairman.  It  might  be  made  a very  taking  text,  speaking 
under  certain  circumstances. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  do  not  mean  by  that  that  there  is  a 
sort  of  local-option  arrangement  by  which  electors  in  certain  dis- 
tricts may  have  the  law  enforced,  and  electors  in  other  districts  not 
have  them  enforced  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  A sort  of  statutory  monopoly  of  purity. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  among  the  possibilities. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is  a modern  extension  of  the  local- 
option  idea. 

The  Chairman.  I am  rather  impressed  with  the  idea  that  the 
purpose  of  section  338  was  to  eliminate  the  candidate  entirely  from 
the  canvass  or  the  campaign.  I think  they  might  have  emphasized 
it,  or  rather  made  it  plainer,  by  providing  that  the  candidate  should 
absent  himself  from  the  State  during  the  campaign.  Under  the 
language  of  this  section  there  is  nothing  that  he  can  do  that  is  not 
a violation  of  the  law. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Absolutely. 

The  Chairman.  Because  it  says  that  he  shall  not  do  any  act  in 
relation  to  such  primary  meeting,  and  if  he  does  it,  he  is  violating 
that  law. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  He  is  anathema  maranatha. 

The  Chairman.  It  does  not  leave  him  the  right  to  canvass.  It 
leaves  the  elector  in  the  solitude  of  his  own  thoughts  and  judgment, 
to  determine  for  whom  he  will  vote,  without  any  advice  or  any  in- 
formation being  brought  to  him. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  if  that  is  the  idea,  in  order  to  carry  it  to 
its  logical  conclusion,  he  should  be  excluded  from  the  contagion  of 
the  presence  of  the  candidate,  whose  personal  influence  should  be 
segregated  and  carried  to  some  other  clime. 

The  Chairman.  I am  well  satisfied  that  that  was  the  intention  of 
those  who  enacted  the  section,  but  it  is  a question  of  what  construc- 
tion will  be  placed  upon  it  by  the  courts  of  the  State. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  the  Senator  notice  that  the  words  “ pri- 
mary election  ” are  not  used  in  that  section,  but  simply  “ preliminary 
meeting,  caucus,  or  convention  ” ? 

The  Chairman.  There  is  a general  section  here  that  would  bring 
that  in. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  would  not  allow  them  to  meet  even  at  a 
bridge  party  for  the  purpose  of  talking  the  matter  over. 

The  Chairman.  There  is  a general  section  which  makes  it  ap- 
plicable. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  There  is  a section  which  undertakes  to  make  the 
general  statutes  applicable  to  all  election  laws. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I did  not  know  that.  Have  you  a memoran- 
dum of  that  section  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  on  page  33  of  this  pamphlet,  election  laws 
of  Wisconsin,  section  40. 

General  election  laws  applicable. 

The  provisions  of  the  statutes  now  in  force  in  relation  to  the  holding  of  elec- 
tions, the  solicitation  of  voters  at  the  polls,  the  challenging  of  voters,  the  man- 
ner of  conducting  elections,  of  counting  the  ballots  and  making  return  thereof. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


371 


and  all  other  kindred  subjects  shall  apply  to  all  primaries  in  so  far  as  they 
are  consistent  with  this  act,  the  intent  of  this  act  being  to  place  the  primary 
under  the  regulation  and  protection  of  the  laws  now  in  force  as  to  elections. 

Mr.  Black.  There  is  another  section. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I will  read  that  into  the  record  also. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Section  338  does  not  refer  to  anything  relat- 
ing to  elections.  It  applies  to  preliminary  meetings. 

The  Chairman.  There  is  another  section  that  covers  that. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Look  at  the  section  at  the  top  of  page  33, 
“ Penalties : Caucus  and  general  election  laws  applicable.” 

Mr.  Black.  That  is  the  one. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I will  read  that  in. 

Penalties : Caucus  and  general  election  laws  applicable. 

Any  act  declared  an  offense  by  the  general  laws  of  this  State  concerning 
caucuses  and  elections  shall  also,  in  like  case,  be  an  offense  in  all  primaries, 
and  shall  be  punished  in  the  same  form  and  manner  as  therein  provided,  and 
all  the  penalties  and  provisions  of  the  law  as  to  such  caucuses  and  elections, 
except  as  herein  otherwise  provided,  shall  apply  in  such  case  with  equal  force, 
and  to  the  same  extent  as  though  fully  set  forth  in  this  act. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  would  make  section  338  applicable. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I think  so. 

Senator  Sutherland.  The  other  section  would  not. 

Senator  Pomerene.  While  reading  these  sections  of  the  statute  into 
the  record,  would  it  not  be  well  to  have  all  the  sections  which  may 
define  the  different  election  offenses — as,  for  instance,  bribery  and 
corruption — read  into  the  record,  so  that  we  can  have  them  ? 

The  Chairman.  We  will  preface  our  report  with  them,  un- 
doubtedly. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  It  seems  to  me  to  be  a very  good  idea  that  when 
the  record  is  made  up  there  should  be  a summary  of  all  the  various 
legislation  relating  to  any  of  these  controversies. 

Senator  Pomerene.  We  would  be  glad  to  have  counsel  put  into 
the  record  any  special  sections  that  they  have  in  mind. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I will  be  glad  to  take  that  up  with  the  committee 
before  we  get  to  the  final  printing  of  the  report,  so  everything  will 
be  in  it  that  any  of  us  think  material. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Edmonds,  you  have  indicated  a desire  to  be 
absent  for  a few  days.  How  long  do  you  desire  to  be  away? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I should  like  if  possible  to  be  away  all  of  next  week, 
and  if  I may  be  subject  to  telegraphic  call,  I shall  appreciate  that 
very  much. 

The  Chairman.  I think  it  better  that  the  record  show  that  you 
are  excused  until  a certain  time.  Occupying  the  relation  that  you  do 
to  this  matter,  questions  may  arise  at  any  time,  out  of  the  examina- 
tion of  other  witnesses,  which  may  make  it  necessary  for  you  to  be 
present.  Can  you  be  here  by  October  15  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I would  appreciate  it  if  I might  be  here  one  week 
from  Monday  at  11  o’clock. 

The  Chairman.  Then  you  will  be  excused  until  Monday,  October 
16,  at  which  time  you  will  report. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Would  it  be  satisfactory  if  I arrive  at  11  o’clock  in- 
stead of  10  ? I can  come  down  on  the  early  train  from  my  home. 

The  Chairman.  Be  here  at  the  afternoon  session  on  that  day.  The 
hour  of  adjournment  is  now  so  close  at  hand  that  we  can  hardly  enter 
upon  the  examination  of  Mr.  Sacket. 


372 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


Mr.  Littlefield.  I have  just  a question  or  two  to  ask  of  Mr.  Ed- 
monds, to  clean  up  so  far  as  we  have  gone.  I might  forget  to  ask 
these  questions  unless  I do  it  now. 

The  Chairman.  Proceed. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Mr.  Edmonds,  calling  your  special  attention  to 
section  338,  upon  which  a number  of  the  charges  made  by  Mr.  Blaine 
appear  to  have  been  predicated,  I should  like  to  inquire  of  you 
whether  or  not  you  received  any  sum  of  money  from  Senator  Stephen- 
son for  use  in  the  primary  campaign  for  bribery  or  corrupt  or  un- 
lawful means. 

Mr.  Edmonds.  None  whatever. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  expend  any  money  in  the  interests  of 
Senator  Stephenson  in  that  primary  election  or  campaign  for  bribery 
or  corrupt  or  unlawful  means  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Does  it  not  occur  to  you  that  that  calls  for  a 
legal  conclusion? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Oh,  yes;  but  of  course  he  is  inquired  of  in  rela- 
tion to  these  charges,  and  I should  like  to  have  the  intent  and  pur- 
pose of  the  witness. 

Senator  Pomerene.  As  far  as  the  question  of  the  intent  with  which 
he  expended  the  money  is  concerned,  undoubtedly  he  has  a right  to 
answer  as  to  that;  but  when  the  question  is  asked  broadly  whether 
he  expended  any  money  for  bribery,  that  is  asking  for  an  ultimate 
conclusion. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I appreciate  the  propriety  of  your  suggestion. 
All  I desire  to  cover,  as  far  as  this  witness  is  concerned,  is  his  intent. 
Of  course  the  committee  must  understand  that  I do  not  expect  to 
foreclose  this  question  by  the  statement  of  Mr.  Edmonds  on  a legal 
construction.  I think  the  suggestion  of  the  Senator  is  perfectly 
appropriate.  What  I want  to  get  from  Mr.  Edmonds  is  a statement 
as  to  his  intent,  and  I will  put  it  in  that  way : Did  you,  Mr.  Edmonds, 
expend  any  money  in  the  interest  of  Senator  Stephenson  with  the 
intent  to  bribe  or  corrupt  or  accomplish  the  result  by  unlawful  means  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I certainly  did  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Calling  your  special  attention  to  charge  6,  as  to 
which  I do  not  think  the  inquiry  was  made,  were  any  expenditures 
that  were  made  by  you  in  connection  with  Mr.  Boy  Morse  made  with 
a corrupt  or  unlawful  intent  upon  your  part? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I take  it  there  is  certainly  no  question  as  to  the 
propriety  of  that  inquiry. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Certainly  not.  Where  the  question  of  intent 
is  an  element  of  a crime  he  has  a right  to  answer. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Calling  your  attention  now  to  charges  7 and  8, 
which  I will  not  stop  to  read  unless  the  committee  desire  it,  they 
charge  generally  that  you  paid  to  divers  persons,  then  electors,  and 
so  forth,  and  that  Senator  Stephenson,  by  and  through  his  agents, 
charge  generally  that  you  paid  to  divers  persons,  then  electors,  and 
so  forth.  I will  ask  you  whether  or  not  the  payments  that  you  have 
stated  as  having  been  made  in  connection  with  those  paragraphs 
were  the  payments  to  which  you  have  already  testified  in  your  pre- 
vious examination? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I believe  so;  yes,  sir. 


E.  A.  EDMONDS. 


373 


Mr.  Littlefield.  Have  you  any  recollection  of  any  other  pay- 
ments that  might  be  covered  by  the  particular  or  general  language 
of  paragraphs  7 and  8 other  than  those  that  you  have  definitely  de- 
scribed in  your  testimony  heretofore  to  the  committee? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I will  ask  you  whether  any  payments  that  were 
made  by  you,  and  to  which  you  referred  in  the  general  answers  to 
these  two  paragraphs,  were  made  by  you  with  any  corrupt  or  un- 
lawful intent? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  were  asked  as  to  whether  or  not  in  the  con- 
versation you  had  with  Senator  Stephenson  at  the  time  when  you 
received  the  $5,000  check  any  limit  was  placed  upon  your  expendi- 
tures, and  I understood  you  to  say  that  no  limit  was  placed.  Now, 
do  I understand  you  to  mean  that  after  the  Senator  told  you  that 
you  were  not  to  go  into  the  detail  of  organizing  this  State  by  pre- 
cincts, on  account  of  the  expense  involved,  you  considered  yourself 
at  liberty  to  go  into  the  organization  in  that  detail? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir.  The  idea  I intended  to  convey  by  my 
answer  was  that  no  specific  amount  was  named  by  the  Senator  as 
limiting  the  expenditure. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  you  meant  by  that  was  that  no  sum  of 
money  was  fixed  as  a limit? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  did  not  intend  to  negative  his  instruction 
to  you  not  to  go  into  the  detailed  organization  by  precincts? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Certainly  not.  I did  not  intend  to  after  I was  in- 
structed not  to  do  so. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  or  not  consider  that  a limit  upon  your 
duties  as  acting  for  him? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  Certainly. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Then,  I do  not  understand  that  after  his  sug- 
gestion in  that  regard  you  felt  at  liberty  to  organize  in  that  detail? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  have  been  asked  several  times  with  reference 
to  whether  or  not  you  had  read  your  testimony  that  you  gave  before 
the  State  investigating  committee,  and  whether  or  not  you  had  read 
the  record.  I should  like  to  inquire  whether  there  was  or  not  any- 
thing, either  in  your  conduct,  your  acts,  or  your  testimony,  that  led 
you  to  believe  that  any  foundation  had  been  laid  for  any  serious 
consequences  of  a criminal  or  other  nature,  so  far  as  either  you  or 
Senator  Stephenson  was  concerned,  by  the  acts  or  conduct  of  your- 
self or  by  any  testimony  that  you  had  given  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I did  not  believe  the  foundation  had  been  laid  for 
any  criminal  act;  or,  rather,  I mean  to  say,  I did  not  believe  that  the 
investigation  and  the  charges  that  had  been  made  had  anything  more 
than  political  significance.  I always  felt  that  that  was  a fight  within 
the  party  here,  never  expecting  that  it  would  go  beyond  the  bounds 
of  the  State. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  have  any  apprehension  of  any  kind  of 
any  serious  consequences  either  to  yourself  or  Senator  Stephenson, 
on  account  of  anything  that  had  been  done  in  this  campaign  ? 


374 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Mr.  Edmonds.  None,  whatever. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Then  what  occasion,  if  any,  did  you  have  to  read 
the  testimony  of  yourself  or  others  ? 

Mr.  Edmonds.  I had  no  occasion  to. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I think  that  is  all.' 

At  4.32  o’clock  p.  m.  the  subcommittee  adjourned  until  to-morrow, 
Friday,  October  6,  1911,  at  10  o’clock  a.  m. 


FRIDAY,  OCTOBER  6,  1911. 

Federal  Building, 

Milwaukee , Wis. 

The  subcommittee  met  at  10  o’clock  a.  m. 

Present:  Senators  Heyburn  (chairman),  Sutherland,  and  Pome- 
rene. 

Present  also:  Mr.  C.  E.  Littlefield,  Mr.  W.  E.  Black,  and  Mr. 
H.  H.  J.  Upham,  counsel  for  Senator  Isaac  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  The  secretary  will  call  the  names  of  the  witnesses 
subpoenaed  for  to-day. 

The  secretary  called  the  names  of  G.  L.  Kingsley,  S.  P.  Richtman, 
J.  E.  Thomas,  Nels  Johnson,  and  H.  A.  Bowman.  They  responded 
to  their  names  and  the  oath  was  administered  to  them  by  the  chair- 
man. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Kingsley,  I advised  you  that  you  would  be 
examined  upon  your  appearance  here.  Of  course  that  was  subject  to 
the  examination  of  the  witness  upon  the  stand.  You  will  be  placed 
upon  the  stand  after  the  conclusion  of  the  witness  we  are  to  examine 
this  morning. 

TESTIMONY  OF  RODNEY  SACKET— Resumed. 

The  Chairman.  The  Chair  will  ask  the  reporter  to  read  the  last 
question  that  was  asked  of  Mr.  Sacket  when  his  testimony  was  inter- 
rupted. 

The  reporter  read  as  follows: 

The  Chairman.  George  Gordon  received  $1,300  on  the  same  day  for  some 
purpose.  What  purpose  was  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Who  would  know? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Mr.  Edmonds. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  the  point  at  which  your  testimony  was 
interrupted,  Mr.  Sacket.  In  view  of  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Edmonds, 
I will  go  back  with  you,  covering  the  items  that  you  are  said  to  know 
about,  commencing  with  the  first  item,  at  the  expense,  perhaps,  of 
repeating  a few  of  those  already  testified  to.  On  July  6 Exhibits  47 
and  49  of  the  State  investigation  show  a payment  to  E.  H.  McMahon 
of  $50  for  organizing.  Do  you  know  about  that  payment  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  services  to  be  rendered  by  Mr.  McMahon 
was  that  money  paid  ? 


RODNEY  SAOKET. 


375 


Mr.  Sacket.  That  $50  was  to  cover  his  expenses  in  going  out  into 
the  State,  gathering  information,  and  creating  sentiment  for  Senator 
Stephenson  as  much  as  possible. 

The  Chairman.  What  do  you  mean  by  “ creating  sentiment  ” ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Telling  the  different  people  with  whom  he  came  in 
contact  the  good  qualities  of  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  perform  this  service? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  told  me  that  he  did. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  any  personal  knowledge  as  to  whether 
he  did  or  not? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not  see  him  perform  any. 

The  Chairman.  Was  he  to  spend  any  of  this  money  in  employing 
other  people? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Generally,  no.  I do  not  remember  giving  him  any 
specific  instructions  to  do  that. 

The  Chairman.  What  instructions  did  you  give  him  when  you 
paid  him  the  $50? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I told  him  to  go  out  into  those  parts  of  the  State 
where  he  had  an  acquaintance,  and  thought  that  he  could  do  good 
work,  to  learn  the  sentiment  of  the  people  in  those  localities,  to  send 
up  the  names  of  the  persons  who  appeared  to  be  friendly  to  Senator 
Stephenson’s  candidacy,  and  to  do  everything  he  could  to  advance 
Senator  Stephenson’s  candidacy,  and  to  keep  within  the  law  all  the 
time. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  advise  him  as  to  the  law  that  would 
govern  him  in  making  expenditures? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Do  you  mean  the  State  law? 

The  Chairman.  Any  law. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not;  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Be  it  State  or  otherwise.  Is  that  right? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not  advise  him  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  law. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  whether  or  not  he  knew  what  the 
law  was;  what  restrictions  there  were  as  to  the  expenditure  of  the 
money  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  absolute  knowledge  that  he  knew  the  law. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ask  him  if  he  knew  when  you  gave  him 
the  money? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  For  whom  did  you  give  him  this  money?  For 
whom  were  you  acting? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  acting  under  instructions  from  Senator 
Stephenson  to  give  him  this  money?  I am  referring  now  to  the 
MgMahon  item. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I had  no  instruction  from  Senator  Stephenson  to 
give  Mr.  McMahon  this  money. 

The  Chairman.  Was  it  under  a general  instruction? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Under  a general  instruction ; yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Was  the  discretion  left  to  you  by  Senator  Stephen- 
son as  to  whom  you  would  give  the  money  to  on  his  account? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  What  were  those  instructions? 

Mr.  Sacket.  To  do  what  I could  to  promote  his  candidacy  and 
keep  within  the  law. 


376 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


The  Chairman.  Give  us  the  conversation,  as  near  as  you  can,  the 
language  used  by  Senator  Stephenson  in  giving  you  such  instruc- 
tions. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I can  not  remember  the  exact  words  of  the  conversa- 
tion. 

The  Chairman.  Give  us  the  purport  of  it. 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  only  part  of  the  conversation  that  I do  remem- 
ber in  exact  language  is  that  phrase  u to  keep  within  the  law.”  The 
general  purport  of  the  conversation  was  that  I go  ahead  and  do  what 
I could  for  him. 

The  Chairman.  Within  what  law  was  it  that  you  were  to  keep  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  did  not  say.  He  simply  said  the  law. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  discuss  with  him  the  provisions  of  the 
law  governing  the  expenditure  of  that  money  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  talk  with  him  about  it  at  all  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Your  minds  never  came  together  as  to  what  law 
was  to  be  kept  within  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I considered  that  we  understood 

The  Chairman.  Answer  the  question.  Did  your  minds  ever  come 
together?  Did  you  discuss  the  law  and  agree  between  you  as  to 
what  the  1 aw  was  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  How  can  I answer  as  to  our  minds  getting  together 
without  saying  what  I thought? 

The  Chairman.  Never  mind  what  you  thought,  I want  to  know 
what  two  men  thought,  not  one. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I would  be  very  glad  to  answer  that  question,  but 
how  can  I tell  what  Senator  Stephenson  thought  ? 

The  Chairman.  Then  you  can  say  that  you  can  not  tell. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Tell  what  he  said. 

The  Chairman.  I have  asked  Mr.  Sacket  for  that,  and  he  said  that 
he  did  not  say  anything.  The  process  of  two  minds  coming  together 
implies  that  each  mind  knows  what  conclusion  the  other  has  arrived 
at.  That  is  what  I mean.  If  you  can  not  say  that,  very  well. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I could  only  give  my  own  understanding  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  I will  ask  you  in  regard  to  your  understanding 
of  the  law.  If  you  say  you  did  not  discuss  as  to  what  the  law  was, 
then  there  was  no  coming  together  of  the  minds  of  the  two  people. 
Did  you  know  the  provisions  of  the  law  governing  the  expenditure 
of  money  in  a political  campaign  at  the  time  you  gave  Mr.  McMahon 
the  $50? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I had  read  the  law  and  thought  I knew ; yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  familiar  with  the  provisions  of  section 
338  of  the  election  laws  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin,  which  is  section 
4542a,  when  you  gave  this  mone}^  to  Mr.  McMahon  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  recall  the  section  by  number. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  the  section  that  provides  that  it  shall  be 
unlawful — 

to  give  any  valuable  thing  or  bribe  to  any  officer,  inspector,  or  delegate  whose 
office  is  therein  created,  or  who  shall  give  or  offer  to  give  any  valuable  thing  or 
bribe  to  an  elector  as  a consideration  for  some  act  to  be  done  in  relation  to 
such  preliminary  meeting,  caucus,  or  convention. 


RODNEY  SACKET.  377 

Mr.  Sacket.  I thought  that  I understood  the  application  of  that 
section;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  construction  did  you  place  upon  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I read  ahead  in  the  law,  in  that  section  or  some  other, 
and  presumed  that  it  meant  to  give  it  corruptly,  or  for  the  purpose 
of  bribing. 

The  Chairman.  This  law  recites  that  purpose,  and  recites  the 
general  giving. 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  was  not  my  understanding  that  that  law  pro- 
hibited the  general  giving  of  anything  of  value  for  the  purpose  of 
procuring  votes,  properly. 

The  Chairman.  You  thought  you  were  at  liberty  to  give  money 
or  something  of  value  for  the  purpose  of  procuring  votes  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  He  said  properly. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I thought  so,  and  do  think  so  now. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  there  any  objection,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  the 
witness  having  that  section  of  the  law  before  him,  if  the  Chair  desires 
to  examine  him  further  upon  it? 

The  Chairman.  It  is  not  necessary  to  have  that  before  him. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  witness  it  not  a lawyer. 

The  Chairman.  Counsel  may,  of  course,  at  the  proper  time  ask 
him  about  that. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I suppose  the  only  important  feature  of  that  is 
as  it  bears  on  the  acquaintance  and  knowledge  of  the  witness  him- 
self. It  is  not  what  the  law  is  or  was. 

Senator  Pomerene.  He  is  presumed  to  know  what  the  law  is. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  but  then  the  question  comes  as  to  whether 
he  did  or  did  not  intend  to  comply  with  it. 

The  Chairman.  Supplementing  the  suggestion  of  Senator  Pome- 
rene that  the  duty  rests  upon  a man  who  assumes  to  distribute  large 
sums  of  money  in  a campaign  under  this  law,  to  know  the  law,  I 
think  that  would  probably  go  as  far  as  the  duty  resting  upon  a judge. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Mr.  Chairman,  I do  not  quite  catch  the  analogy, 
but  I have  no  doubt  the  Chair  has  in  mind  an  accurate  legal  propo- 
sition. 

Senator  Pomerene.  We  can  not  differ  on  the  subject  of  the  pre- 
sumption to  know  the  law. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I have  an  indistinct  notion  that  I am  somewhat 
familiar  with  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I am  entirely  sure  you  are. 

The  Chairman.  Speaking  for  myself,  my  construction  was  that 
the  duty  rested  upon  a man  disbursing  money  for  another  in  an 
election,  at  least  during  a campaign,  to  know  the  law  just  as  much 
as  a judge  or  an  executive  officer.  He  becomes  an  executive  officer 
under  the  law. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I should  not  hesitate  to  suggest  that  it  is  in- 
cumbent on  every  man  connected  with  Senator  Stephenson  in  his 
campaign  not  to  commit  a crime,  or  to  do  a corrupt  or  unlawful  act. 
I think  they  are  bound  not  to  do  it. 

The  Chairman.  They  are  bound  to  know  the  law. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes.  While  the  law  says  they  shall  not  commit 
a crime,  shall  not  bribe,  and  shall  not  use  money  corruptly,  I have 


378 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


no  doubt  at  all  but  that  they  were  under  an  obligation  to  see  they  did 
not  do  it  knowingly. 

The  Chairman.  You  were  familiar  with  this  section  of  the  law  at 
the  time  you  paid  out  this  money,  were  you  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I had  read  the  section ; yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Had  you  at  that  time  interpreted  it  as  you  have 
just  now  expressed  your  understanding? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I had;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  what  Mr.  E.  H.  McMahon  did  with 
the  $50  that  you  gave  him  ? Did  he  render  you  an  account  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  did ; yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Where  is  that  account? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  account  was  left  with  the  joint  committee  at 
Madison  at  the  time  of  their  investigation. 

The  Chairman.  Is  it  in  this  published  volume  of  the  testimony 
taken  at  that  hearing? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I am  not  certain. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I am  having  Brother  Black’s  office  take  the  copy 
cf  the  record  they  have  and  go  through  it  and  give  me  the  list  of  all 
the  accounts  that  were  filed,  and  that  appear  in  this  record,  by  the 
so-called  managers,  local  representatives,  and  just  as  soon  as  we  get 
that  I will  have  a duplicate  of  it  made  so  the  subcommittee  may  have 
it.  I do  not  think  there  were  many;  I think  there  were  some;  but 
such  as  they  are  I will  see  that  the  subcommittee  has  a copy  of  the 
same. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  know  anything  of  an  arrangement  made 
between  Mr.  McMahon  and  a Mr.  Dart  for  the  expenditure  of  money 
on  behalf  of  Senator  Stephenson  in  this  campaign? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  He  did  not  report  that  to  you  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  I will  call  your  attention  to  Mr.  McMahon’s  testi- 
mony. which  will  refresh  your  mind  perhaps.  He  was  asked  as  to 
the  interview  he  had  with  Mr.  G.  W.  Dart.  He  says: 

Well,  there  had  been  nothing  done  in  Marquette  County,  and  correspondence 
had  come  into  the  office  about  Marquette  County,  and  I was  sent  down  there  by 
Mr.  Edmonds.  I saw  Mr.  Dart. 

Do  you  know  about  the  sending  of  Mr.  McMahon  on  to  see  Mr. 
Dart  by  Mr.  Edmonds? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  From  what  page  is  the  chairman  reading? 

The  Chairman.  From  page  3911  of  the  joint  investigation. 

Q.  Were  you  sent  there  to  see  anyone  there  in  particular? 

A.  Well,  I was  told  Mr.  Dart  would  be  a good  man  to  see  because  he  had 
written  some  of  the  correspondence. 

Who  was  Mr.  Dart? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  personal  knowledge  of  Mr.  Dart  at  all.  I 
had  no  talk  with  him  and  remember  him  only  from  hearing  you  read 
the  testimony. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  anything  about  the  transaction 
which  Mr.  McMahon  had  with  Mr.  Dart  pursuant  to  your  employ- 
ment of  him  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Nothing  at  all. 


RODNEY  SACKET.  379 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  never  report  to  you  that  he  had  made  an 
arrangement  with  Mr.  Dart? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Not  to  my  recollection. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  make  any  report  to  you  at  all? 

Mr.  Sacket.  About  Mr.  Dart  ? 

The  Chairman.  About  this  money  that  you  had  given  him,  and 
the  manner  in  which  he  had  used  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  reported  the  expenditure  of  this  $50  in  the  first 
item  to  me. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  not  the  only  money  you  gave  him, 
was  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  given  him  July  6,  was  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  On  July  13  you  gave  him  $50  more;  did  you  not? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  on  July  21  you  gave  him  $50  more? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  on  July  30  you  gave  him  $50  more? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  And  on  September  5 you  gave  him  $300  more? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  report  to  you  how  he  had  expended  any 
of  those  sums  of  money  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  $50  items  were  all  reported  to  me  in  detail. 
The  $300  was  for  his  salary. 

The  Chairman.  He  reported  to  you  in  detail,  then,  what  he  had 
done  with  all  of  the  $50  items,  which  amount  in  the  aggregate  to 
$200? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  not  tell  you  that  he  had  arranged  with 
Mr.  Dart  to  assist  him  and  cooperate  with  him  in  campaign  work? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  his  telling  me  anything 
of  the  kind. 

The  Chairman.  Would  you  remember  it  if  he  had  reported  such 
an  arrangement? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  I would. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Does  not  the  record  show  that  he  communicated 
with  Mr.  Edmonds? 

The  Chairman.  I will  bring  the  witness’s  attention  to  that  now. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  If  the  chairman  will  excuse  me  just  a moment; 
I got  the  impression 

The  Chairman.  I do  not  want  any  suggestion  made  to  the  wit- 
ness. I am  going  to  bring  his  attention  to  the  item  now  in  regard 
to  this,  and  then  I will  yield  to  counsel. 

Mr.  McMahon  testifies  as  follows  in  answer  to  a question  as  to 
Mr.  Dart  being  a good  man,  etc. : 

Yes;  advising  that  something  be  done.  I saw  Mr.  Dart  and  talked  over 
things,  spent  the  night  with  him,  and  figured  on  what  would  be  necessary  to 
put  into  Marquette  County.  As  I remember  it,  it  was  $500 — five  hundred  or 
six  hundred  dollars. 

Did  he  report  that  arrangement  or  conversation  to  you? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  any  such  report. 


380 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


The  Chairman.  Would  you  have  any  such  recollection? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I probably  would ; yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Then,  you  say  he  did  not  report  it  to  you? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  did  not,  to  the  best  of  my  recollection. 

The  Chairman.  Then,  you  have  no  knowledge  of  any  arrangement 
being  made  through  your  agent,  Mr.  McMahon,  with  Mr.  Dart,  for 
you? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  not ; no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  it  ever  come  to  your  knowledge  that  such 
an  arrangement  had  been  made? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Not  to  my  knowledge ; no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  George  W.  Dart  was  a deputy  game  warden. 
Does  that  assist  you  in  recalling  him,  as  to  who  he  was? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  see  him  or  meet  him  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember  ever  having  seen  him  or  talked 
to  him. 

The  Chairman.  He  received  a check  from  Mr.  Edmonds  for  $400, 
he  testifies  on  page  4486  of  the  joint  investigation.  Do  you  know 
anything  of  that  check  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  it  whatever. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Edmonds  would  know  about  that  item, 
would  he? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I should  think  so ; yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Any  check  for  $400  drawn  against  the  campaign 
fund  then  would  be  within  the  knowledge  of  either  you  or  Mr.  Ed- 
monds, would  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  so ; yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Pass  that  item.  You  made  the  payment  to  J.  C. 
Miller  of  $50  on  August  20  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose  did  you  give  him  that  money? 

Mr.  Sacket.  For  the  purpose  of  traveling  through  the  State  to 
ascertain  the  Stephenson  sentiment  in  different  localities  and  influ- 
encing it  as  much  as  possible. 

The  Chairman.  Influencing  them  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  In  what  way? 

Mr.  Sacket.  By  talking  to  people,  by  argument. 

The  Chairman.  Who  is  J.  C.  Miller ; do  you  know  him  now  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know  where  he  is  now.  I would  know  him 
if  I were  to  see  him ; yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  an  item  here,  “ General  expense  of  or- 
ganizing,” on  July  6.  Have  you  the  items  of  that  charge? 

Mr.  Sacket.  There  is  nothing  here  to  make  me  have  any  recollec- 
tion of  that  item  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  not  included  in  any  itemized  statement  that 
you  rendered,  is  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  that  item  at  all.  I do  not 
know  anything  about  it. 

The  Chairman.  Just  answer  the  question,  whether  it  is  included. 
You  know  whether  you  have  already  included  it  in  some  statement. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  not. 


RODNEY  SACKET.  381 

The  Chairman.  It  is  not  included  in  any  statement  that  you  have 
rendered  ? 

Mr.  Sachet.  Not  to  my  knowledge;  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  a recollection  as  to  the  class  of  expenses 
that  you  charged  under  that  item,  “ General  expense,  organizing  ” ? 

Mr.  Sachet.  Only  from  what  I know  I meant  when  I put  down 
the  word  “ general.” 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  mean? 

Mr.  Sachet.  I meant  the  expenditure  of  money  covering  a larger 
territory  than  a county ; possibly  all  over  the  State ; anyway,  larger 
than  one  county. 

The  Chairman.  Whom  did  you  pay  that  money  to  ? 

Mr.  Sachet.  I have  no  knowledge.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  pay  it  to  some  one? 

Mr.  Sachet.  I could  not  say. 

The  Chairman.  You  could  not  say  whether  it  was  money  you  paid 
to  some  one  to  be  expended,  or  whether  it  was  money  that  you  ex- 
pended and  paid  out  yourself,  could  you  ? 

Mr.  Sachet.  I would  say  that  I did  not  expend  it  and  pay  it  out 
myself,  because  I would  not  have  put  it  in  this  part  of  this  account 
if  I had. 

The  Chairman.  Where  would  you  have  put  it  ? 

Mr.  Sachet.  Over  in  one  of  the  later  schedules. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  you  have  no  other  account  to  give  of  that 
item,  have  you  ? 

Mr.  Sachet.  None. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  take  up  these  items  and  present 
them  to  Senator  Stephenson  at  any  time  in  the  shape  of  memoranda 
or  otherwise? 

Mr.  Sachet.  I did  not;  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  When  you  were  having  this  stay  of  proceedings, 
during  which  you  were  considering  the  question  of  putting  more 
money  in,  was  there  no  going  over  of  items  with  Senator  Stephen- 
son? 

Mr.  Sachet.  Not  with  me;  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  present  at  any  interview  with  Senator 
Stephenson  in  regard  to  the  necessity  for  having  more  money? 

Mr.  Sachet.  Not  to  my  recollection,  at  that  time ; no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Then,  3rou  can  not  account  for  the  $50? 

Mr.  Sachet.  I can  not. 

The  Chairman.  On  the  same  day,  July  6,  you  paid  Mr.  Ham- 
bright  $50.  What  did  you  pay  him  $50  for? 

Mr.  Sachet.  For  traveling  through  the  State;  for  the  same  pur- 
pose that  it  was  paid  to  Mr.  Miller  and  Mr.  McMahon,  substantially. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  did  you  give  Mr.  Hambright  alto- 
gether for  political  purposes? 

Mr.  Sachet.  I have  made  no  computation  as  to  that.  The  several 
items  appear  in  the  account  here. 

The  Chairman.  I will  call  your  attention  to  them.  On  July  6 
you  gave  him  $50,  of  which  you  have  just  spoken,  which  you  say 
was  for  the  purpose  of  organizing  and  influencing  votes  for  Senator 
Stephenson.  Did  he  vote  for  Senator  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Sachet.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ask  him  whether  or  not  he  did  or  would  ? 


382 


RODNEY  3ACKET. 


Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  know  whether  or  not  he  was  favorable 
to  Senator  Stephenson’s  election  when  you  gave  him  this  money? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Only  from  his  statement. 

The  Chairman.  From  any  cause  did  you  know  that  he  was  favor- 
able, or  whether  or  not  he  was  favorable,  to  Senator  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  was  favorable. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  tell  you  so? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  pay  him  the  money  before  or  after  he 
told  you? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Afterwards. 

The  Chairman.  On  July  18  you  gave  him  another  $50.  Was 
that  for  organizing? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  was  for  his  expenses  in  organizing. 

The  Chairman.  What  expenses? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Traveling  expenses  and  all  expenses. 

The  Chairman.  Where  did  he  travel? 

Mr.  Sacket.  In  different  parts  of  the  State. 

The  Chairman.  Name  some  parts  of  the  State. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Racine  County,  Kenosha  County;  I think  of  those 
now.  He  traveled  west  in  the  direction  of  Dane  County,  not  going 
into  Dane  County,  as  I remember  it. 

The  Chairman.  How  did  he  travel? 

Mr.  Sacket.  As  I remember  it,  by  rail,  by  team,  and  possibly  by 
auto. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  “ possibly.”  Do  you  know  of  his  using 
an  auto  at  any  time? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  only  knowledge  that  I have  is  from  reading  his 
expense  account  which  he  filed. 

The  Chairman.  Where  is  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Left  at  Madison. 

The  Chairman.  Is  Mr.  Hambright’s  account  filed? 

Mr.  Sacket.  If  I remember  correctly,  it  is  in  the  printed  testi- 
mony here  of  the  joint  investigation. 

Senator  Pomerene.  When  you  say  “ left  at  Madison,”  do  you  mean 
left  with  the  legislative  committee? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes;  the  joint  committee. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  that  as  a matter  of  fact? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  is  my  recollection  of  it.  You  see  it  has  been 
three  years  since  these  things  happened,  and  I am  giving  my  best 
recollection. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  on  page  2759  of  the  printed  testimony  in 
the  joint  committee  investigation.  Did  you  examine  this  expense 
account  filed  by  Mr.  Hambright? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did.  I examined  the  expense  account  that  he 
handed  me ; not  that  account ; no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  hand  you  a different  account  from  this? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  handed  me  a different  account,  which  I presume 
that  to  be  a copy  of. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  mean  to  be  understood  as  saying  that 
he  handed  you  another  account? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  This  account  that  I have  before  me  is  printed. 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


383 


Mr.  Sacket.  I have  not  compared  the  account  that  he  handed  to 
me  with  that  copy. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  pass  upon  the  propriety  of  the  items  in 
his  account? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did ; yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  There  is  an  item  on  July  9 of  sundries,  $5.35.  Of 
what  was  that  item  composed  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I can  not  remember  at  this  time. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  inquire  of  him  at  that  time? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did. 

The  Chairman.  Was  that  for  expenses  at  the  bar — for  drinks  and 
cigars  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I believe  not.  It  might  have  included  cigars,  but  I 
do  not  think  Mr.  Hambright  was  a man  who  went  to  the  bar  and 
bought  drinks. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  you  do  not  think  so.  Do  you  know? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Only  what  he  told  me  himself. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  tell  you  he  did  not  buy  any  drinks? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  told  me  that  he  was  not  in  the  habit  of  going  into 
the  bars  and  spending  money. 

The  Chairman.  I am  not  speaking  about  his  habit.  The  question 
is  what  he  did.  Now  we  will  go  to  the  25th  of  July,  an  item  of  cigars 
$1.50.  Did  you  inquire  of  him  whether  he  bought  those  cigars  and 
treated  people  in  order  to  induce  them  to  be  friendly  to  Senator 
Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  think  I made  any  such  inquiry;  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  We  come  to  the  item  “ Extra  meals,”  on  August  1, 
$3.  Did  he  tell  you  that  he  had  treated  some  electors  in  the  State 
in  order  that  they  might  feel  friendly  toward  the  cause  that  he  rep- 
resented ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I could  not  say  as  to  that  identical  item.  Do  you  want 
me  to  continue? 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  if  you  have  anything  to  say. 

Mr.  Sacket.  But  Mr.  Hambright  did  say  to  me  that  he  did  take 
people  into  the  hotel  and  invite  them  to  dinner  and  to  meals  and  pay 
their  bills. 

The  Chairman.  While  he  was  electioneering? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I presume  that  it  was  simply  for  the  purpose  of  mak- 
ing himself  appear  to  be  a good  fellow,  and  to  help  influence  their 
opinion. 

The  Chairman.  Their  opinion  in  regard  to  what? 

Mr.  Sacket.  In  regard  to  Senator  Stephenson,  in  favor  of  Senator 
Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  On  the  7th  of  August  there  is  an  item  of  $17.02 
for  sundries,  presumably  at  Kenosha.  Do  you  know  where  he  ex- 
pended that  money? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  that  particular  item. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ask  him  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  explained  items  to  me  in  a number  of  instances. 
I do  not  remember  that  it  was  ever  asked  him ; but,  according  to  my 
best  recollection,  he  explained  that  item  to  me,  and  it  was  satisfactory 
at  the  time. 


384 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


The  Chairman.  He  had  only  $50  at  that  time,  according  to  the 
account,  in  the  way  of  expense  money.  He  expended  over  one-third 
of  it  for  sundries  in  one  day.  Do  you  know  what  those  sundries  were? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  not  ask  him? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I am  quite  certain  that  he  told  me  what  they  were, 
either  at  that  time  or  afterwards.  I have  no  recollection  of  what  the 
items  were;  but  I do  remember  that  I considered  Mr.  Hambright’s 
account,  proper. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  make  a memorandum  of  the  things  that 
he  told  you  at  that  time? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  You  had  a card  system,  I understand,  quite  an 
elaborate  one,  intended  to  be  a substitute  for  book  accounts,  showing 
the  expenditures.  Did  you  not  put  this  item,  which  was  one-third  of 
all  the  money  you  had  given  this  man,  into  your  card  system? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I put  the  $50  on  the  card  system. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  when  it  went  out? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  not  put  anything  on  that  card,  or  some 
other,  to  show  what  became  of  the  $50? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  When  a man  would  spend  one-third  of  what  you 
had  given  him  for  expense  account,  in  one  item  in  one  day,  did  it 
not  suggest  itself  to  you  that  the  expenditure  was  important  to  know 
about  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  might  have  been  important  to  know  about ; yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Was  that  item  of  $17.02  for  sundries  spent  for 
drinks  and  cigars,  or  meals  to  constituents,  for  the  purpose  of  in- 
fluencing them  to  vote  for  Senator  Stephenson,  or  to  give  him  their 
support  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I can  not  remember  what  the  items  of  that  one  sum 
are — what  the  component  parts  of  that  item  are — but  I presume 
that  I considered  the  money  expended  in  the  interest  of  Senator 
Stephenson  or  I would  not  have  passed  the  account. 

The  Chairman.  When  you  use  the  term  “ in  the  interest  of  Sena- 
tor Stephenson  ” you  mean  for  the  purpose  of  influencing  votes  for 
him,  do  you  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  authorized  and  approved  of  that  ex- 
penditure? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did. 

The  Chairman.  Did  Senator  Stephenson  authorize  and  approve 
of  that  expenditure? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Not  that  particular  expenditure;  no,  sir,  to  my 
knowledge. 

The  Chairman.  Was  it  included  within  a list  of  items  that  did 
receive  his  approval? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  knowT  that  the  items  were  ever  submitted  to 
Senator  Stephenson,  or  any  items  including  that  item. 

The  Chairman.  On  the  29th  of  August,  which  was  immediately 
on  the  eve  of  the  primary  election,  chere  is  an  item  of  “Sundries, 
$11.86,”  nearly  one-fourth  of  the  sum  in  his  hands.  Did  you  inquire 


RODNEY  SACKET.  385 

as  to  the  items  which  you  charged  up  as  sundries  against  the  ac- 
count ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not  inquire  of  Mr.  Hambright.  As  I remember 
my  dealings  with  him,  he  volunteered  the  information  in  regard  to 
his  accounts. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  he  tell  you  that  item  was  for? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  say  whether  or  not  he  told  you  that  it 
was  for  cigars,  liquors,  or  meals  to  electors  for  the  purpose  of  creat- 
ing a friendly  influence  with  them  or  exerting  one  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  the  particular  items  in  that 
account.  My  recollection  of  his  accounting  to  me  is  only  general. 

The  Chairman.  Three  days  after  the  primary — that  is,  on  Sep- 
tember 5 — you  gave  him  $300;  what  did  you  give  him  $300  for  at 
that  time? 

Mr.  Sacket.  In  payment  for  his  services,  two  months,  for  Senator 
Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  The  services  that  you  paid  him  for  were  for  can- 
vassing, with  others,  to  engage  them  to  support  Senator  Stephenson, 
were  they? 

Mr.  Sacket.  For  canvassing,  general  organizing — as  the  term  has 
been  used  here — including  every  thing  in  the  way  of  campaigning 
in  the  interest  of  Senator  Stephenson;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  He  devoted  his  time  to  going  about  the  country 
to  present  the  claims  of  Senator  Stephenson  and  to  induce  men  to 
vote  for  him,  did  he? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  it  was  for  that  that  you  paid  him  the  $300  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  was.  And  for 

The  Chairman.  And  not  for  money  expended? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  $300  was  not  expended  by  him,  in  our  expense 
account,  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  compensation? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Compensation. 

The  Chairman.  That  you  paid  on  behalf  of  Senator  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  was;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  In  performing  that  undertaking  you  say  that  you 
had  knowledge  of  the  fact,  that  he  told  you,  that  he  had  expended  at 
least  a part  of  it  in  the  purchase  of  meals  and  cigars  and  other  com- 
forts for  other  electors,  did  he  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  had  full  knowledge  of  that? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  knew  of  the  provisions  of  the  statute  at 
that  time,  of  section  338,  did  you  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  is  the  section  regarding  a thing  of  value  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir;  I knew  that. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  not  think  that  those  items  fell  within 
the  prohibition  of  the  law  in  regard  to  moneys  expended  by  a candi- 
date for  office? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Why  did  you  not  think  that  they  fell  within  the 
law? 

15235°— vol  1—11 25 


386 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Mr.  Sacket.  Because  they  were  not  for  the  purpose  of  bribing  or 
corrupting  anything. 

The  Chairman.  The  law5  while  it  does  use  those  terms,  it  also  uses 
the  general  term  “ to  give  any  valuable  thing  to  an  elector  as  a con- 
sideration for  some  act  to  be  done  in  relation  to  such  preliminary 
meeting,  caucus,”  etc. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  One  moment,  if  the  chairman  please.  Do  I 
understand  the  chairman  to  hold  that  that  clause  is  not  to  be  rele- 
gated back  to  and  qualified  by  the  main  purpose  of  this  section? 

The  Chairman.  Speaking  for  myself,  I do  not  hold  on  the  subject 
at  all.  I am  preparing  a record  here  that  will  be  considered  by  those 
who  will  hold  responsibly  upon  this  question.  That  is  all  I am  doing. 
Any  suggestion  that  may  seem  to  flow  from  the  questions  I ask  is 
merely  for  the  purpose  of  developing  the  facts,  and  the  application 
of  the  law  will  be  made  hereafter.  But  it  is  only  fair  to  a witness 
on  the  stand  that  he  should  know  what  possible  construction  may  be 
placed  upon  his  acts,  and  it  is  in  that  spirit  that  I call  his  attention 
to  these  questions,  so  that  if  he  has  anything  to  say,  it  may  be  in  the 
record  with  the  testimony. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Mr.  Sacket,  do  you  think  that  the  expendi- 
ture of  money  in  purchasing  drinks  and  meals  for  the  purpose  of 
influencing  the  voter,  in  the  interest  of  the  candidate,  would  not  be 
a violation  of  the  statute? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  it  would  not ; no,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Where  would  you  draw  the  line?  Would 
you  think  that  the  purchase  of  a suit  of  clothes  for  an  elector  would 
not  be  a violation  of  the  statute? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  might  be  a violation. 

Senator  Sutherland.  How  do  you  draw  the  distinction? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I would  draw  the  line  at  what  was  customary  in  such 
cases  and  what  was  not.  It  is  not  customary  to  buy  suits  of  clothes 
for  voters ; it  is  customary  to  buy  meals  and  drinks  and  cigars. 

The  Chairman.  It  seems  to  have  been  customary,  if  Ave  are  to  trust 
the  public  newspapers,  in  one  of  the  near-by  States,  to  pay  voters  so 
much  money  for  their  votes ; do  you  think  the  fact  that  that  had  been 
customary  Avould  render  it  legal? 

Mr.  Sacket.  If  it  had  been  customary,  and  I knew  it,  I would  not 
consider  that  it  made  it  lawful ; no,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Then  the  fact  that  it  is  customary  does  not 
render  it  lawful,  does  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Within  reason,  I should  think  it  Avould  have  an  influ- 
ence upon  my  opinion  of  what  was  lawful. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  seem  to  be  drawing  a rather  fine  dis- 
tinction, and  I would  like  to  get  the  exact  point  of  separation. 
Where  would  you  draw  the  line  as  to  what  would  be  legal  and  what 
would  be  illegal,  in  expenditures  of  that  kind,  as  affected  by  a 
custom  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  If  I am  required  to  draAV  a line  of  that  kind  I should 
draw  it  in  this  Avay : Anything  purchased  for  a candidate,  to  be  con- 
sumed on  the  spot  and  not  kept,  might  be  considered  in  the  sense  of 
an  ordinary  treat,  a common  custom.  Anything  purchased  for  him 
which  lie  might  keep  and  use  afterward  might  be  on  the  other  side 
of  the  line. 


KODNEY  SACKET. 


387 


Senator  Sutherland.  That  is,  if  the  campaign  fund  distributor 
purchased  a $2  meal  for  a voter  that  would  not  be  illegal  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  In  my  opinion;  no. 

Senator  Sutherland.  But  if  he  purchased  a 5-cent  loaf  of  bread 
and  gave  to  him  to  carry  away,  that  would  be  illegal? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Possibly. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Or,  if  he  got  a drink  of  whisky  at  the  bar  and 
drank  it  there,  that  would  not  be  prohibited ; but  if  he  got  a half  a 
pint  and  put  it  in  his  pocket  and  took  it  away  for  a swig  after  a 
while,  that  would  be  illegal? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  I should  have  to  revert  to  the  custom  again 
and  say  that  the  half  pint  was  lawful. 

Senator  Sutherland,  Is  it  the  custom  in  Wisconsin  to  buy  the 
voters  bottles  of  whisky  and  give  to  them? 

Mr.  Sacket.  And  kegs  of  beer;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  kegs  of  beer? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Let  me  get  that  question. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Being  from  Maine,  you  do  not  know  anything 
about  that. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  why  I was  quite  anxious  to  get  the 
actual  practical  situation.  I trust  we  are  adding  to  the  sum  of 
human  knowledge  and  at  the  same  time  increasing  my  own  infor- 
mation. Of  course,  I fully  realize  my  infirmity. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Now,  Mr.  Sacket,  do  you  seriously  mean 
that ; that  is  the  custom  in  Wisconsin 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  custom  as  I understand  it ; yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  To  purchase  bottles  of  whisky  and  kegs  of 
beer  for  voters  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  give  them? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Was  that  after  the  passage  of  this  law,  that 
the  general  custom  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir;  after  the  passage  of  that  law. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Since  1905? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  mean  on  the  part  of  candidates  before 
the  primary  and  also  candidates  for  election  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Candidates  before  all  sorts  of  elections,  primary  and 
general. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Candidates  for  election  were  in  the  habit  in 
Wisconsin  of  purchasing  for  individual  voters  bottles  of  whisky  and 
kegs  of  beer? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Now,  the  “ individual  voter”  part  of  it,  I do  not  be- 
lieve I just  understand  that.  If  I may  tell  this  in  my  own  way? 

Senator  Sutherland.  Yes. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I understand  it  has  been  the  custom,  in  fact  I am 
quite  certain  that  it  has  been  the  custom  in  Wisconsin,  always  to  send 
a keg  of  beer  and  possibly  a jug  of  whisky  and  other  things  of  simi- 
lar nature  out  to  certain  localities  just  before  election,  and  let  the 
boys  have  a big  time  at  the  expense  of  certain  candidates. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  that  a consideration  for  their  votes? 


388 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Mr.  Sacket.  It  is  to  influence  them,  in  my  opinion,  in  favor  of  the 
candidate  who  buys  the  liquor. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Has  that  been  done  generally  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  is  my  understanding  that  it  has  been  done  generally 
throughout  the  State,  always. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Are  the  electorate  of  Wisconsin  usually  sober 
the  morning  after  election? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know,  Senator,  whether  they  are  or  not. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  observe  this  custom  during  this  cam- 
paign ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Did  those  whom  you  employed  and  paid  out  of 
this  campaign  fund  adopt  that  custom? 

Mr.  Sacket.  They  were  specifically  instructed  by  me  not  to. 

The  Chairman.  Did  they  obey  your  instructions? 

Mr.  Sacket.  To  the  best  of  my  knowledge  and  belief,  yes. 

The  Chairman.  And  none  of  them  expended  any  of  the  money  for 
the  purpose  of  purchasing  or  furnishing  drinks  or  cigars  to  voters, 
as  you  have  said  was  customary ; is  that  true  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  believe  I can  answer  that  without  explaining, 
Senator. 

The  Chairman.  Answer  it  first  and  then  explain  it. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know  whether  any  of  them  expended  money 
for  whisky  and  cigars  or  not.  I think  some  of  them  did.  Now,  may 
I explain? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not  give  any  instruction  that  they  must  not 
spend  any  money  for  whisky  and  cigars;  but  I did  give  instruction 
against  this  custom  of  buying  a keg  of  beer  and  jug  of  whisky  and 
getting  everybody  drunk.  I did  instruct  a number  of  the  men  whom 
I employed  that  it  was  not  our  policy  to  conduct  a saloon  campaign ; 
I presumed  that  they  knew  what  I meant  by  a “ saloon  campaign ; ” 
I meant  for  our  electioneered  or  whatever  he  might  be  called,  not 
to  walk  into  a big  saloon  and  say,  “ Come  on  up,  boys,  and  all  have 
something  on  Mr.  Stephenson.”  I did  not  want  that  sort  of  cam- 
paign conducted.  But  I did  not  prohibit  a man  taking  his  friend  in 
and  buying  a drink  or  taking  in  the  man  with  whom  he  was  talking 
and  buying  him  a drink. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Let  me  understand.  You  were  then  about  as 
careful  in  complying  with  the  prevailing  customs  as  you  were  in 
complying  with  the  law  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not  approve  of  some  of  the  prevailing  customs 
and  did  not  propose  to  follow  them. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  did  you  understand  the  purpose  of  this 
statute  to  be? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  statute  which  refers  to  the  giving  of  a thing  of 
value  ? 

Senator  Pomerene.  Yes. 

Mr.  Sacket.  My  understanding  was  that  it  prohibited  the  giving 
if  it  be  corruptly  or  for  the  purposes  of  bribery. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Assuming  that  such  customs  prevailed  as  you 
have  indicated  here,  do  you  not  think  that  one  of  the  purposes  of  this 
statute  was  to  check  that  custom  ? 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


389 


Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  think  that  that  statute  would  affect  that 
custom  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  This  was  known  as  the  antitreating  law  of  Wis- 
consin ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  hearing  it  referred  to  as 
such  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know  that  it  was  claimed  that  it  was 
enacted  for  the  purpose  of  preventing  the  treating  during  campaigns? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  was  not  my  understanding  of  it ; no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  your  understanding  as  to  the  purpose 
of  this  law. 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  prohibited  the  giving  of  anything  of  value  for  the 
purposes  of  bribery  or  corruption. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  one  purpose  recited;  but  it  also  recites, 
“ to  give  any  valuable  thing  to  an  elector  as  a consideration  for  some 
act  to  be  done.”  I have  omitted  the  phrase  that  you  refer  to  every 
time,  leaving  out  the  “ bribery  and  corruption.” 

Mr.  Sacket.  Some  corrupt  act,  I should  presume  that  that  meant. 

The  Chairman.  I think  it  is  not  necessary  to  write  any  words  into 
the  statute. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I do  not  understand  the  witness  is  undertaking 
to  construe  the  statute. 

The  Chairman.  He  undertook  the  responsibility  of  disbursing  a 
fund  in  a lawful  manner. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes.  And  I understand  he  is  intending  to  state 
his  understanding  of  it  and  what  he  did  in  accordance  with  that  un- 
derstanding. I do  not  think  it  can  go  any  further  than  that. 

The  Chairman.  We  might  probe  his  understanding. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Certainly;  but  then,  in  the  last  analysis,  his  un- 
derstanding of  it  is  what  controls,  as  far  as  he  is  concerned,  I take  it. 

The  Chairman.  In  some  other  statutes  here  it  is  specified  certain 
things  shall  not  be  done  corruptly  or  for  the  purpose  of  corrupting, 
but  in  this  particular  statute  that  phrase  seems  to  be  omitted.  So 
that 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  other  statutes  does  the  chairman  have  in 
mind  ? So  that  I can  get  the  question  intelligibly  to  me. 

The  Chairman.  I think  I will  leave  that  for  the  examination. 
There  are  many  statutes  that  provide  that  certain  things  when  cor- 
ruptly done  shall  be  punishable  in  a certain  manner. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I feel  bound  to  say  that  I do  not  get 

The  Chairman.  I do  not  think  the  occasion  requires  that  the  sub- 
committee or  any  member  of  it  shall  be  subjected  to  cross-examina- 
tion. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  No  ; but  I would  like  to  have  it  go  into  the  record 
that  I can  not  myself  understand  the  value  of  the  question  with  that 
generality,  and  I would  be  very  glad  to  have  it,  but  I can  not  insist 
upon  it. 

The  Chairman.  I call  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  language  of 
this  section  is  peculiar,  in  that  it  makes  the  giving,  regardless  of  the 
motive,  the  offense. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I wish  to  enter  upon  the  record  my  dissent  to 
that  construction  given  by  the  chairman.  I do  not  wish  by  my 
silence  to  be  understood  to  assent  to  that  construction  of  the  law  by 
the  chairman. 


390 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


The  Chairman.  I hardly  think  that  we  need  start  out  with  a 
misapprehension,  at  this  early  stage  of  the  investigation,  as  to  the  re- 
lation of  the  remarks  of  members  of  the  subcommittee  to  the  ultimate 
determination  of  this  matter.  The  subcommittee  will  exercise  the 
privilege  of  expressing  their  views  on  legal  matters  without  being 
called  upon  to  defend  them  at  this  time.  There  doubtless  will  be  a 
place  and  a tribunal  in  which  members  of  the  committee  will  be  ex- 
pected to  defend  any  expression  of  legal  opinion  that  they  may  give. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I trust  the  chairman  will  apreciate  that  I was  not 
undertaking  to  discuss  it.  I did  not  want  to  have  it  appear  by  my 
silence  that  I apparently  assented.  That  is  as  far  as  I care  to  go.  I 
trust  that  I have  that  privilege,  have  I not  ? 

The  Chairman.  It  is  not  a privilege.  It  is  not  necessary  that 
counsel  should  either  assent  or  differ.  If  they  do  either,  that  is  the 
exercise  of  a privilege  extended  by  the  subcommittee. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  of  this  money  that'  you  gave  to  Mr. 
Hambright  was  expended  for  the  purchase  of  liquors,  of  drinks — 
beer,  whisky,  or  any  other  beverage — for  electors? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I could  not  say.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  no  knowledge  as  to  whether  all  of  it,  or 
a small  part  of  it,  was  expended  for  those  things? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  a very  distinct  recollection  that  not  all  of  it 
was  so  expended. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  of  the  $400  given  Mr.  Hambright,  you  are 
not  able  to  say  what  proportion  of  it,  if  any,  was  expended  for  the 
purchase  of  liquors  and  cigars  with  which  to  treat  electors  for  the 
purpose  of  creating  a friendly  feeling  on  their  part  toward  the  can- 
didacy of  Senator  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I can  not  state  the  proportion. 

The  Chairman.  Now  I recur — inasmuch  as  I now  have  the  statute 
before  me — to  the  previous  party,  J.  C.  Miller,  I find  you  paid  him 
July  6,  $50;  July  24,  $50;  August  6,  $75;  August  18,  $50;  August  31, 
$25 ; September  5,  $300 ; is  it  a fact  that  all  of  that  except  the  pay- 
ment of  $300  was  for  expense  money,  and  that  that  money  was  ex- 
pended by  Mr.  Miller  in  practically  the  same  way  that  Mr.  Ham- 
bright spent  the  money? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  was ; yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Are  the  facts  in  regard  to  Mr.  Miller’s  expenses 
the  same,  in  substance,  as  those  relating  to  Mr.  Hambright’s? 

Mr.  Sacket.  They  are ; yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Now  we  have  u J.  R.  Keyes.”  You  made  a pay- 
ment to  Mr.  Keyes,  did  you? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  one  of  the  items  that  Mr.  Edmonds  says  he 
knows  nothing  about  and  that  the  knowledge  is  all  within  your  pos- 
session. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  knowledge  of  the  item. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  did  you  give  Mr.  Keyes  $25  on  July 
13? 

Mr.  Sacket.  For  expenses. 

The  Chairman.  To  be  expended  in  a manner  similar  to  that  in 
which  Mr.  Hambright  expended  the  money? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


391 


The  Chairman.  Are  the  facts  as  you  have  stated  them  in  regard 
to  Mr.  Hambright’s  expenditure  applicable  to  those  made  by  Mr. 
Keyes  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  My  instructions  to  Mr.  Keyes  and  Mr.  Hambright 
were  practically  the  same. 

The  Chairman.  Were  their  statements  to  you  as  to  the  manner  of 
expenditure  the  same,  in  substance? 

Mr.  Sacket.  They  all  rendered  expense  accounts,  which  I ap- 
proved of;  the  substance  of  their  accounts  were  practically  the  same. 

The  Chairman.  Did  Mr.  Keyes  render  an  expense  account? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  did. 

The  Chairman.  Where  is  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  have  it  in  your  possession  at  any  time  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  According  to  my  best  recollection  it  was  among  the 
papers  left  with  the  joint  committee  at  Madison. 

The  Chairman.  That  would  not  be  indicated  by  the  index,  as  in 
the  case  of  Mr.  Hambright. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember  having  seen  it  in  the  testimony. 

The  Chairman.  Were  any  papers  which  were  not  introduced  in 
evidence  left  with  the  committee? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I left  a large  number  of  papers  with  the  committee, 
and  I do  not  think  they  were  all  introduced  in  evidence  and  printed ; 
I believe  they  were  not ; a large  number  of  them. 

The  Chairman.  What  papers  did  you  leave  with  the  committee 
which  were  not  introduced  in  evidence? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  expense  account  of  J.  R.  Keyes  I have  not  been 
able  to  find  in  the  testimony  here;  the 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  refer  to  it  in  your  testimony? 

Mr.  Sacket.  According  to  my  best  recollection,  I submitted  the 
expense  account,  with  other  papers,  to  the  committee.  I do  not  re- 
member whether  or  not  I referred  to  the  expense  account  in  my  testi- 
mony. 

The  Chairman.  Was  Mr.  Keyes  employed  on  the  same  basis  as 
Mr.  Hambright  and  others? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Practically  the  same. 

The  Chairman.  In  regard  to  salary? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  had  a salary,  but  I do  not  remember  the  amount. 

The  Chairman.  The  items  paid  to  Mr.  Keyes  are:  July  13,  $25 — 
that  is  the  one  about  which  I have  just  questioned  you — July  21,  $50. 
Was  that  for  the  same  purpose,  or  was  that  on  account  of  salary? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  would  be  impossible  for  me  at  this  time  to  sepa- 
rate, in  a great  many  of  these  instances,  the  expense  money  from 
salary ; I may  have  advanced  salary  and  expense  money  at  the  same 
time ; I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Then  you  paid  him  on  July  31,  $25;  August  5, 
$25;  August  8,  $50;  August  20,  $48.50;  September  5,  $52.40.  Part 
of  that  was  for  salary  and  part  money  to  be  expended  by  him,  was  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I presume  that  it  was.  He  was  to  receive  a salary 
and  his  expenses. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  expend  any  part  of  that  for  drinks  or 
cigars  for  electors? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I could  not  say  positively  whether  he  did  or  did  not. 
If  you  want  my  opinion,  I will  give  it. 


392 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


The  Chairman.  Unless  you  have  some  recollection  or  some  facts, 
it  is  not  necessary  to  give  an  opinion. 

Mr.  Sacket.  My  recollection  is  not  very  positive ; it  is  rather  faint. 

The  Chairman.  Where  is  Mr.  Keyes ; do  you  know  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Mr.  Keyes  lived,  at  the  time  he  was  employed,  in 
Madison ; I have  no  knowledge  of  his  present  residence. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  his  occupation? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  was  not  employed  at  any  work  at  that  time. 

The  Chairman.  Was  he  engaged  in  any  business? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No  business  that  I know  of;  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  How  old  a man  was  he? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I should  think  he  was  over  40 ; possibly  under  50. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  tell  you  that  he  would  vote  for  Senator 
Stephenson,  or  support  him,  prior  to  your  giving  him  this  money, 
any  part  of  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  did  not  tell  me  that  he  would  vote  for  Senator 
Stephenson,  but  he  did  say  that  he  was  friendly  to  Senator  Stephen- 
son— in  favor  of  his  election. 

The  Chairman.  What  had  been  his  business,  if  he  had  ever  been  en- 
gaged in  any? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  was  a railroad  man  at  one  time. 

The  Chairman.  He  had  been  a railroad  man  up  close  to  the  time 
that  you  employed  him  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Up  to  comparatively  recently ; yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  How  many  railroad  men  did  you  engage  in  the 
interest  of  Senator  Stephenson  during  the  campaign? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  Mr.  Keyes  is  the  only  one  that  I engaged. 

The  Chairman.  How  many  were  engaged? 

Mr.  Sacket.  According  to  my  recollection,  there  was  one  other — 
Mr.  Shauers,  engaged  by  Mr.  Edmonds. 

The  Chairman.  Now,  we  will  pass  to  Mr.  Hambright.  You  have 
testified  pretty  fully  as  to  Mr.  Hambright.  The  item  of  “July  21, 
general  organizing,  $250,”  who  paid  out  that  money  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection,  no  knowledge  of  that  item  at 
the  present  time  whatever. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Edmonds  says  he  has  no  knowledge  of  it. 
Now,  who  has? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know  that  anybody  has. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  in  the  air,  so  to  speak,  is  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  that  that  $250  is  absolutely  so. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  If  the  chairman  will  excuse  me,  I noticed  you 
have  passed  the  item  of  “ July  20,  Sexton.” 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Edmonds  testified  to  that  and  I have  it  so 
marked. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  My  check  does  not  show  that. 

The  Chairman.  Mine  does. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I just  simply  wanted  to  get  the  reason.  My 
check  does  not  show  it. 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  that  is  the  reason  I pass  it;  I am  passing 
over  those;  it  is  not  necessary  to  duplicate  the  testimony. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  all  right. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  by  check  or  cashier’s  check  and  the 
number  was  given.  To  whom  can  you  refer  us  for  knowledge  as 
to  the  $250  on  July  21? 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


393 


Mr.  Sacket.  No  one. 

The  Chairman.  What  became  of  that  money? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  money  was  expended 

The  Chairman.  You  just  said  you  did  not  know  how  it  was  ex- 
pended. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I presume,  from  the  way  that  the  item  is  entered 
here 

The  Chairman.  Well,  unless  you  have  knowledge  of  it 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  whatever. 

The  Chairman.  The  subcommittee  would  not  be  assisted  any  by  a 
presumption  if  you  have  no  knowledge  or  no  recollection.  Do  you 
know  that  it  was  expended  at  all? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  How  do  you  know  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Because  it  is  in  this  account. 

The  Chairman.  And  that  is  the  only  reason  you  have  for  know- 
ing it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  is  all  I know  about  it;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Mr.  Chairman,  may  it  not  appear  there  that  this 
is  the  account  that  Mr.  Sacket  made  up  for  the  use  of  the  legislative 
committee  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes.  That  is  already  in  evidence.  Mr.  Sacket 
has  identified  this  exhibit  as  one  which  he  made  up. 

Mr.  Sacket.  A copy  of  a copy  I made  up. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  not  necessary  to  distinguish  between  them. 
If  the  witness  says  this  is  not  correct,  then  we  will  call  for  better 
evidence,  but  the  witness  has  said  this  is  a copy  and  that  means  it 
is  the  same. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Well,  if  the  record  does  show  that 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  the  record  shows  that. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I was  not  quite  clear  in  my  mind  whether  it 
did  or  not. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  testified  to  all  of  the  McMahon  expendi- 
tures, so  we  will  pass  the  next  item,  and  the  Keys  expenditure. 
When  you  made  up  this  account  and  put  the  item  of  $250  there,  on 
July  21,  from  what  did  you  get  the  basis  of  that  entry? 

Mr.  Sacket.  From  an  entry  on  one  of  my  cards. 

The  Chairman.  Oh;  in  the  card  system? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  the  card? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Nothing  more  than  appears  here,  if  this  is  a correct 
copy. 

The  Chairman.  Now,  we  will  dispose  of  that  question  of  the 
correct  copy.  Is  this  a correct  copy  of  your  statement  which  you 
rendered  before  the  committee  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  In  all  instances,  it  is  not. 

The  Chairman.  In  what? 

Mr.  Sacket.  In  some  instances  it  is  not. 

The  Chairman.  Point  out  the  instances  in  which  it  is  not? 

Mr.  Sacket.  On  page  590,  under  the  date  August  8,  item  “ Grant 
County,  No.  33470,  O.  L.  Gust,  $300,”  should  be  $25.  Omitted 
under  that  item  should  be  “ Dane  Countjq  A.  R.  Ames,”  and  a 
check  number  which  I have  not  here,  “ $300.” 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is  left  out  from  the  copy? 


394 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Mr.  Littlefield.  What  is  it?  One  item  missing  altogether? 

Mr.  Sacket.  One  item  is  missing  altogether.  The  $300  item  is 
charged  to  Gust,  in  Grant  County,  when  as  a matter  of  fact  it  was 
given  to  Ames,  in  Dane  County. 

The  Chairman.  But  we  have  an  item  just  below,  “Dane  County, 
to  Ames,  $350.” 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  is  another  item. 

The  Chairman.  Then  Ames  got  $650,  did  he? 

Mr.  Sacket.  In  those  two  items ; yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  wait  till  we  come  to  those  two  items, 
then.  Is  this  statement  correct,  “July  21,  general  organizing, 
$250  ” ; was  that  in  the  account  that  you  rendered  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know.  I did  not  check  this  account  with 
the  account  that  I rendered.  I can  go  on  and  show  you  other  in- 
stances where  items  of  that  kind  appear  in  this  account  and 

The  Chairman.  Let  me  call  your  attention.  We  can  probably 
get  closer  to  this  without  much  trouble.  Will  you  look  at  Ex- 
hibit 47  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I am  looking  at  Exhibit  49  now. 

The  Chairman.  Turn  to  Exhibit  47,  which  I understand  was  also 
made  up  under  your  direction. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  we  find  the  same  item. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  It  appears  that  the  item  is  the  same  in  the  two 
exhibits ; is  it  correct  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  would  not  prove  that  it  was  correct ; no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Then  the  error  was  repeated,  was  it,  in  making 
up  these  statements? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Not  necessarily.  In  Exhibit  47  the  names  in  a great 
many  cases  were  omitted;  in  Exhibit  49  I supplied  them,  wherever 
I could. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I think  the  chairman  is  in  error  about  that,  or  else 
I am.  Page  477,  Exhibit  47,  shows  “ Grant  County,  organizing,  $25.” 

The  Chairman.  No;  I am  not  dealing  with  that  item.  I am  deal- 
ing with  the  item  at  the  bottom  of  page  588. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  mean  the  $250  item? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I wanted  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  this 


The  Chairman.  I know,  but  I would  rather  not  confuse  it.  The 
other  was  instanced  by  the  witness  merely  as  a case  of  error ; and  let 
us  probe  the  item  under  consideration. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I was  about  to  make  this  suggestion  for  the 
chairman ; that  is,  the  chairman’s  general  question  was  to  the  witness 
to  point  out  the  items  of  error,  and  the  witness  had  only  pointed  out 
one  when  the  chairman  went  back  to  the  item  of  $250. 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  we  then  abandoned  the  quest  for  the  present. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Personally  I would  be  glad  to  have  him  point  out 
these  discrepancies. 

The  Chairman.  I think  we  had  better  search  for  the  error  as  we 
come  to  the  items,  and  then  the  record  will  be  less  confused. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  All  right. 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


395 


The  Chairman.  The  object  of  withdrawing  that  pursuit  was  that 
it  appeared  to  be  entering  upon  an  extended  examination  of  the 
account  in  a desultory  way. 

When  you  corrected  this  Exhibit  47  in  making  up  Exhibit  49, 
your  attention  was  called  to  this  item  of  “ General  expense,  $250,”  on 
July  21,  and  you  added  the  word  “ organizing,”  did  you  not,  so  you 
must  have  given  it  consideration?  In  the  first  statement  you  made 
up  you  just  say  “ General,  $250,”  and  in  the  corrected  statement 
(Exhibit  49)  you  have  added  the  word  “ organizing.”  That  was 
done,  of  course,  for  some  reason,  an  afterconsideration,  was  it  not? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  think  that  is  the  way  it  was  done.  I believe, 
in  Exhibit  47,  in  my  original  copy,  the  word  “ organizing  ” followed 
the  word  “ general,”  and  I think  that  my  testimony — I can  not  cite 
the  page  now — before  the  State  committee  at  that  time  will  show  that 
this  Exhibit  49  was  not  a true  copy  of  my  statement  in  just  that 
instance;  that  the  word  “organizing”  was  dittoed  in  my  statement 
and  not  in  the  copy. 

The  Chairman.  You  mean  Exhibit  47  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  But  Exhibit  49  was  made  to  conform  to  your 
recollection  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Exhibit  49  was  made  to  supply  the  names  of  the  per- 
sons, after  the  committee  had  decided  that  they  would  ask  me  to 
give  them. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  you  concede  the  item  on  July  21,  “ general 
organizing,”  was  taken  from  your  accounts  correctly? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  state  positively  that  it  was  correctly  taken. 

The  Chairman.  Why  did  you  not  make  it  correct?  When  you 
were  making  any  correction,  why  did  you  not  make  it  entirely  cor- 
rect? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not  have  an  opportunity  to  correct  this  copy. 
This  copy  was  not  in  existence  at  the  time  that  I was  before  the  com- 
mittee, and  since  this  copy  has  been  printed  I have  not  had  access  to 
my  original  copy. 

The  Chairman.  I think  I will  just  put  the  question  directly  to  you. 
In  your  statement  of  account,  Exhibit  49,  did  you  include  the  item 
of  u July  21,  general  organizing,  $250  ”? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I can  not  say  positively. 

Senator  Sutherland.  If  I understand  you,  Mr.  Sacket,  what  you 
say  is  that  the  account  which  you  corrected  and  filed  with  the  com- 
mittee is  correct,  but  you  do  not  know  whether  it  has  been  correctly 
set  forth  in  the  printed  copy  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  is  exactly  what  I meant. 

The  Chairman.  I will  call  you  attention  to  your  own  testimony 
in  regard  to  this  Exhibit  47  (p.  475).  When  you  were  on  the  wit- 
ness stand  before  the  committee  you  were  being  inquired  of  as  to 
the  manner  and  method  in  which  you  made  up  this  statement,  and 
you  said : 

Q.  I understand  you  to  say  you  kept  no  account  of  that  money? 

That  is,  referring  to  the  $98,000.  You  answer: 

No  book. 

Q.  Now,  what  did  you  keep? — A.  A lot  of  slips  of  paper  and  cards,  on  which 
I attempted  to  keep  the  memoranda. 

Q.  Slips  and  cards? — A.  Slips  of  paper,  and  cards. 


396 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Q.  Well,  now,  how  many  cards  did  you  have  during  the  campaign? — A.  I 
don’t  k?iow.  From  time  to  time  when  I could  clear  up  my  desk  and  get  time 
I would  take  those  cards  and  put  them  in  some  sort  of  form  on  a typewriter 
on  a sheet  of  paper.  A number  of  times  I would  clear  up  my  desk  and 
straighten  up.  I had  a large  number  of  cards  at  my  disposal,  but  I didn’t  use 
them  all  for  the  purpose  of  keeping  my  cash  account. 

Q.  Then  do  I understand  you  to  say  that  you  took  the  items  or  data  from 
these  cards  and  slips  of  paper  and  made  a record? — A.  I made  copies  of  them 
in  more  concise  form,  so  that  I could  show  to  Senator  Stephenson,  when  the 
matter  was  all  over,  approximately  where  his  money  went  to. 

Q.  Have  you  that  record  now? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Does  that  record  account  for  all  this  money? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  You  have  that  account  with  you,  have  you? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Will  you  produce  it  now?  [Witness  produces  account.] 

Mr.  Hambright.  Have  it  marked  as  an  exhibit.  [Marked  “ Exhibit  47,  C.  H. 
Welch,  stenographer.”] 

Then  follows  the  exhibit.  Now  do  you  charge  that  that  exhibit 
was  not  properly  copied  and  printed  in  this  book? 

Mr.  Sacket.  There  are  mistakes,  or  were  mistakes,  in  Exhibit  47 
as  it  was  copied  by  the  typewriter  for  the  record  before  the  com- 
mittee at  that  time.  I can  not  give  you  the  page,  but  my  testimony 
shortly'  following  the  exhibit  will  show  that  in  some  instances  the 
word  “ organizing  ” was  omitted — some  trivial  error  of  that  kind — 
that  is,  the  ditto  marks  that  I carried  down  were  not  carried  down  in 
the  copy  then  before  the  committee.  This  copy  I never  have  exam- 
ined as  to  Exhibit  47. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  accompany  Mr.  Edmonds  when  he  went 
to  see  Senator  Stephenson  in  regard  to  filing  this  account  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  think  I did.  I do  not  remember  going  any- 
where with  Mr.  Edmonds  to  see  Mr.  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  Is  it  not  a fact  that  in  order  that  the  account 
might  be  safely  adopted  and  sworn  to  by  Senator  Stephenson,  you 
made  what  is  Exhibit  49  here,  which  contained  all  of  the  necessary 
corrections  that  should  be  made  in  Exhibit  47?  It  would  seem  from 
this  record  that  Exhibit  49  was  prepared  for  Mr.  Edmonds  to  present 
to  Senator  Stephenson  as  a basis  for  making  up  his  account  to  be 
filed  under  the  law.  Was  not  that  the  condition  under  which  you 
made  the  corrections? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  is  not  my  recollection  of  it  at  all ; no,  sir.  Ex- 
hibit 49,  according  to  my  recollection,  was  made  for  the  joint  com- 
mittee of  the  Wisconsin  Legislature.  The  account  of  Mr.  Stephenson 
had  been  filed  before  Exhibit  49  was  made. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  get  rid  of  that  for  the  present  on  the  basis 
of  the  testimony  that  you  have  given.  It  would  appear  from  the 
testimony  of  Mr.  Edmonds,  while  Mr.  Edmonds  was  on  the  stand, 
that  the  data  contained  in  Exhibit  47  was  used  for  making  a more 
careful  exhibit,  which  is  49,  and  that  that  was  taken  as  a basis  from 
which  to  make  up  the  official  statement ; it  was  not  made  up  in  that 
form,  but  that  seems  to  have  been  the  basis.  I will  not  read  Mr. 
Edmonds’s  testimony  now,  but  at  the  proper  time  I will  call  attention 
to  it,  that  it  may  go  in  the  record. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  chairman’s  recollection  may  be  correct.  I 
call  your  attention  to  this,  in  connection  with  the  witness’s  statement, 
so  that  there  need  not  be  any  misunderstanding.  Exhibit  49  comes 
into  the  record  after  the  notation  of  an  adjournment  to  February  25, 
1909.  The  official  return  was  filed  by  Mr.  Stephenson,  according  to 
the  certificate  of  the  secretary  of  state,  February  11,  1909.  So  that 


RODNEY  SACKET.  397 

Exhibit  49  was  long  subsequent,  at  least  two  weeks  subsequent,  to  the 
filing  of  the  official  return  by  the  Senator. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  its  use  was,  but  its  existence  was  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  I do  not  know  anything  about.  It  is  put 
in  the  record  two  weeks  later. 

The  Chairman.  I do  not  want  to  confuse  this  witness’s  testimony 
with  the  testimony  of  a witness  who  will  necessarily  bring  in  those 
facts. 

Now,  we  will  proceed  with  these  items.  What  have  you  to  say 
about  the  item  of  J.  P.  Keyes,  for  organizing,  paid  July  21  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  was  money  sent  him  for  expenses;  possibly 
some  of  his  salary  was  included  in  it;  and  under  the  same  circum- 
stances and  instructions  practically  that  were  given  to  Miller,  Mc- 
Mahon, and  Ham'bright. 

The  Chairman.  The  next  item  is,  “ General  organizing,  E.  A.  E., 
stamps;  G.  Peterson,  $25 — $225.”  That  is  on  July  22.  Do  you  know 
the  facts  in  regard  to  that  entry? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  the  transaction  except  from 
what  is  recalled  to  my  memory  from  reading  the  item.  The  fact 
that  the  $200  for  postage  stamps  is  in  there  would  indicate  that  I 
bought  the  postage  stamps  and  used  them,  or  that  they  were  used 
under  my  direction.  The  Peterson  part  of  the  item  I have  no  recol- 
lection of  whatever. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Edmonds  testified  that  he  had  no  recollec- 
tion of  the  item.  I have  it  marked  on  my  notes  to  that  effect.  So 
that  neither  of  you  can  account  for  that  item  other  than  that  you 
say  you  used  the  $200  worth  of  postage  stamps? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  buy  all  of  your  postage  stamps  from  the 
postoffice  here? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  I did.  I do  not  remember  buying  any  any- 
where else. 

The  Chairman.  The  next  item  is  July  23,  “General  organizing, 
paid  to  E.  A.  E.”  That  means  Mr.  Edmonds? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  $200.  Mr.  Edmonds  has  testified  that 
he  has  no  knowledge  of  that.  What  do  you  know  about  that? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know  anything  about  that. 

The  Chairman.  Neither  of  you  knows  anything  about  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I know  nothing  about  that. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Mr.  Chairman,  my  recollection  may  not  be  clear, 
but  is  not  that  one  of  the  items  that  Mr.  Edmonds  stated  was  paid 
to  him  from  time  to  time  in  cash  ? 

The  Chairman.  No;  I have  marked  with  a cipher  the  items  where 
Mr.  Edmonds  said  he  had  no  knowledge  in  regard  to  them,  and  I 
have  a peculiar  check  or  a distinct  check  in  my  notes  for  the  items 
of  which  he  had  knowledge. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Your  recollection  of  the  matter  may  be  correct 
about  that. 

The  Chairman.  So  that,  as  to  those  items  of  $425,  one  on  July  22 
and  one  on  July  23,  you  can  give  us  no  information  as  to  the  nature 
of  the  expenditures  except  the  stamps? 

Mr.  Sacket.  $200  for  stamps.  That  should  be  $25  and  $200  that 
I have  not  any  knowledge  of. 


398 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


The  Chairman.  The  next  item  is  on  July  24,  “ E.  Eowe,  organiz- 
ing, $50.”  Did  you  pay  that  to  him? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  he  to  do  in  consideration  of  that  pay- 
ment ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  was  to  do  general  organizing  in  Waupaca  County, 
if  I remember  correctly. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  do  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  reported  to  me  that  he  did. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  render  you  an  itemized  statement  of  the 
expenditures  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  According  to  my  recollection,  he  did. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  you  paid  him  other  considerable  sums  of 
money,  did  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  There  were  other  payments,  if  I remember  correctly. 

The  Chairman.  This  payment  was  on  July  24,  and  was  for  $50. 
You  say  that  was  for  organizing,  and  he  did  or  did  not  render  you  an 
itemized  statement  of  the  expenditures  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  did  render  me  an  itemized  statement. 

The  Chairman.  Where  is  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know  at  this  time. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  destroy  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Not  intentionally;  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  May  you  have  destroyed  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  is  possible. 

The  Chairman.  Was  any  part  of  that  money  expended  for  liquors 
or  cigars  or  meals  for  electors,  with  a view  of  inducing'  them  to  sup- 
port Senator  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember  at  this  time  just  what  the  items 
were. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know,  then? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  You  paid  him  on  August  5,  $35.25.  Was  that 
for  the  same  purpose? 

Mr.  Sacket.  According  to  my  recollection,  it  was. 

The  Chairman.  What  have  you  to  say  about  whether  or  not  it  was 
expended  for  treats  to  electors  for  the  purpose  of  creating  an  im- 
pression favorable  to  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know  at  this  time. 

The  Chairman.  On  August  10  you  paid  him  $19.20.  Was  that  for 
the  same  purpose? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  same  purpose;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  any  different  statement  as  to  the  use 
made  of  that  money? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  knowledge;  no  recollection. 

The  Chairman.  On  August  18  you  paid  him  $24.40.  What  have 
you  to  say  in  regard  to  that? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  same  as  to  the  other  items. 

The  Chairman.  On  August  22  you  paid  him  $300.  For  what  was 
that  paid? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember  that  amount  particularly,  but  if 
I may  give  my  best  recollection  I think  I can  throw  some  light 
upon  it. 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


399 


Mr.  Sacket.  That  was  given  to  employ  men  and  teams  to  work  on 
election  day,  as  I remember. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  12  days  before  election? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes;  or  13. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  pay  it  to  him? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  I sent  it  to  him ; yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  he  to  do  with  that  money,  specifically? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  was  to  employ  teams  to  bring  the  voters  to  the 
polls  and  men  to  drive  those  teams,  men  to  go  out  into  the  different 
precincts  and  read  the  list  of  voters,  and  send  the  men  with  teams 
to  those  of  our  friends  among  the  voters  who  had  not  voted. 

The  Chairman.  Irrespective  of  party,  or  whether  or  not  they  were 
favorable  to  Senator  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  expression,  “ of  our  friends,”  which  I just  used, 
would  indicate  he  was  to  look  after  persons  we  expected  to  vote  for 
Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  his  instructions? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  To  haul  those  only  to  the  polls  who  were  favor- 
able ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Oh,  no;  his  instructions  were  to  use  his  best  judgment, 
not  to  refuse  anybody  who  wanted  to  go,  but  to  pay  particular  at- 
tention to  those  we  expected  to  vote  for  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  Was  he  to  charge  those  he  hauled  to  the  polls  any- 
thing for  hauling  them? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  He  was  to  do  something  for  the  elector  as  an  in- 
ducement to  receive  his  vote  for  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  had  no  instructions  to  do  anything  beyond 

The  Chairman.  Was  that  the  purpose?  You  being  the  organizer 
of  the  plan  must  know  the  purpose. 

Mr.  Sacket.  My  purpose  was  to  get  a man  who  was  favorable  to 
Senator  Stephenson  to  the  poll§.  so  that  he  could  vote,  if  he  lived  at 
at  great  distance  from  the  voting  place,  or  was  old  and  infirm  and 
could  not  walk,  or  if  he  were  busy  and  could  not  spare  the  time  to 
walk  in.  These  teams  were  supposed  to  bring  him  in  and  take  him 
back  home. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  fix  a limit  within  which  men  would  be 
hauled  to  the  polls,  or  did  you  haul  anybody  even  for  a short  distance? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Hauled  anybody  wTho  would  go. 

The  Chairman.  Any  distance,  irrespective  of  distance? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  instruct  him  out  of  this  fund  to  furnish 
those  people  with  refreshments  of  any  kind  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  do  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  He  paid  out  the  money  furnished  by  Mr.  Stephen- 
son for  the  teams  with  which  he  hauled  these  people  to  the  polls? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I presume  he  did. 

The  Chairman.  He  told  you  he  did  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I instructed  him  to,  and  he  said  he  did. 

The  Chairman.  And  he  paid  other  men  to  drive  teams  for  the 
same  purpose? 


400 


RODNEY  SACKET, 


Mr.  Sacket.  He  did. 

The  Chairman.  Under  your  instructions? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  paid  out  of  this  fund  you  had  placed  in 
his  hands? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  was. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  account  for  any  balance  remaining  un- 
expended after  the  primary  election? 

Mr.  Sacket.  To  the  best  of  my  recollection  he  did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  render  you  any  itemized  account  of  the 
expenditures  that  he  had  made? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  did  from  time  to  time. 

The  Chairman.  On  October  16  you  paid  him  $48.34.  What  was 
that  paid  to  him  for  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  was  to  reimburse  him  for  money  that  he  ex- 
pended in  excess  of  this  last  $300  and  any  other  moneys  that  he  may 
have  received. 

The  Chairman.  Then  he  rendered  a statement  to  you  showing  the 
deficiency,  did  he? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  item  under  October  16  would  indicate  that  he 
did. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  do  you  know  about  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  My  recollection  of  all  of  those  items  under  that  date 
is  that  they  rendered  statements. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  whether  he  expended  any  part  of 
this  mone;y  for  purchasing  refreshments,  meals,  or  drinks  for  electors, 
either  during  the  campaign  or  on  the  day  of  the  election,  when  he 
was  hauling  them  to  the  polls? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ask  him  whether  he  had  done  so  or  not? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  On  August  25  you  paid  him  $21.15.  Was  that  for 
the  same  purpose,  the  same  class  of  expenditure? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  was — not  the  same  purpose  of  hiring  teams.  It  was 
for  his  expenses. 

The  Chairman.  In  all  you  paid  him  $499.34.  Is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  not  computed  the  amounts.  If  they  appear 
here,  that  is  probably  right. 

The  Chairman.  The  next  item  is  J.  C.  Miller,  for  organizing,  $50. 
That  is  the  J.  C.  Miller  about  whom  you  testified  as  to  the  second 
item,  is  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  next  item  after  $21.15  for  Mr.  Rowe? 

The  Chairman.  On  July  6 you  have  testified  in  regard  to  giving 
J.  C.  Miller  $50,  and  I find  another  item  here.  I have  gone  over 
those  items  with  you  once. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Which  particular  date  does  the  chairman  have  in 
mind? 

The  Chairman.  The  items  were:  July  6,  $50;  July  24,  $50;  August 
6,  $75;  August  18,  $50;  August  31,  $25;  and  September  5,  $300.  I 
interrogated  this  witness  in  regard  to  those  items. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I have  the  first  two  checked,  but  I did  not  have 
the  others. 

The  Chairman.  I have  read  it  from  a memorandum  that  is  made 
up  in  order  that  we  may  not  duplicate.  The  next  item  to  which  I 


RODNEY  SACKET.  401 

call  your  attention  is  one  of  $50  to  J.  T.  Marshall  on  July  30,  Colum- 
bia County,  organizing.  Do  you  know  about  that  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember  that  item. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Edmonds  said  he  did  not  know  about  it  and 
that  you  would.  You  say  you  do  not  know? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  it  at  present ; no,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I may  be  mistaken  about  that,  but  I have  that 
checked  as  accounted  for  by  Mr.  Edmonds. 

The  Chairman.  My  memorandum  is  that  Edmonds  did  not  know 
him.  I have  written  it  out  in  full  “ don’t  know  him.”  You  do  not 
know  anything  about  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  who  Mr.  Marshall  is? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  present  recollection  of  him  whatever. 

The  Chairman.  Your  memory  may  be  refreshed  by  the  items.  It 
appears  that  on  July  30  this  item  of  $50  was  paid  him  and  on  August 
27  he  was  paid  $100,  and  on  October  16  he  was  paid  $65,  making  in 
all,  $215.  Do  you  know  anything  about  any  of  those  payments? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  any  of  them.  October  16, 
do  you  find  the  payment  to  him  ? 

The  Chairman.  October  16  he  was  paid  $65.  We  will  pass  now  to 
F.  Remold,  $50  on  July  30.  Mr.  Edmonds  has  indicated  that  he 
knows  nothing  of  that  payment,  but  that  you  will  know. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  it  for? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Mr.  Reinold,  as  I remember,  was  to  organize  in 
Kenosha  County.  Fifty  dollars  was  for  expenses,  and  possibly  in- 
cluded some  salary. 

The  Chairman.  You  gave  it  to  him? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  spend  any  of  it  for  treating  electors  to 
meals  or  liquors  or  to  cigars  for  the  purpose  of  creating  a friendly 
feeling  on  the  part  of  the  elector  for  Senator  Stephenson’s  candidacy  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know  at  this  time. 

The  Chairman.  There  was  a further  sum  paid  him  on  September 
5 of  $11.05.  What  have  you  to  say  about  that? 

Mr.  Sacket.  My  recollection  of  that  item  is  that  it  was  a final 
settlement  of  his  expense  account,  rendered,  and  a balance  of  salary 
finally  due  him  at  that  time. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  of  it  was  salary? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I could  not  tell. 

The  Chairman.  Is  your  statement  as  to  your  lack  of  knowledge 
of  the  manner  of  expenditure  in  regard  to  the  item  of  $50  paid  to 
him  true  as  to  the  item  of  $11.05? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  The  next  item  is  “ E.  H.  McMahon.”  We  have 
already  gone  over  that.  The  next  item  is  “ Richland  County,  cash, 
L.  Bancroft,  $250,”  and  that  is  on  July  31.  Tell  us  about  that.  For 
what  did  you  pay  that  to  Mr.  Bancroft? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I presume  I am  to  assume  that  I paid  it  if  I au- 
thorized the  payment  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  if  it  was  paid  by  your  responsibility.  Mr. 
Edmonds  has  said  it  was  an  item  about  which  you  would  know,  and 
he  did  not. 

15235°— vol  1—11 26 


402 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Mr.  Sacket.  Yes;  that  money  was  paid  to  Mr.  Bancroft  for  the 
purpose  of  promoting  Senator  Stephenson’s  campaign  in  his  locality, 
Richland  County. 

The  Chairman.  Was  he  then  attorney  general? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  was  not. 

The  Chairman.  Is  he  now  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  is;  yes. 

The  Chairman.  Was  he  a candidate  for  office  at  that  time? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  was. 

The  Chairman.  In  that  campaign? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  was  elected? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  And  is  now  serving,  is  he? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I suppose  the  chairman  will  want  it  to  appear 
that  he  was  a candidate  for  the  legislature. 

The  Chairman.  I have  a memorandum  that  he  is  the  attorney 
general. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I imagined  that  you  wanted  to  get  into  your 
question  whether  he  was  a candidate  for  the  assembly. 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  was. 

The  Chairman.  Yes ; I want  to  find  out  what  he  was  a candidate 
for.  What  was  he  a candidate  for  at  that  time? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  assembly. 

The  Chairman.  From  what  district  or  county? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Richland  County. 

The  Chairman.  Was  he  elected? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  was. 

The  Chairman.  From  what  district  or  county? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Richland  County. 

The  Chairman.  Was  he  elected? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  was. 

The  Chairman.  And  was  speaker  of  the  house? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  was. 

The  Chairman.  You  paid  him  $250,  or  authorized  its  payment,  on 
July  21.  What  did  you  pay  that  to  him  for? 

Mr.  Sacket.  For  general  organizing  in  Richland  County  in  be- 
half of  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  You  knew  that  he  was  a candidate  for  the  legis- 
lature at  that  time  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  know  that  he  was  a candidate. 

The  Chairman.  With  the  full  knowledge  of  that  fact  you  paid 
him  the  money  to  work  for  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  whether  or  not  he  voted  for  Senator 
Stephenson  for  United  States  Senator  in  the  legislature? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  did.  Let  me  correct  one  statement  made  just 
before  this.  I gave  him  the  money,  not  to  work  for  Senator  Stephen- 
son, but  to  use  for  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  Oh ; to  expend  on  his  behalf  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  To  use ; yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Is  that  the  same  Bancroft  who  is  now  attor- 
ney general? 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


403 


Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  When  was  he  elected  attorney  general? 

Mr.  Sacket.  A year  ago — last  fall. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  whether  or  not  Senator  Stephenson 
knew  that  you  were  paying  $250  to  a candidate  for  the  legislature 
to  work  for  him? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not  tell  him. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  whether  he  knew  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  did  not  know  it  to  my  knowledge.  I believe  he 
did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Who  had  the  responsibility  for  paying  that  money 
to  Mr.  Bancroft  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I asked  Mr.  Puelicher  to  talk  with  Mr.  Bancroft  and 
arrange  with  him. 

The  Chairman.  You  and  Mr.  Puelicher? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I asked  Mr.  Puelicher  to  do  it.  I was  not  present  at 
the  time. 

The  Chairman.  Did  Mr.  Puelicher  talk  with  Mr.  Bancroft  in  your 
presence  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  talk  with  Mr.  Bancroft  in  regard  to 
the  payment  of  this  money  or  the  use  of  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  ever  come  to  headquarters  or  come  to  you 
during  the  campaign? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Not  during  the  campaign,  to  the  best  of  my  recollec- 
tion. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  what  Mr.  Bancroft  did  and  where 
he  went  in  the  performance  of  this  undertaking  during  the  cam- 
paign ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  knowledge.  He  made  no  report  to  me. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  see  a report  that  he  did  make  in  regard 
to  what  he  had  done  and  what  expenses  he  had  incurred  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I read  his  testimony  in  this  investigation. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  read  that? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  within  the  past  six  or  eight  weeks. 

The  Chairman.  Was  that  the  first  time  that  you  had  read  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  it  was ; yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  conversation  did  you  have  with  Mr. 
Puelicher  in  regard  to  the  payment  of  this  money  to  Mr.  Bancroft 
and  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  to  be  paid  to  him  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Does  it  call  for  a conversation  between  Mr. 
Sacket  and  Mr.  Puelicher? 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  Mr.  Sacket  and  Mr.  Puelicher,  who  were 
jointly  interested  in  this. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I can  not  remember  the  words  of  the  conversation, 
but  I think  I can  give  the  substance.  In  fact,  I know  I can. 

The  Chairman.  Give  the  substance. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Mr.  Puelicher  was  to  arrange  with  Mr.  Bancroft  to 
look  after  Senator  Stephenson’s  interests  in  Richland  County,  was 
to  give  Mr.  Bancroft  money  with  which  to  pay  the  expenses  for  Sena- 
tor Stephenson’s  work,  with  the  distinct  understanding  that  all  the 
money  given  to  Mr.  Bancroft  by  our  headquarters  was  to  be  used  for 
Senator  Stephenson’s  interests,  and  none  of  it  was  to  be  used  to  pro- 


404 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


mote  Mr.  Bancroft’s  campaign,  or  for  Mr.  Bancroft’s  interest  in  any- 
way. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  provide  any  method  by  which  the  uses 
could  be  separated,  and  when  Mr.  Bancroft  approached  a man  on  be- 
half of  Mr.  Stephenson,  that  he  was  to  make  that  fact  known,  and 
that  the  man  was  not  to  give  him  any  credit  for  it  because  he  was 
under  pay  to  work  for  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I made  no  such  provision. 

The  Chairman.  The  next  item  here  is  A.  J.  Weisman.  Did  you 
pay  that  money  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose? 

Mr.  Sacket.  For  the  purpose  of  organizing  in  Manitowoc  County. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  use  the  term  “ organizing”  in  that  case 
the  same  as  you  have  used  it  in  other  cases  that  you  have  spoken  of, 
that  it  comprised  the  soliciting  of  votes  for  Senator  Stephenson  by 
those  men,  and  expenditures  for  entertainment,  to  be  made  in  the 
judgment  of  the  person  expending  the  money? 

Mr.  Sacket.  My  understanding  of  my  use  of  the  word  was  in- 
tended to  convey  any  act  of  campaigning,  any  act  in  the  interest  of 
Senator  Stephenson’s  candidacy. 

The  Chairman.  That  would  induce  the  elector  to  vote  for  him  or 
support  him  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  would  produce  votes  for  Senator  Stephenson; 
yes,  practically  that. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  of  any  person  by  name  who  was 
induced  to  vote  for  Senator  Stephenson  by  any  of  these  men  to  whom 
you  gave  money  for  the  purpose  of  inducing  them  or  influencing  them 
to  vote  for  him  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not;  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  that  in  this  entire  campaign,  and 
with  the  expenditure  of  all  this  money,  any  single  man  was  induced 
to  vote  for  Senator  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Sacket.  By  name  I do  not ; no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  By  name  or  by  description  can  you  refer  us  to  a 
single  one? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir;  not  in  any  individual  case.  I do  not  know 
of  any  instance. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  wish  to  be  understood  as  saying  that  you 
do  not  know  that  your  labor  in  the  expenditure  and  disbursement  of 
this  money  bore  any  fruit  whatever  for  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  is  not  the  idea  I wish  to  convey.  I understood 
the  question  to  be,  if  I knew  of  any  particular  man  by  name  or  de- 
scription who  was  induced.  I do  not. 

The  Chairman.  Was  it  not  a part  of  your  duty,  undertaking  to 
induce  men  either  through  your  own  action  or  that  of  those  whom 
you  appointed,  to  accomplish  this  purpose? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  never  take  any  pains  to  ascertain  whether 
or  not  you  had  accomplished  anything  by  the  expenditure  of  this 
money  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  result  was  perfectly  satisfactory  to  me.  I did 
not  consider  it  necessary. 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


405 


The  Chairman.  You  continued  your  interest  in  this  campaign 
until  some  time  after  it  was  over,  did  you  not,  as  representing  Sena- 
tor Stephenson’s  interests? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I settled  the  outstanding  accounts. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  sever  your  connection  with  the 
campaign? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I considered  it  severed  after  October  16,  when  I set- 
tled the  final  outstanding  accounts. 

The  Chairman.  The  full  returns  at  the  primary  were  in,  and  of 
course  you  received  them  and  analyzed  them  and  gave  attention  to 
them,  did  you  not? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  to  a certain  extent ; yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  naturally  would? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  You  knew  how  much  money  had  been  expended 
at  that  time,  did  you  not,  when  you  had  the  returns  all  in — how 
much  money  had  been  expended  by  Senator  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not  at  the  time  the  election  returns  were  all  in ; 
no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  had  paid  all  of  the  bills  on  October  16,  ac- 
cording to  your  statement? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  election  returns  of  the  primary  were  in  before 
that. 

The  Chairman.  Let  us  refer  to  the  primary.  The  election  had 
not  been  held  in  October.  At  the  time  you  say  you  severed  your 
connection  with  the  Stephenson  canrpaign  Senator  Stephenson  had 
received  in  the  primary  56,809  votes,  had  he  not? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  is  approximately  it.  I do  not  remember 
exactly. 

The  Chairman.  And  at  a cost  of  $111,389.49,  according  to  this 
statement  which  you  made  up? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  That  would  be  at  the  rate  of  more  than  $2  for 
every  vote? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  While  it  is  a small  matter,  Mr.  Chairman,  I 
suggest  whether  or  not  the  chairman  ought  not  to  take  into  account 
the  fact  that  the  net  amount  was  $107,000  and  odd. 

The  Chairman.  Doubtless  those  who  argue  this  for  final  decision 
will  call  all  of  those  things  to  the  attention  of  the  tribunal,  but  I 
am  dealing  with  the  round  figures  as  I have  them.  In  other  words, 
the  money  expended  through  the  efforts  of  you,  Mr.  Puelicher  and 
Mr.  Edmonds,  amounted  to  more  than  $2  for  every  vote  received  by 
Senator  Stephenson  at  the  primary.  That  is  true,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Approximately  so;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  the  total  Republican  vote  cast  at  the 
genral  election  in  Wisconsin  in  that  fall  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  I had  some  knowledge  of  it  at  that  time,  and 
I remember  hearing  Mr.  Edmonds  testify  here  within  the  last 
few  days. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  was  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  About  450,000,  as  I remember. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  the  total  vote? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  total  vote. 


406 


BODNEY  SACKET. 


The  Chairman.  How  much  was  the  total  Republican  vote? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  Republican  vote  was  over  300,000. 

The  Chairman.  Then  out  of  over  300,000  Republican  votes,  your 
efforts  and  expenditures  secured  only  56,839  for  Senator  Stephenson. 
That  is  true,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  is  approximately  true. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  at  an  expense  of  over  $2  for  every  vote. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  can  not  name  a single  vote  or  voter 
brought  to  support  Senator  Stephenson  through  the  expenditure  of 
this  amount  of  money  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I can  not. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  made  any  estimate  of  the  number  of 
votes  that  Senator  Stephenson  would  have  received  at  that  primary, 
had  there  been  no  money  expended,  or  no  one  employed  as  were  you 
and  your  associates? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I never  estimated  the  number ; no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Men  in  charge  of  a political  campaign  generally 
do  go  into  those  calculations  as  a basis  for  organizing,  do  they  not  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is,  calculations  of  how  many  votes  they 
would  get  if  they  did  not  organize  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes ; of  the  benefit  to  be  gained  by  organizing. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I should  like  to  hear  about  that.  I never  heard 
of  it  before,  but  if  the  witness  has  any  information,  I should  like  it. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  consider  that  question? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not  make  any  figures. 

The  Chairman.  Did  any  of  you  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  We  talked  generally  about  the  effect  different  things 
might  have  on  the  voters,  and  the  advisability  of  doing  certain 
things. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  never  make  any  figures  in  connection 
with  that  talk  or  discussion,  in  regard  to  the  vote  that  he  would 
receive,  and  how  it  could  be  augmented  by  the  expenditure  of  money, 
and  the  efforts  you  made. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember  making  any  figures,  in  that  sense. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  talk  about  when  you  conferred? 

Mr.  Sacket.  We  talked  about  the  votes  and  the  influence  different 
things  might  have  on  the  voters. 

The  Chairman.  Without  attempting  to  measure  it  at  all  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember  it  so. 

The  Chairman.  If  a county  was  conceded  to  be  strongly  for  Sena- 
tor Stephenson,  would  you  consider  the  necessity  of  expending 
money  in  that  county,  as  compared  with  the  necessity  for  expending 
it  in  counties  where  the  sentiment  was  unorganized  or  unknown  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Those  things  were  talked  about  to  a greater  or  less 
extent,  but  my  recollection  of  those  talks  is  very  faint  at  this  time. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  talk  about? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Matters  of  that  kind. 

The  Chairman.  Oh,  you  do  remember  that? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I remember  that  there  were  conversations  about  such 
subjects. 

The  Chairman.  Were  there  any  counties  in  which  you  expended 
no  money? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  recall  any  now. 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


407 


The  Chairman.  Did  you  have  a poll  made  up  of  the  voters  in  any 
or  all  of  the  counties  that  you  counted  favorable  to  Senator 
Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  think  that  we  went  as  far  as  to  have  the  poll 
lists.  Is  that  what  you  mean? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Sacket.  A list  of  the  voters.  No ; we  did  not  do  that. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  not  go  that  far.  That  is  generally  the 
first  thing  that  the  organizer  does,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  Sacket.  If  he  has  an  organization,  and  money  enough  to  do  it. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  denominated  a great  many  men  here 
as  organizers,  and  have  specified  large  sums  of  money  as  being  paid 
out  for  organizing.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  did  not  include  the 
polling  of  the  vote,  for  the  purpose  of  knowing  what  strength  you 
might  count  on  for  Senator  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Sacket.  We  went  as  far  as  we  could  in  that  direction. 

The  Chairman.  How  far  did  you  go? 

Mr.  Sacket.  As  far  as  our  ability  would  permit  us. 

The  Chairman.  How  many  names  did  you  have  on  the  poll  list 
favorable  to  Senator  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember  the  figures. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  no  recollection  of  the  poll  of  a cam- 
paign of  which  you  were  largely  in  charge? 

Mr.  Sacket.  We  had  lists  of  names  of  persons  in  different  parts 
of  the  State,  who  had  expressed  sentiments  favorable  toward  Senator 
Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  How  many  were  there? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I should  thing,  perhaps,  we  had  a list  of  a thousand 
names  of  that  kind. 

The  Chairman.  Only  a thousand  names  of  people  favorable  to 
Senator  Stephenson  in  the  State  of  Wisconsin? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I will  correct  that.  We  had  altogether,  I think, 
about  20,000. 

The  Chairman.  Oh;  you  had  20,000  names  of  people  who  were 
favorable  to  Senator  Stephenson,  and  he  received  only  56,839.  There 
were  more  than  half  the  people  who  supported  Senator  Stephenson, 
of  whom  you  had  no  knowledge  at  all. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Two-thirds. 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  two-thirds. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Of  whom  we  had  no  record  in  our  office,  to  my 
knowledge. 

The  Chairman.  Had  they  not  been  seen? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I presume  they  had  received  circulars,  and  read  the 
advertisements  in  the  newspapers.  I have  no  knowledge  of  their 
having  been  seen  personally;  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Then  you  missed  the  poll  by  about  30,000  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not  at  any  time  presume  that  the  list  of  20,000 
names  that  we  had  was  a list  of  all  the  people  in  the  State  who  were 
favorable  to  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  Was  not  all  of  this  information  sent  to  head- 
quarters ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  was  a list  of  all  those  persons  whom  we  know,  or 
had  reason  to  suppose,  were  favorable  to  the  Senator.  The  list  was 


408 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


obtained  from  the  signers  of  his  nomination  papers,  and  in  other 

ways. 

The  Chairman.  You  must  have  expected  Senator  Stephenson  to 
be  badly  beaten  at  the  primaries  then,  with  a list  of  only  about 
20,000  for  him,  did  you  not? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir;  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  You  knew  that  20,000  votes  would  not  nominate 
anybody,  did  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not  suppose  that  was  all  the  votes  we  would  get. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  your  estimate  of  the  vote  Senator 
Stephenson  would  receive? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember  having  made  an  estimate  in 
figures. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  not  know  that  there  were  five  candidates, 
each  of  whom  received  more  than  20,000  votes  at  that  primary?  You 
were  managing  a $100,000  campaign  for  Senator  Stephenson  and 
figuring  on  only  20,000  votes. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  think  you  understand  me.  I did  not  figure 
on  only  20,000  votes. 

The  Chairman.  I asked  you  how  many  you  did  figure  on. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I said  we  had  a list  of  20,000. 

The  Chairman.  I know ; but  how  many  did  you  figure  on  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I figured  on  enough  to  elect  Mr.  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  That  will  not  do.  You  know  how  many  you  fig- 
ured on. 

Mr.  Sacket.  If  you  want  me  to  give  my  best  recollection,  I should 
say  we  expected  to  get  75,000  or  80,000  votes. 

The  Chairman.  Now,  that  is  a more  reasonable  statement.  You 
thought  you  had  accomplished  that  result,  that  would  bring  him 
about  75,000  votes? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  By  the  methods  that  you  have  explained? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Now,  you  have  nothing  further  to  say  in  regard  to 
your  transactions  with  Mr.  Bancroft,  have  you  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  I have  covered  the  ground  fully. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  talk  to  Senator  Stephenson  about  the 
employment  of  Mr.  Bancroft  in  the  manner  you  have  described  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not;  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  ever  speak  to  you  about  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  did  not,  to  my  recollection. 

The  Chairman.  Or  communicate  with  you  in  any  way  about  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  In  no  way  that  I remember. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  communicate  with  him? 

Mr.  Sacket.  In  no  way  that  I remember. 

The  Chairman.  Whatever  the  responsibility  is  for  this,  as  far  as 
you  know,  it  rests  on  you  as  his  agent? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Who  suggested  to  you  to  employ  Mr.  Bancroft  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  Mr.  McMahon  sent  his  name  in  to  Mr.  Ed- 
monds. Mr.  Edmonds  agreed  to  see  him,  but  was  called  away.  I 
was  busy  at  that  time,  and  I asked  Mr.  Puelicher  to  talk  to  him. 
That  is  the  whole  of  my  recollection  of  the  matter. 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


409 


The  Chairman.  So  that  all  three  of  the  committee — that  is,  Pue- 
licher,  Edmonds,  and  yourself,  whom  Senator  Stephenson  had  named 
as  the  committee — all  three  of  the  committee,  then,  had  personal  com- 
munication with  Mr.  Bancroft  in  regard  to  the  payment  of  money  to 
him,  on  behalf  of  Senator  Stephenson,  to  get  him  to  work  for  Senator 
Stephenson  during  the  campaign  at  which  he  was  a candidate  for 
nomination  as  a member  of  the  State  legislature.  That  is  true,  is  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not  say  that  they  all  had  personal  communica- 
tions with  him. 

The  Chairman.  I have  understood  you  to  say  that  Mr.  Edmonds 
did,  and  that  Mr.  Puelicher  did. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Mr.  Edmonds  was  informed 

The  Chairman.  By  whom? 

Mr.  Sacket.  By  Mr.  McMahon,  as  I understand  it,  that  Mr.  Ban- 
croft would  come  in.  He  told  Mr.  McMahon  to  induce  him  to  come 
in  if  he  could. 

The  Chairman.  To  come  in  where? 

Mr.  Sacket.  To  come  into  Milwaukee  and  talk  to  Mr.  Edmonds 
about  it.  I do  not  know  that  Mr.  Edmonds  had  any  idea  of  paying 
him  money  at  that  time. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Bancroft  had  not  announced  his  intention 
in  regard  to  whom  he  would  support  for  United  States  Senator  at 
the  time  that  he  came  in,  had  he  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  was  my  understanding  that  he  was  for  Senator 
Stephenson.  If  I remember  correctly,  Mr.  McMahon  said  he  was 
for  Senator  Stephenson. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Who  said  that? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Mr.  McMahon. 

The  Chairman.  Did  Bancroft  say  so? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Not  to  me,  he  did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Was  not  Mr.  Bancroft’s  support  of  Senator 
Stephenson  during  that  campaign  for  the  primary  in  consideration 
of  Senator  Stephenson’s  supporting  Mr.  Bancroft,  or  Senator 
Stephenson’s  friends  supporting  Mr.  Bancroft? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  so  understand  it. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know  that  that  is  true  or  that  it  is 
not  true,  do  you  mean? 

Mr.  Sacket.  To  the  best  of  my  recollection  and  information,  I 
would  say  that  it  was  not  true. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  in  Madison  when  the  legislature  was 
organized,  or  during  the  contest  for  the  election  of  speaker? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir;  I was  not. 

.The  Chairman.  At  no  time? 

Mr.  Sacket.  At  no  time. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  communicate  with  any  member  of  the 
legislature  in  respect  to  the  selection  of  the  speaker  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  I had  some  conversation  with  the  member 
from  the  district  in  which  I lived. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  advise  him  or  urge  him  to  vote  for  Mr. 
Bancroft  for  speaker? 

Mr.  Sacket.  If  I remember  correctly,  he  told  me  voluntarily  that 
he  was  for  Bancroft;  that  Bancroft  would  be  a good  speaker,  and 
that  he  was  for  him. 


410 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


The  Chairman.  What  did  you  say  to  him? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I said  I was  glad  of  it.  I agreed  with  him. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  Mr.  Weisman? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I remember  him;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  testified  as  to  the  payments  made  to  Weis- 
man. You  also  testified  as  to  the  payments  to  Hambright.  We 
come  now  to  E.  J.  Rogers.  On  August  5 you  paid  Rogers  $50. 
What  did  you  pay  him  that  money  for? 

Mr.  Sacket.  For  expenses,  and  possibly  some  salary,  for  organ- 
izing, I think  it  was,  Grant  County ; either  Grant  or  Iowa  County. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  what  he  expended  the  money  for? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I received  reports  from  him  from  time  to  time. 

The  Chairman.  WTere  your  reports  in  writing? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  those  reports? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  not. 

The  Chairman.  Where  are  they  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Were  they  among  the  papers  that  you  destroyed, 
as  you  testified  when  you  were  on  the  stand  before? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  not. 

The  Chairman.  Where  do  you  think  they  are  now  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  they  were  left  with  the  State  legislative  com- 
mittee, at  Madison. 

The  Chairman.  You  paid  him  $300  on  August  22.  What  was  that 
for  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  that  was  for  hiring  teams  and  men  to  work 
at  the  polls. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  10  days  before  the  election? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Where  does  he  live? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  lives  in  Iowa  County,  I think. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  date  was  that? 

The  Chairman.  August  22,  page  592,  of  the  joint  committee  pro- 
ceedings. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I am  trying  to  check  these  names  with  a type- 
written list  that  Mr.  Sacket  has  furnished,  but  I do  not  find  Mr.  E.  J. 
Rogers  on  this  typewritten  list,  under  date  of  August  22. 

The  Chairman.  You  will  find  it  on  the  printed  page  592,  the  first 
item  under  date  of  August  22. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes ; I do  find  it  there.  It  did  not  get  onto  this 
typewritten  list. 

The  Chairman.  Did  Rogers  expend  any  of  that  money  for  the 
purchase  of  drinks  or  treats  of  any  kind  to  electors  of  the  State  as  an 
inducement  or  with  the  intention  of  creating  a feeling  that  would 
result  in  those  persons  supporting  Senator  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  He  may  have  expended  any  part  of  it  or  all  of  it 
for  that  purpose,  so  far  as  you  know? 

Mr.  Sacket.  My  recollection  would  be  quite  positive  that  he  did 
not  expend  all  of  it,  or  a very  large  part  of  it,  although  he  may  have 
made  some  expenditures  of  that  kind. 

At  12.30  o’clock  p.  m.  the  subcommittee  took  a recess  until  2 o’clock 
p.  m. 


RODNEY  SAOKET. 


411 


AFTER  RECESS. 

At  the  expiration  of  the  recess  the  subcommittee  reassembled. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  If  the  subcommittee  please,  Mr.  Brown,  who  is 
subpoenaed,  and  who  has  been  in  attendance,  I think,  nearly  every 
day,  is  cashier  of  a bank  in  Senator  Stephenson’s  home  town,  Mari- 
nette, and  while,  of  course,  I do  not  know  what  the  subcommittee 
may  have  in  mind  as  to  his  examination,  my  notion  is  that  it  will  be 
very  short.  It  would  be  quite  a great  personal  convenience  to  him 
if  the  subcommittee  could  examine  him  this  afternoon  and  excuse 
him.  I do  not  ask  that,  if  it  is  going  to  embarrass  the  subcommittee, 
but  it  would  be  a great  convenience  to  him.  There  is  very  little  that 
he  knows  about  the  matter,  I think ; but,  of  course,  the  subcommittee 
knows  what  it  desires  to  get  from  him. 

The  Chairman.  The  subcommittee  desire  to  accommodate  Mr. 
Brown,  but  we  dislike  to  break  in  on  Mr.  Sacket’s  testimony,  if  we 
can  finish  that  this  afternoon. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Would  it  do  to  have  this  understanding,  that  we 
will  suspend  with  Mr.  Sacket,  say,  15  or  20  minutes  before  adjourn- 
ment, this  afternoon,  for  the  purpose  of  examining  Mr.  Brown? 
Would  that  be  agreeable  to  the  subcommittee? 

The  Chairman.  There  is  another  witness,  Mr.  Kingsley,  whom  we 
promised  in  open  session  this  morning  we  would  hear. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I do  not  think  Mr.  Brown  would  want  to  incon- 
venience any  of  the  other  witnesses.  As  far  as  we  are  concerned, 
we  will  be  glad  to  do  everything  we  can,  not  only  to  meet  the  con- 
venience of  the  subcommittee,  but,  of  course,  the  convenience  of 
gentlemen  who  are  in  attendance  under  subpoena. 

The  Chairman.  The  subcommittee  desire  to  suit  the  convenience 
of  witnesses,  but  we  must  regard  promises  already  made. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Oh,  certainly. 

The  Chairman.  After  a very  few  days  we  will  undoubtedly  be 
quite  caught  up  with  the  witnesses. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I do  not  think  Mr.  Brown  would  want  the  sub- 
committee to  discommode  any  other  witnesses  for  his  convenience. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  give  Mr.  Brown  an  opportunity  to  testify 
during  the  afternoon  before  adjournment. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I doubt  very  much  whether  we  will  be  able  to  get 
through  with  Mr.  Sacket  this  afternoon,  because  there  are  quite  a 
good  many  details  I will  have  to  go  over,  and  I would  not  want 
Mr.  Brown  examined  to  the  inconvenience  of  Mr.  Kingsley. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Brown’s  testimony  occupies  about  three  pages 
in  the  former  examination,  but  how  long  it  will  occupy  at  this  time 
I can  not  undertake  to  say. 

Mr.  Riordan  has  requested  that  he  be  excused  until  Monday.  He 
may  be  excused  until  Monday,  next,  at  2 o’clock. 

TESTIMONY  OF  RODNEY  SACKET— Resumed. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Sacket,  I think  the  last  item  of  which  we 
inquired  of  you  was  “ E.  J.  Rogers.” 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  at  the  top  of  page  590  of  the  testimony 
taken  at  the  State  investigation. 


412 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


The  Chairman.  On  August  5,  you  paid  Mr.  Rogers  $50.  What  did 
you  give  him  that  money  for? 

Mr.  Sacket.  For  expenses.  Probably  some  of  it  was  for  salary 
for  promoting  Senator  Stephenson’s  candidacy  in  Iowa  County. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  “ probably.”  There  is  an  item  on  August 
22  of  $300,  and  one  on  October  16  of  $131.79,  moneys  paid  to  Mr. 
Rogers.  I think  you  have  already  testified  that  you  did  not  know 
how  much  of  that  was  for  salary  and  how  much  for  expenses. 

Mr.  Sacket.  There  is  nothing  in  this  account  which  discriminates 
between  expense  account  and  salary. 

The  Chairman.  I know,  but  your  recollection  is  appealed  to. 
What  recollection  have  you  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  My  recollection  is  that  any  amount  might  contain 
both  items — salary  and  expenses. 

The  Chairman.  What  would  be  the  maximum  of  this  item  that 
would  be  reasonably  charged  to  salary?  The  three  items  amount  to 
$481.79,  and  it  is  all  after  August  5. 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  was  to  receive  $3  a day  for  the  time  that  he 
worked  for  Mr.  Stephenson,  and  he  was  employed  probably  earlier 
than  August  5.  I should  think  that  $90  would  cover  the  amount,  in 
these  sums,  paid  him  as  salary,  and  the  rest  of  it  for  expenses. 

The  Chairman.  That  would  leave  $391.79,  money  for  which  he 
should  account? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  account  for  the  expenditure  of  that  money  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  did. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  the  account? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  have  it.  I do  not  have  it  now. 

The  Chairman.  Where  is  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  1 do  not  know. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  On  what  page  does  the  chairman  find  that  item 
under  the  date  of  October  16  ? I desire  to  check  it. 

The  Chairman.  The  item  of  August  5 is  on  page  590,  the  item  of 
August  22  is  on  page  592,  and  the  item  of  October  16  is  on  page  611. 

Mr.  Sacket.  My  last  recollection  of  seeing  his  account  was  in  the 
office  of  the  headquarters  in  the  Wells  Building.  That  is  my  last 
distinct  recollection. 

The  Chairman.  In  whose  office? 

Mr.  Sacket.  In  the  office — the  headquarters  of  the  Stephenson 
campaign. 

The  Chairman.  In  whose  office?  That  is,  who  occupied  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  In  my  own  office. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  saw  his  statement  of  account? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  say  whether  or  not  you  destroyed  that 
account  when  you  made  that  general  destruction  of  papers  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  think  I did.  It  was  not  my  intention  to 
do  so. 

The  Chairman.  May  it  still  be  in  that  office  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Who  occupies  that  office  now? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  have  a desk  there  in  which  these  papers 
were  kept? 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


413 


Mr.  Sacket.  I did. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  lock  that  desk  when  you  left  the  office  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Do  you  mean  when  I left  it  finally  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember  whether  I locked  the  desk  or  not 
when  I left  the  office  finally. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  leave  anyone  in  charge  of  that  desk? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  the  office  was  closed  when  I left  it  finally. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  think  the  paper  was  left  in  the  office  then  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  what  do  you  think  about  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  the  paper  ultimately  found  its  way  to  the 
State  committee,  with  a lot  of  other  papers  that  I produced  there. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  do  you  mean  by  the  State  committee  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  joint  committee  investigating  the  election  of  Sen- 
ator Stephenson. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  not  a State  committee  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  A moment.  You  were  the  custbdian  of  that  paper. 
Was  there  anyone  else  authorized  to  produce  that  paper  before  that 
committee  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Not  to  my  knowledge;  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  produce  it  before  that  committee? 

Mr.  Sacket.  To  the  best  of  my  recollection,  I did. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  testify  relative  to  the  items  in  that  state- 
ment? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember  testifying  to  any  of  them. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  remember  whether  or  not  in  the  account 
rendered  you  by  Mr.  Rogers  it  was  shown  that  money  had  been  ex- 
pended for  treats,  liquors,  and  cigars? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not. 

The  Chairman.  And  can  you  say  that  no  part  of  that  money  was 
sp  ' 1 ™ ^ J hose  purposes  ? 


The  Chairman.  Where  does  Mr.  Rogers  live  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  In  Iowa  County.  I do  not  remember  the  name  of 
the  town. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  him  personally  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  I would  know  him  if  I were  to  see  him  now. 

The  Chairman.  What  does  he  do  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  was  the  agent  of  an  express  company  there,  I 
think. 

The  Chairman.  In  charge  of  the  express  office? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Either  in  charge  or  working  in  the  office,  I am  not 
certain  which.  I think  he  was  in  charge. 

The  Chairman.  You  think  he  was  in  charge — the  head  man? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Could  he  leave  the  express  office  and  canvass  a 
county  or  part  of  a State? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  said  he  could. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  do  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  said  he  did. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  as  a fact  whether  he  did  perform 
any  services  of  that  kind  ? 


414 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Mr.  Sacket.  Only  from  recollection  of  his  statements  to  me. 

The  Chairman.  The  next  item  is  “ Rowe.”  We  have  already  dis- 
posed of  that,  have  we  not? 

Senator  Pomerene.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I have  checked  up  that  item  and  then  the  suc- 
ceeding item,  “ Rowe,”  under  August  10. 

The  Chairman.  The  next  item  is  “ C.  C.  Wayland.” 

Mr.  Sacket.  I know  nothing  about  that. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Edmonds  testified  that  he  knew  nothing 
about  him. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What,  C.  C.  Wayland? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  He  is  Mr.  Edmonds’  partner  in  business.  Mr. 
Edmonds  went  over  that  item  again  and  again.  The  chairman  must 
be  mistaken. 

The  Chairman.  I have  it  marked  here  in  my  memorandum  with 
a cipher  in  front  of  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  chairman  must  be  wrong  about  that,  be- 
cause Mr.  Edmonds  went  over  that  item  again  and  again. 

The  Chairman.  I have  the  item  on  the  memorandum  and  opposite 
it  the  word  “ Sacket  ” written. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  As  the  judge  in  the  Pickwick  case  said,  you  have 
got  it  down  wrong. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Edmonds  testified  as  to  knowledge  of  other 
items,  and  as  to  this  particular  item  he  said  he  knew  nothing  about  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  If  the  subcommittee  please,  the  next  item  I have 
is  “Iowa  County,  L.  H.  Stevens,”  which,  according  to  my  memo- 
randum, is  unaccounted  for  by  anybody.  That  is,  up  to  date. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Edmonds  testified  that  he  had  knowledge  of 
the  item  of  $100,  July  27,  to  Wayland,  and  of  the  item  of  $300  of 
August  31  to  Wayland,  and  left  you  to  account  for  the  item  of 
August  5,  of  $48.18,  August  7,  of  $250,  and  August  22,  of  $500.  That 
is  according  to  my  record,  which  is  quite  explicit.  I will  now  recur 
to  that  item  of  $48.18. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  If  the  chairman  will  give  me  those  dates  I will 
look  up  the  particular  items.  I have  just  had  the  items  indexed. 

The  Chairman.  The  items  that  Mr.  Edmonds  identified  are 
marked  “ Edmonds,”  and  those  that  he  did  not  undertake  to  identify 
are  the  ones  that  I have  named. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Will  the  chairman  give  them  to  me  again,  please, 
in  order  that  I may  check  them  up  in  my  memorandum  ? 

The  Chairman."  It  will  be  an  overlap  in  any  event.  I will  give 
them  to  counsel,  but  no  serious  breach  will  occur  by  reason  of  asking 
this  witness  about  them. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  No;  but  I want  to  be  sure  to  get  them  in  in  the 
end. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  the  intention  of  the  subcommittee,  that 
they  shall  all  be  in.  Coming  now  to  the  item  of  August  5,  $49.18, 
found  at  page  590  of  the  account,  will  you  state  whether  or  not  you 
know  of  the  payment  of  that  money  to  Mr.  Wayland  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  absolutely  no  recollection  of  it  whatever. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  are  not  able  to  account  for  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I am  not;  no,  sir. 


RODNEY  SACKET.  415 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  able  to  account  for  the  item  of  August  7 
of  $250  paid  to  Wayland? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I am  not. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Edmonds  has  given  us  some  information  on 
that  item.  You  have  none? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  none  whatever. 

The  Chairman.  Take  the  item  of  August  22,  of  $500.  Have  you 
any  information  in  regard  to  that  item? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  absolutely  no  recollection  of  having  anything 
to  do  with  it. 

The  Chairman.  You  can  add  nothing  to  what  Mr.  Edmonds  said? 
Mr.  Edmonds  has  given  us  the  $300  item.  I will  say  to  counsel  I 
have  this  posted  up  and  indexed,  so  that  I am  speaking  from  such 
information  as  I have  before  me. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Of  course,  I was  giving  only  my  general  recollec- 
tion. If  the  chairman  has  a duplicate  of  that  index  to  which  he 
refers,  I think  perhaps  it  would  help  me  in  working  out  the  details. 

The  Chairman.  The  clerks  have  been  working  at  it  for  the  most  of 
two  nights.  I understand  they  have  not  made  any  copy.  It  has 
been  very  difficult  work  that  required  constant  reference  from  one 
item  to  another.  It  has  not  as  yet  been  copied. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  We  are  trying  to  have  a similar  thing  done  in 
Mr.  Black’s  office,  but  up  to  date  have  not  got  around  to  it. 

The  Chairman.  “ L.  H.  Stevens,  Iowa  County,  August  5,  $28.93.” 
That  item  Mr.  Edmonds  has  referred  to  your  knowledge.  What  do 
you  know  about  that  payment? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  was  expense  money  for  Mr.  Stevens,  who  was  to 
organize  Iowa  County  for  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  agree  with  you  that  he  would  perform  any 
service  in  the  nature  of  inducing  electors  to  vote  for  Senator  Stephen- 
son? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  did;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  pay  him  the  money  for  that  purpose  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  what  he  did,  if  anything,  pursuant 
to  that  arrangement? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Only  from  his  report  to  me. 

The  Chairman.  Was  the  report  in  writing? 

Mr.  Sacket.  His  report  was  in  writing ; yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Where  is  the  report? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  was  placed  with  other  papers  of  a similar  nature, 
and  I have  no  exact  recollection  of  the  final  disposition  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  would  not  be  able  to  account  for  any 
item  in  the  statement  were  it  present.  Is  that  true? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I could  not  say  whether  I would  know  of  any  item  in 
his  statement  of  expenses  unless  I would  see  his  statement.  That 
might  remind  me. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  turn  this  statement  over  to  the  legislative 
committee  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  that  is  what  I did  with  all  of  them,  eventually. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  keep  a memorandum  of  the  state- 
ments which  you  turned  over  to  this  legislative  committee? 


416 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  the  Stevens  item.  You  paid  him,  on 
August  22,  $300.  What  was  that  for  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  was  for  hiring  teams  and  men  at  the  polls,  I 
think. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  use  the  money  represented  by  that  item  for 
hiring  men  to  haul  persons  to  the  polls  as  an  inducement  for  them  to 
vote  for  Senator  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  absolute  knowledge  of  what  he  did  do. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  what  you  employed  him  to  do,  was  it 
not? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not  instruct  him  to  haul  men  for  that  purpose ; 
no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  instructions  did  you  give  him  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  My  instructions  were  to  the  effect  that  he  should 
provide  these  teams  and  men  in  order  to  bring  people  to  the  polls — 
men  who  intended  to  vote  for  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  do  as  you  had  instructed  him? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  report  to  you  that  he  had  done  so? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  made  no  report  to  me  after  the  primary  of  this 
$300. 

The  Chairman.  You  paid  him  $200  before  the  primaries  on  Au- 
gust 31.  For  what  was  that  payment? 

Mr.  Sacket.  According  to  my  best  recollection  that  was  his  salary 
for  services. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  was  he  to  receive? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Two  hundred  dollars. 

The  Chairman.  Then  on  October  16  you  paid  him  another  $200. 
What  was  that  for?  You  paid  him  in  all  $728.92. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I remember  that  he  put  in  a claim  for  $200  more  after 
the  primary  was  all  over,  for  money  that  he  had  expended  and  not 
accounted  for — not  collected  before.  That  last  $200,  on  the  16th  of 
October,  was  to  settle  his  claim. 

The  Chairman.  He  was  an  entertainer,  was  he  not  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  A man  who  spent  money  entertaining  electors? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know  what  he  did. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  him  personally? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I knew  him  at  that  time ; yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Where  does  he  reside? 

Mr.  Sacket.  At  Lancaster,  in  Grant  County,  I think. 

The  Chairman.  Where  is  that,  from  this  city? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  is  south  and  west  of  Milwaukee,  almost  across 
the  State. 

The  Chairman.  Was  not  this  money  given  him  to  use  in  enter- 
taining electors,  with  a view  of  creating  a friendly  feeling  for  Sen- 
ator Stephenson? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  was  part  of  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  given 
him,  I think. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  his  occupation? 

Mr.  Sacket.  A banker. 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


417 


The  Chairman.  He  is  a man  socially  inclined,  is  he  not? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I could  not  say. 

The  Chairman.  He  did  not  go  around  and  personally  talk  with 
people  throughout  the  community  in  regard  to  this  matter,  or  in 
favor  of  Senator  Stephenson,  did  he? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  led  me  to  believe  he  would  do  that  before  I paid 
him  the  money. 

The  Chairman.  Go  around  and  personally  solicit  support  for  Sen- 
ator Stephenson? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  He  was  not  a man  who  would  go  out  at  night 
and  call  town  meetings,  was  he,  and  address  them  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know  that  he  was.  He  did  not  tell  me  he 
would  do  that. 

The  Chairman.  He  would  not  be  apt  to  do  that,  would  he? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  think  so. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  not  expect  him  to? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  not  expect  Mr.  Stevens  to  do  what  is 
generally  termed,  get  right  down  with  the  boys  and  hobnob  with 
them. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know  of  any  reason  why  Mr.  Stevens  should 
not  be  ordinarily  sociable  with  the  voters  of  his  district. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  any  knowledge  as  to  his  expending 
any  money  for  any  purpose? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  reported  the  items  of  this  amount,  $28.92,  in 
writing  to  me.  According  to  my  recollection  that  $28.92  was  the 
amount  of  a statement  he  sent  me  in  writing  of  his  expenditures  up 
to  the  time  that  statement  was  received. 

The  Chairman.  After  that  the  payments  were  in  round  sums? 
The  time  that  elapsed  before  he  made  further  application  for  money 
was  between  August  5 and  August  22  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  A great  many  of  these  items  under  August  22  were, 
as  I remember  them,  for  employing  teams  and  workers  at  the  polls. 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  right  sure  of  that? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  is  my  recollection. 

The  Chairman.  We  have  Mr.  Stevens’s  testimony  here  now.  He 
testifies  that  his  salary  was  $200,  so  that  that  leaves  $528.92  to 
account  for,  outside  of  his  salary. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  On  what  page  of  the  hearing  is  that? 

Senator  Pomerene.  4581. 

The  Chairman.  He  testifies  on  page  4581  of  the  so-called  State 
investigation,  in  response  to  the  inquiry  as  to  whether  he  got  anything 
for  salary,  that  he  received  $200,  and  says  that  he  spent  all  of  the 
balance  in  the  way  that  he  has  indicated.  He  says  he  received  a 
little  less  than  $800.  We  have  the  exact  amount,  however.  It  was 
$728.92. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I have  forgotten  what  Mr.  Sacket  said  the  salary 
was. 

Mr.  Sacket.  $200. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  your  recollection! 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

15235° — vol  1—11 27 


418 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


The  Chairman.  He  says  on  page  4580  that  he  thinks  the  largest 
sum  he  gave  to  any  one  party  was  $40,  and  that  he  gave  it  to  a man 
named  Howard  McNett,  at  Cuba  City.  He  says : 

That  was  organizing  or  taking  care  of  four  towns  or  parts.  It  would  be 
equivalent  to  about  four  towns. 

Mr.  Sacket,  have  you  any  knowledge  of  that  expenditure  by  this 
man? 

Mr.  Sacket.  None  whatever. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  ever  report  that  to  you? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  did  not. 

The  Chairman.  He  says  he  thinks  he  paid  one  liveryman  about 
thirty  or  thirty-five  dollars,  William  Weller,  a Lancaster  liveryman, 
and  that  he  paid  another  one  about  $20.  Did  he  ever  report  those 
facts  to  you  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No;  he  did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Never  mentioned  that  to  you.  He  was  examined 
as  follows: 

Q.  Were  any  of  these  rigs  used  for  carrying  voters  to  the  polls? — A.  No. 

Q.  This  was  before  primary  day? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Any  other  large  sum  of  expenditure  that  you  can  recall? — A.  A fellow  by 
the  name  of  Jansen,  F.  P.  Jansen,  of  Platteville.  I paid  him  about  $25. 

Did  he  ever  report  that  fact  to  you  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Never. 

The  Chairman.  He  was  further  asked : 

Q.  What  was  that  paid  for? — A.  That  was  for  work  in  Platteville. 

Q.  Anyone  else? — A.  These,  I think,  are  the  large  amounts;  the  others  ranged 
from  $2  to  $5  and  were  distributed  over  the  county.  Left  a trail  wherever  I 
went. 

Did  he  ever  report  to  you  that  he  was  spending  money  in  that  way  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Never. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Leaving  a trail. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  said  you  thought  that  this  man  rendered 
an  account  with  you  and  you  left  it  with  the  committee  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  rendered  an  account  of  the  $28.92. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  left  that  with  the  committee ; but  of  these 
other  sums  he  rendered  no  account  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  any  account  or  explanation 
made  to  me. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Why  did  you  accept  and  receive  an  account  for 
$28.92  and  not  receive  one  for  over  $700? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I received  this  $28.92  account  because  it  was  sent  to 
me.  I did  not  receive  the  other  because  he  did  not  send  it  to  me. 

The  Chairman.  You  never  made  any  effort  to  get  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  you  can  give  no  further  account  about  the 
item  to  Mr.  Stevens.  We  come  now  to  the  item  of  Kewaunee  County 
on  August  5,  $75.  To  whom  did  you  give  that  money  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  that  item. 

The  Chairman.  To  recur  to  Mr.  Stevens  for  a moment,  was  he 
operating  in  Grant  County  or  in  Iowa  County  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  was  operating  in  Grant  County,  as  I remember  it. 

The  Chairman.  In  this  record  of  the  State  investigation  it  is  Iowa. 
I had  a note  that  it  was  Grant. 


RODNEY  SACKET.  419 

To  return  to  the  Kewaunee  County  item,  you  say  you  know  nothing 
of  that  item  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  it  whatever. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Edmonds  said  he  knew  nothing  about  it. 
Who  would? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Is  there  any  source  from  which  we  can  gather 
information  as  to  whom  that  $75  was  paid? 

Mr.  Sacket.  None  that  I know  of. 

The  Chairman.  Or  what  it  was  used  for  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No  source  that  I know  of. 

The  Chairman.  How  did  you  come  to  put  it  in  this  account?  Was 
it  on  a card  in  your  card  index  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  In  whose  handwriting  was  the  notation  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  recollect  that  particular  notation,  but  all  of 
the  writing  was  mine,  so  I presume  this  must  have  been  mine. 

The  Chairman.  You  had  on  a card,  presumed  to  be  in  your  hand- 
writing, an  item  of  $75,  Kewaunee  County,  as  having  been  paid  out 
of  the  Stephenson  campaign  fund? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  do  not  know  to  whom  it  was  paid,  what 
it  was  paid  for,  or  what  it  was  intended  to  be  used  for  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Take  the  item  of  R.  J.  Shields,  August  6,  for 
advertising.  Do  you  know  anything  of  that  item  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Edmonds  knew  nothing  of  that.  I have  it 
marked  on  my  notes  with  a cipher  in  front  of  it,  which  indicates  that 
Mr.  Edmonds  had  no  knowledge  in  regard  to  it,  that  it  was  one  of 
those  items  which  belonged  to  your  department.  Do  you  know  any- 
thing about  it,  or  what  do  you  know  about  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  paying  Mr.  Shields  any 
money  at  any  time  or  making  any  arrangement  with  him. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  him  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do. 

The  Chairman.  What  does  he  do? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  he  is  in  the  real  estate  and  insurance  business. 

The  Chairman.  Where? 

Mr.  Sacket.  At  Superior,  Wis. 

The  Chairman.  You  just  paid  him  the  one  sum? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  paying  him  that. 

The  Chairman.  Then  you  have  no  recollection  of  having  any 
voucher  or  contract  from  him? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  item  here  is  the  only  thing  that  I know  about, 
and  it  does  not  refresh  my  memory  to  the  extent  of  enabling  me  to 
remember  any  circumstance  of  the  kind. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  go  now  to  the  next  item  of  $75  to  J.  C. 
Miller.  I think  we  have  had  that. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I have  it  checked  off  on  my  list  as  having  been 
gone  over  in  the  aggregate  with  the  other  items  at  some  time.  I 
think  you  called  attention  to  that,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  I have  it  marked  here.  There  were  six  pay- 
ments made  to  J.  C.  Miller,  and  he  testified  in  regard  to  that. 


420 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Kewaunee  County,  $100  on  the  7th  of  August.  Mr.  Edmonds  says 
he  has  no  knowledge  of  that  payment.  Have  you  any  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  none. 

The  Chairman.  No  recollection  whatever? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No  recollection  whatever. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know  to  whom  it  was  paid,  nor  for 
what  purpose? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not. 

The  Chairman.  The  next  item  is  Racine  County,  $100.  Have  you 
any  knowledge  of  that? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No  absolute  knowledge;  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  kind  of  knowledge  have  you? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I remember  the  man  we  employed  in  Racine  County. 

The  Chairman.  To  whom  you  paid  this  money? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I should  presume  the  money  was  paid  to  him,  be- 
cause it  says  Racine  County. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  the  name? 

Mr.  Sacket.  J.  R.  Jones. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  pay  him  $100? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I paid  him  money  at  different  times.  I presume  this 
is  one  of  the  items,  but  I would  not  be  positive  about  it. 

The  Chairman.  I find  that  you  paid  him  altogether  $783.50.  You 
have  a recollection  of  paying  Mr.  Jones  money,  have  you? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  a recollection  of  paying  him  some  money. 

The  Chairman.  On  August  14,  at  page  591,  we  find  an  item  that 
you  paid  him  of  $350.  Is  that  the  same  J.  R.  Jones? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  pay  him  that  first  $100  for? 

Mr.  Sacket.  For  expenses  in  organizing  Racine  County. 

The  Chairman.  What  do  you  mean  by  “ organizing  ” Racine 
County  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Doing  those  things  which  were  necessary  to  secure 
the  largest  possible  vote  for  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  In  whose  judgment  was  the  work  to  be  per- 
formed— under  instructions  from  you? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Under  instructions  from  me  and  in  his  judgment 
generally. 

The  Chairman.  What  instructions  did  you  give  him  as  to  the 
manner  of  expending  that  money? 

Mr.  Sacket.  My  instructions  were  to  conduct  the  campaign  as 
decently  as  possible  and  to  keep  within  the  law  under  all  circum- 
stances. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Why  did  you  use  the  word  “ decently  99  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I meant  to  enjoin  him  not  to  go  into  saloons 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  remember  that  you  used  the  word  “ de- 
cently 99  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  was  a word  that  I used  to  a great  many  men. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Was  there  some  indecent  conduct  that  made 
you  use  the  word  “ decently  ” ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Not  in  the  Stephenson  campaign,  that  I know  of. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  how  much  of  that  $100  that  you 
paid  him  on  August  7 was  expended  for  treats,  liquors,  cigars,  or 
entertainment  of  any  kind  to  electors? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not. 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


421 


The  Chairman.  Was  any  part  of  that  for  his  own  use? 

Mr.  Sacket.  As  I remember,  he  did  not  receive  any  salary.  I 
would  not  be  absolutely  positive,  but  that  is  my  recollection. 

The  Chairman.  On  August  14  you  paid  him  $350.  What  was  that 
for? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  same  purpose,  as  I remember  it. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  render  you  an  account  for  that  money? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember  that  Mr.  Jones  ever  did. 

The  Chairman.  On  August  29  you  paid  him  $100.  What  was  that 
for? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  same  purpose,  I think. 

The  Chairman.  On  August  31  you  paid  him  $150.  What  was  that 
for? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  same  purpose,  I think. 

The  Chairman.  On  September  5 you  paid  him  $183.50.  Do  you 
know  what  you  gave  him  that  money  for? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  positive  recollection  of  that  particular  item, 
but  from  the  fact  that  it  was  on  September  5,  after  the  primary,  and 
among  other  items  of  the  kind,  I think  it  was  the  final  settlement. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  render  you  a statement  on  which  settlement 
was  made? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I believe  he  did. 

The  Chairman.  Where  is  that  statement? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  think  the  statement  was  itemized,  if  I re- 
member correctly,  and  in  that  case  it  was  destroyed. 

The  Chairman.  You  paid  him  altogether  $883.50  between  August 
7 and  September  5.  Did  he  account  to  you  in  writing,  by  items,  for 
any  of  that  money,  or  the  use  that  he  had  made  of  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  did  not,  to  the  best  of  my  recollection. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  including  that  first  hundred  dollars  wThich 
you  say  is  charged  to  Racine  County;  but  you  say  that  is  Mr.  Jones. 
Who  is  Mr.  Jones? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  is  Mr.  Jones  of  Racine  County.  I do  not  remem- 
ber what  his  business  was.  He  is  in  some  business  there,  employed 
in  some  way,  lives  in  the  city  of  Racine  and  is  commonly  known  as 
Junior  Jones. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  meet  him  personally? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  meet  him? 

Mr.  Sacket.  During  the  campaign.  I do  not  remember  the  exact 
date. 

The  Chairman.  Was  he  present  at  the  time  this  money  was  paid, 
or  did  you  pay  it  to  him  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  first  hundred  dollars  you  refer  to  ? 

The  Chairman.  Any  of  these  items? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  all  the  money  that  was  paid  him  was  sent  to 
him  by  cashier’s  check  or  draft,  to  Racine,  by  mail. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Why  is  not  the  number  of  the  draft  here  ? 

The  Chairman.  On  August  14,  Racine  County,  the  number  is 
given,  33560. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Not  the  29th? 

The  Chairman.  That  item,  of  $100,  Racine,  has  initials  of 
“E.  A.  E.” 


422 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Mr.  Sacket.  That  was  probably  by  direction  of  Mr.  Edmonds 
that  that  money  was  sent,  and  he  may  have  sent  it  himself. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  say  to  the  committee  how  much,  if  any, 
of  this  sum  of  money,  $883.50,  given  by  the  campaign  committee  of 
Senator  Stephenson,  out  of  the  moneys  of  Senator  Stephenson,  was 
expended  by  Mr.  J ones  for  treating,  entertaining  electors  of  the  State, 
in  order  that  they  might  be  induced  to  support  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I can  not. 

The  Chairman.  And  so  far  as  you  know  it  may  all  have  been  spent 
in  that  way.  Is  that  true? 

Mr.  Sacket.  So  far  as  I have  any  absolute  knowledge ; yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Who  would  know  how  that  money  was  spent  and 
be  able  to  testify  to  it  at  this  time  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  knowledge  of  anyone,  of  my  own  knowledge. 

The  Chairman.  Give  us  a little  more  information  as  to  Mr.  Jones. 
In  what  business  is  he  engaged  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember. 

The  Chairman.  In  what  business  was  he  engaged  at  the  time  you 
paid  him  this  money  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember. 

The  Chairman.  How  did  you  first  come  to  pay  Jones  the  money? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  came  to  the  Milwaukee  headquarters  and  I talked 
to  him.  We  agreed  on  the  method  of  conducting  the  campaign,  and 
I either  gave  him  money  at  that  time  or  sent  it  to  him  afterwards 
with  which  to  conduct  it. 

The  Chairman.  Was  he  a member  of  the  State  central  committee 
or  of  any  branch  of  the  political  organization  of  the  State  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  was  not,  to  my  recollection,  at  that  time. 

The  Chairman.  Was  he  a man  in  public  office? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Not  that  I know  of. 

The  Chairman.  Was  he  a lawyer? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  not. 

The  Chairman.  Who  introduced  him  to  you  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  Mr.  Hambright  sent  him  in. 

The  Chairman.  When  you  say  “ sent  him  in,”  what  do  you  mean  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Asked  him  or  requested  him  to  come  in  to  Milwaukee 
and  come  to  headquarters  and  see  Mr.  Edmonds  or  me. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  tell  you  Mr.  Hambright  had  sent  him  in  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Mr.  Hambright  wrote  me  about  him,  I believe,  to 
start  with. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Is  that  C.  M.  Hambright  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes ; the  man  spoken  of  before. 

The  Chairman.  Was  Mr.  Hambright  a member  of  the  legislature? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  was  not  at  this  time  or  afterwards ; I think  years 
ago  he  was. 

The  Chairman.  On  the  strength  of  Mr.  Hambright’s  suggestion, 
you  paid  him  this  sum  of  money  ? What  position  did  Mr.  Hambright 
occupy,  that  his  recommendation  was  good  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Mr.  Hambright  was  employed  by  the  Stephenson 
headquarters  to  go  around  the  State  and  make  investigations  and 
report  to  us  as  to  the  ability  of  certain  persons  whom  we  might  hire 
or  employ  or  use. 

The  Chairman.  Now,  we  will  pass  to  the  item  on  August  8,  under 
the  head  of  “ General.”  What  was  “ General,  $250  ”? 


RODNEY  SOCKET. 


423 


Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  at  all  as  to  that  item. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Edmonds  has  no  recollection  in  regard  to  it. 
Where  are  we  to  get  information  as  to  who  paid  the  money  and  what 
it  was  used  for? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  We  pass  next  to  the  item  of  Mr.  Rowe. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  date  is  that  ? If  it  is  the  18th,  I have  that 
checked.  You  having  had  Mr.  Rowe  before,  I checked  it,  because  I 
think  you  called  attention  to  it. 

The  Chairman.  I find  I have  Mr.  Rowe  checked,  too. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Then  I am  right. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  G.  Dettmann,  $50,  on  August  8.  What  do  you 
know  about  that  item? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  it  at  all. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I have  that  checked  to  Mr.  Edmonds  on  my  list. 
If  the  chairman’s  list  shows  a cipher,  I will  have  that  looked  up. 

The  Chairman.  The  record  shows  that  on  August  8 you  paid 
Dettman  $50,  and  on  September  5 paid  him  $25.  Have  you  any 
recollection  as  to  either  of  those  items? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  any  payments  to  Dettman 
at  all. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Edmonds  testified  that  he  had  no  recollec- 
tion, and  that  you  would  know.  You  have  no  recollection? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir;  I have  not. 

The  Chairman.  On  pages  590  and  595  of  the  printed  report  of 
the  joint  investigation. 

Senator  Pomerene.  September  5,  on  page  595. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I have  both  of  those  checked  off  to  Mr.  Ed- 
monds, but  I will  look  the  record  up. 

The  Chairman.  Now,  we  have  O.  L.  Gust,  $300  on  August  8. 
Mr.  Edmonds  says  he  knows  nothing  of  that  payment  and  refers  us 
to  you.  What  do  you  know  of  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  think  Mr.  Gust  received  $300  on  that  date. 
I have  it  marked  in  this  book  showing  that  he  received  $25,  and  the 
$300  is  a misprint. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  the  item  you  explained. 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  is  one  of  the  items. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  the  only  one. 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  is  the  only  one  I have  explained  so  far. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Edmonds  says  that  he  received  $300  on  Au- 
gust 8,  $18  on  August  28,  and  $60  on  October  16. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  If  you  will  look  back  to  Exhibit  47  you  will  find 
that  item  of  $25  under  date  of  August  8,  Grant  County,  organizing, 
and  Dane  County,  organizing,  $300 ; but  the  $25  is  left  out  here. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  reference  to  page  477  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Page  477.  I think  that  there  is  evidently  an 
omission  there. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  item  of  $300  was  carried  forward  from 
Exhibit  47  into  Exhibit  49,  and  the  item  of  $25  does  not  appear. 

Mr.  Sacket.  And  they  have  the  wrong  names  and  the  wrong  lo- 
cality. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  explained  about  that  item  when  you  under- 
took to  explain  the  discrepancies  between  the  two  accounts? 


424 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  In  Exhibit  47,  which  was  the  first  statement 
made,  the  item  stands,  “ Dane  County,  organizing,  $25.” 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  In  the  second  exhibit,  49,  which  this  witness  has 
testified  was  in  the  nature  of  a correction  of  the  former  exhibit,  we 
find  on  August  8,  “ Dane  County,  O.  R.  Gust,  $300.” 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  say  that  is  the  same  item  as  the  $25  item 
in  the  first  exhibit? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  item  should  appear  Grant  County,  O.  L.  Gust, 
$25,  instead  of  $300. 

The  Chairman.  The  change  was  made  when  you  were  correcting 
the  other  statement? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Just  a moment,  please;  I did  not  get  the  chair- 
man’s statement.  When  did  you  say  the  change  was  made? 

The  Chairman.  This  witness  has  testified  that  he  made  Exhibit 
47  first,  and  then  made  Exhibit  49  as  a correction  or  elaboration 
of  47. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  I merely  want  the  record  to  show  that  the  error 
was  made  at  the  time  of  the  attempted  correction  of  Exhibit  47. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  but  I do  not  understand  the  witness  so  to 
state.  I understand  the  witness  to  say  that  there  are  errors  in  49, 
and  this  is  one  of  the  things  that  demonstrates  the  error. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  just  what  I have  stated. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Not  that  he  made  an  original  error  when  he 
made  his  exhibit. 

The  Chairman.  I was  endeavoring  to  straighten  this  out  for  the 
witness  by  reference  to  the  exhibits  by  numbers. 

Senator  Sutherland.  The  witness  stated  this  morning  that  the 
items  of  charge  to  Gust  should  be  $25,  and  that  that  should  be  fol- 
lowed by  an  item  of  $300  to  Ames  for  organizing  Dane  County. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes ; that  is  right. 

Senator  Sutherland.  So  that,  as  I understand  the  position  of  the 
witness,  it  is  that  in  printing  this  document  the  items  have  been  con- 
fused, and  one  of  them  omitted. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I presume  it  comes  to  that,  yes.  The  $25  item  is 
omitted  altogether.  The  $25  should  be  attributed  to  Gust,  but  that 
item  appears  as  $300  instead  of  $25.  That  is,  instead  of  attributing 
$25  to  Gust,  Exhibit  49  attributes  $300  to  him. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I understand  the  witness  to  say  that  the  $25 
was  paid  to  Gust? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  the  way  I understand  it. 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  original  statement,  which  was  afterwards  marked 
44  Exhibit  49,”  made  by  me,  showed  the  payment  to  Gust  of  $25  and 
not  $300. 

The  Chairman.  The  mistake  is  in  Exhibit  47. 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir.  Exhibit  49,  from  which  this  printed  copy 
is  supposed  to  have  been  made,  my  statement  which  was  marked 
44  Exhibit  49,”  of  which  this  is  supposed  to  be  a copy,  had  the  item 
in  it, 44  Gust  $25,  and  Dane  County,  Ames,  $300.” 

Senator  Sutherland.  The  items  are  correctly  stated  in  Exhibit  47  ? 


RODNEY  SACKET.  425 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  items  are  correct  in  47,  and  they  were  correct  in 
49,  as  I submitted  it. 

The  Chairman.  Let  me  correct  the  witness  here.  Exhibit  47  is 
the  statement  of  the  witness,  and  so  marked,  and  it  was  put  in  while 
you,  Mr.  Sacket,  were  on  the  witness  stand.  It  is  the  statement  to 
which  you  are  testifying.  That  is  Exhibit  47.  Exhibit  49  came  in 
while  Mr.  Edmonds  was  on  the  stand.  So  keep  these  numbers  in 
mind.  Your  statement  47  is  as  you  say  it  should  be? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Edmonds’s  statement,  Exhibit  49,  is  not  as  you 
say  it  should  be,  so  the  correction  is  being  made  in  Mr.  Edmonds’s 
exhibit  and  not  in  yours. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I am  afraid  the  chairman  is  liable  to  get  the 
thing  mixed  on  the  record.  I do  not  understand  that  Mr.  Edmonds 
testified  at  any  time  that  he  made  Exhibit  49. 

Senator  Sutherland.  No;  but  the  statement  was  put  in  in  con- 
nection with  his  testimony  while  he  was  on  the  witness  stand. 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  The  witness  does  not  say  that  there  is  any 
mistake  in  49  at  all.  He  says  that  in  copying  49  this  was  omitted, 
but  the  original  Exhibit  49  will  be  found  to  be  correct. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  as  to  this  item.  He  has  not  gone  so  far 
as  to  say  that  the  whole  of  it  is  correct.  I do  not  know  what  he  will 
say  about  that,  but  up  to  date,  as  to  this  item,  I understand  him  to 
say  that  47  is  correct. 

The  Chairman.  We  do  not  need  to  tarry  longer  over  it,  because  the 
question  is  whether  or  not  that  sum  of  money  was  expended  law- 
fully. I will  ask  you,  Mr.  Sacket,  how  it  was  expended  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  the  $25 — none  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  Now,  I will  mark  Mr.  Gust  off.  You  say  the  item 
of  $300  to  Gust  on  August  8 is  not  correct  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  is  not  correct. 

The  Chairman.  And  that  that  should  be  the  $25  item? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  How  about  the  item  of  $18  paid  on  August  28  to 
Mr.  Gust  ? That  is  correct,  is  it  not,  on  page  593  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  knowledge  of  its  being  incorrect. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  that  you  paid  him  the  money  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember  making  any  payment  to  Mr.  Gust. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  marked  here  “ Baraboo,  E.  A.  E.,  O.  L.  Gust, 
$18.”  Does  that  recall  the  circumstances  to  your  mind? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir;  it  does  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Which  one  is  this  now? 

The  Chairman.  August  28.  What  did  you  pay  Gust  $60  for  on 
October  16?  You  will  find  that  on  page  612  at  the  top  of  the  page. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  that  particular  item, 
although  I paid  all  of  the  items  in  that  schedule,  and  they  were  all 
paid  on  statements  of  persons  to  the  effect  that  they  had  expended 
the  money  and  we  owed  it  to  them. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  they  expend  it  for? 

Mr.  Sacket.  In  Mr.  Stephenson’s  interest. 

The  Chairman.  I know,  but  for  what  purpose? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember  the  details. 


426 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


The  Chairman.  So  that  you  are  unable  to  account  for  that  ex- 
penditure ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I am  unable  to  account  for  it. 

The  Chairman.  This  general  item  on  August  8 you  say  you  do 
not  know  anything  about  at  all  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  it  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  Now  we  come  down  to  Mr.  Rowe,  and  we  have 
already  asked  you  as  to  him.  We  come  to  another  general  item  of 
$150.  What  did  you  expend  that  money  for  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  it  whatever. 

The  Chairman.  Is  there  any  person  who  can  give  any  informa- 
tion in  regard  to  that? 

Mr.  Sacket.  None  that  I know  of. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Will  the  chairman  give  me  that  date? 

The  Chairman.  That  is  August  10,  the  last  item,  “ general.”  Now 
this  item  C.  D.  Smith,  Fond  du  Lac,  August  12,  $50;  we  have  referred 
to  you  for  information  in  regard  to  that.  What  did  you  pay  that 
money  for? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I remember  Mr.  Smith  in  Fond  du  Lac.  He  was 
doing  some  campaign  work  for  Mr.  Stephenson,  and  I remember 
giving  him  some  money  to  cover  his  expenses. 

The  Chairman.  Just  expenses? 

Mr.  Sacket.  To  my  best  recollection,  that  is  all  that  he  asked  for. 

The  Chairman.  You  seem  to  have  paid  him  in  addition  to  the 
$50,  which  was  paid  on  August  12,  the  further  sum  of  $112,  on  Octo- 
ber 16.  What  did  you  pay  him  $112  for? 

Mr.  Sacket.  As  I remember  it,  he  claimed  that  his  son  had  put 
in  considerable  time  and  expended  some  money  in  Mr.  Stephenson’s 
interest  in  the  campaign,  and  that  he  owed  him  $112,  or  whatever 
the  amount  was. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  he  claim  that  he  had  expended  the 
money  for? 

Mr.  Sacket.  In  promoting  the  interests  of  Senator  Stephenson’s 
campaign. 

The  Chairman.  How  did  he  claim  he  had  expended  it  to  promote 
his  interests? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Traveling  around  in  different  parts  of  the  county, 
advocating  Mr.  Stephenson’s  interests,  probably  railroad  fare  and 
team  hire. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  say  “ probably”? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  is  my  recollection  of  his  explanation. 

The  Chairman.  Upon  what  is  your  recollection  based?  Is  it 
based  upon  a conversation  with  him? 

Mr.  Sacket.  A conversation  with  Mr.  Smith. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  he  tell  you  he  had  spent  the  money  for  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  For  promoting  Senator  Stephenson’s  campaign. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  he  say  he  had  done  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Do  you  mean  for  the  $112  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  what  he  is  inquiring  about. 

Mr.  Sacket.  This  money  was  spent  by  his  son  in  traveling  around 
different  parts  of  the  county  for  the  purpose  of  promoting  Senator 
Stephenson’s  interests. 

The  Chairman.  He  traveled  for  the  purpose,  but  did  he  promote 
his  interests? 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


427 


Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know.  ” 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know  that  he  did  anything  for  that 
money  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Only  from  his  statement. 

The  Chairman.  His  statement,  so  far  as  you  have  given  it  in  gen- 
eral. Did  his  statement  advise  you  as  to  how  he  had  expended  the 
money  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember  any  special  details  that  he  gave  me. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  say  that  he  did  not  spend  this  money  in 
purchasing  votes  at  the  primary  election? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I can  not  say  so. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  he  say  anything  that  would  give  you  that 
impression  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  did  not. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  mean  by  your  answer  that  you  have  no 
knowledge  either  one  way  or  the  other  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I mean  that  I have  no  knowledge  as  to  what  he  really 
did,  except  what  he  told  me. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  anything  occur  in  the  conversation  that  led 
you  to  believe  that  he  had  used  money  improperly  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Nothing. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  assure  you  in  that  conversation  that  he  had 
not  used  the  money  for  the  purpose  of  influencing  voters  through  the 
means  of  treats,  entertainment,  or  such  things  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember  any  special  assurance  of  that  kind. 

The  Chairman.  You  really  have  no  memory  on  the  question? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember  any  special  assurance  by  him  of 
that  kind. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Any  general  assurance  then  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember  his  saying  anything  about  the  im- 
proper use  of  money. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  remember  asking  him  about  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not. 

The  Chairman.  Now,  we  will  pass  to  the  item  at  the  top  of  page 
591  of  $100,  “ W.  Batz  it  is  there? 

Mr.  Sacket.  B-r-a-t-z  is  the  name  as  it  should  be  spelled. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  the  way  it  is  in  my  memorandum,  “Au- 
gust 13,  W.  Bratz,  $100.”  For  what  did  you  pay  that  money? 

Mr.  Sacket.  To  cover  expenses  incurred  by  Mr.  Bratz  in  organiz- 
ing Washington  County  for  Mr.  Stephenson. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Expense  or  salary  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Expense,  I think,  the  first  money  was;  he  received 
some  salary,  too ; might  have  been  partly  salary. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  what  he  expended  it  for  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  know  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember  now.  I think  possibly  he  may 
have  filed  an  expense  account.  He  was  under  salary,  if  I remember 
correctly,  and  the  men  under  salary  I did  require  an  account  from. 

The  Chairman.  Where  is  the  expense  account? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  was  fled  with  the  others,  if  I received  one. 

The  Chairman.  Had  you  a system  under  which  those  accounts 
were  all  filed? 


428 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Mr.  Sacket.  I put  them  all  in  one  drawer  in  my  desk. 

The  Chairman.  And  are  they  there  now? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Where  are  they? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I took  them  out  of  that  drawer,  sent  them  to  Mari- 
nette ; they  were  sent  from  there  to  me  at  Washington ; I carried  them 
to  Madison  and  carried  them  over  to  the  legislative  committee,  the 
joint  committee. 

The  Chairman.  Which  committee? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  joint  committee. 

The  Chairman.  On  August  14  you  paid  him  $43.80 ; what  was  that 
for? 

Mr.  Sacket.  My  recollection  of  that  transaction  is  that  he  inserted 
an  advertisement  in  some  paper  in  his  county  and  rendered  a bill  from 
that  paper,  $43.80,  which  I paid  with  a cashier’s  check. 

The  Chairman.  I think  the  rest  of  these  items  to  Bratz  were  testi- 
fied to  by  Edmonds.  We  have  taken  up  “ Weisman,”  I believe.  On 
August  13,  “ O.  A.  Berg,  $50  ? ” 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  that  item. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  an  item  of  which  Mr.  Edmonds  had  no 
information.  You  say  you  have  none? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  present  recollection  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  no  knowledge  in  regard  to  that? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No  knowledge  at  all.  I do  not  remember  Mr.  Berg. 

The  Chairman.  The  item  of  $25,  on  page  592,  under  August  19,  to 
F.  P.  Lamoreaux ; who  made  that  payment  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  You  know  nothing  of  that  payment? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I remember  nothing  about  it  at  all ; no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  said  to  be  for  “ advertising.”  Did  Mr.  Lamo- 
reaux publish  a paper? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember  him  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  Do  not  know  him  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  The  next  item  is  J.  T.  Hanson,  of  Juneau  County, 
$250.  I have  checked  that  to  Mr.  Edmonds.  It  may  be  wrong,  of 
course ; I have  a cipher  before  the  item  of  $150  and  the  $250  item  has 
a cipher  before  it,  which  would  indicate  that  Mr.  Edmonds  did  not 
fully  explain  it  or  claim  to  be  able  to.  I will  ask  this  witness  in 
regard  to  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I have  mine  checked  and  I will  have  the  record 
looked  up  to  see  whether  it  is  right  or  not. 

The  Chairman.  Even  if  he  did,  it  is  entirely  proper  to  inquire  of 
this  witness. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Oh,  certainly. 

The  Chairman.  Sometimes  the  cipher  in  my  notes  indicates  that 
Mr.  Edmonds’s  explanation  was  not  full  or  sufficient ; sometimes  it  in- 
dicates that  he  had  no  knowledge.  Those  two  items  there,  $250  and 
$150,  amounting  to  $400,  on  August  19  and  August  20,  what  was  that 
money  paid  for? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  knowledge  of  those  items  whatever. 

The  Chairman.  Who  was  Mr.  Hanson? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember  him  at  all. 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


429 


The  Chairman.  There  is  the  item  of  J.  R.  Keyes;  that  we  have 
been  over,  I think. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Bruderle,  $60,  for  “Advertising,”  on  August 
20.  Do  you  know  about  that  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir;  I paid  him  that  for  advertising  space  in  a 
paper  published  in  Fond  du  Lac;  I think  it  is  a German  paper. 

The  Chairman.  What  kind  of  advertising? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Advertising  for  Mr.  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  seen  a copy  of  the  article? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  not. 

The  Chairman.  Tell  us  something  about  the  substance. 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  article  was  given  to  Mr.  Bruderle,  who,  if  I re- 
member correctly,  was  to  translate  it  into  German  and  publish  it  as 
an  advertisement  in  that  German  paper  in  Fond  du  Lac,  for  which 
he  charged  $60,  and  I paid  him. 

The  Chairman.  Who  wrote  the  article? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  was  one  of  the  articles  that  we  had  used  as  a cir- 
cular or  something  in  the  office;  I thing  I gave  him  the  copy  out  of 
some  stuff  we  had  of  that  kind. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  remember  the  nature  of  the  article, 
as  to  whether  or  not  it  held  out  any  promises  to  persons  who  voted 
for  Senator  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Sacket.  According  to  my  recollection,  it  did  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  it  suggest  any  corrupt  bargains? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  did  not  suggest  any  corrupt  bargain. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  was  the  purport  of  it,  or  do  you  not  re- 
member ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Simply  setting  forth  Senator  Stephenson’s  quali- 
fications and  his  good  qualities. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Entirely  truthful,  without  exaggeration  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  anything  about  the  Ashland  County 
item,  on  August  20,  $15 ; to  whom  was  that  money  paid  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  that  item. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  any  recollection  of  the  item  of  “ Peter 
Deidrich,”  on  August  21,  $50? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  present  recollection  of  that  item.  The 
word  “ receipt  ” in  there  would  indicate  that  I had  filed  with  the 
joint  committee  at  Madison  a receipt  showing  what  that  was  for. 

The  Chairman.  The  next  item  is  “ General,  227.08.”  Do  you  know 
anything  about  that  item? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  that  whatever. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  not  had  &ny  recollection  as  to  any 
“ general  ” item,  have  you  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Without  other  explanation  the  word  “ general  ” would 
not  refresh  my  memory  so  I would  remember  anything  about  it. 

The  Chairman.  Is  there  any  way  by  which  your  memory  can  be 
refreshed  in  regard  to  these  articles  under  the  name  “ general  ” ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  If  that  is  the  only  thing  in  the  item,  there  is  no  way 
that  I know  of. 

The  Chairman.  “Waukesha  County,  Harry  Bowman”;  tell  us  to 
whom  you  paid  that  money? 


430 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  paying  it. 

The  Chairman.  You  know  Harry  Bowman? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do. 

The  Chairman.  What  does  he  do? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  he  is — he  was  at  that  time  a deputy  game 
warden. 

The  Chairman.  You  paid  him  $150  August  21  and  $20  August  31. 
For  what  did  you  pay  him  the  money? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  paying  him  any  money  at 
any  time. 

The  Chairman.  Now,  we  will  go  to  “August  22,  E.  J.  Rogers, 
$300.”  What  did  you  pay  that  money  to  Mr.  Rogers  for? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  that  item  was  to  cover  the  expense  of  getting 
teams  and  men  to  work  at  the  polls  on  election  day. 

The  Chairman.  Getting  what  for  them? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Teams  and  men,  to  bring  out  the  vote. 

The  Chairman.  On  August  5 you  paid  Rogers  $50 ; what  did  you 
give  him  that  for? 

Mr.  Sacket.  To  cover  his  expenses,  and  possibly  salary,  in  organiz- 
ing, I think,  Iowa  County,  for  Mr.  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  not  remember  whether  or  not  he  was 
under  salary? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  remember  that  Mr.  Rogers  was  under  salary. 

The  Chairman.  How  much ; what  salary  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Three  dollars  a day  for  the  time  that  he  worked. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  he  employed  to  do? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Organize  the  county  for  Mr.  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  Let  us  be  a little  more  definite.  How  was  he  to 
organize  the  county? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  was  to  organize  the  county  in  an  economical,  care- 
ful way,  and  to  keep  within  the  law.  Those  were  my  instructions  to 
him. 

The  Chairman.  I did  not  mean  the  quality  of  his  organization, 
but  the  character  of  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  was  to  distribute  such  literature  and  posters  as 
we  might  send  to  him,  or  employ  others  to  do  so. . 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  carry  literature  with  him  and  distribute  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Such  as  we  might  send  him  from  time  to  time. 

The  Chairman.  You  seem  to  have  sent  out  a great  deal  of  literature 
here;  the  postage  account  is  a large  one;  did  you,  in  addition  to  that, 
send  people  around  to  carry  the  literature  and  distribute  it  personally? 

Mr.  Sacket.  We  sent  large  numbers  of  lithographs,  posters;  we 
sent  buttons,  which  needed  distributing — Stephenson  buttons;  sent  a 
number  of  things  that  might  be  called  literature,  under  a general 
term,  that  our  man  in  the  locality  was  supposed  to  distribute;  put 
them  where  they  would  do  the  most  good ; if  he  could  not  do  it  him- 
self he  was  authorized  to  pay  somebody  for  doing  it. 

The  Chairman.  How  many  buttons  did  you  distribute? 

Mr.  Sacket.  More  than  100,000,  I think. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  did  they  cost,  roughly? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember.  There  is  a bill  from  Whithead 
& Hoag  Co.,  on  file  there,  that  shows  exactly  what  they  cost.  I do 
not  remember  exactly. 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


431 


The  Chairman.  On  August  22  you  paid  Rogers  $300  in  addition 
to  the  payment  referred  to  heretofore ; what  was  that  for  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  August  22,  I think,  was  for  hiring  teams  and  men  to 
work  at  the  polls  on  election  day. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  render  a statement  of  that  expenditure  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  did  not  file  a statement,  to  the  best  of  my  knowl- 
edge. 

The  Chairman.  You  know  him  personally,  do  you  not? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I knew  him  during  the  campaign. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  seen  him  recently  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  not. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  whether  or  not  he  expended  any  part 
of  that  $300  for  the  purpose  of  inducing  people  to  vote  for  Senator 
Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  personal  knowledge  of  how  he  spent  it. 

The  Chairman.  On  October  16  you  paid  him  a further  sum  of 
$131.79;  what  was  that  for? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  was  the  balance  due  him  for  money  expended 
and  salary. 

The  Chairman.  Was  that  the  last  day  you  were  in  the  office  here 
in  the  city,  October  16? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Long  before  that  I left  the  office  that  we  had  used 
for  headquarters. 

The  Chairman.  Where  were  you  when  you  paid  him  this  sum  of 
money  on  October  16? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  that  check  was  mailed  from  Berlin,  Wis. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  that  your  home? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Then  he  must  have  presented  this  claim  to  you 
in  writing;  is  that  a fact? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir;  I think  so. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  the  claim  that  he  presented? 

Mr.  Sacket.  To  the  best  of  my  recollection  I filed  with  the  joint 
committee  at  Madison  all  of  the  bills  and  statements  that  I had  in 
regard  to  these  papers  on  October  16. 

The  Chairman.  And  it  will  be  found  there  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  it  should  be. 

The  Chairman.  We  have  accounted  for  all  of  Mr.  Rowe’s.  At 
the  top  of  page  593  there  is  a “General  ” who  seems  to  have  received 
$300.  The  “ General  ” seems  to  have  been  on  the  regular  pay  roll. 
What  is  that  for? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  that  item  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  There  is  an  item  following,  August  24,  “ Fond  du 
Lac  County,  $250;  ” to  whom  was  that  money  paid? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  that  item  either. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  where  we  could  get  any  information 
in  regard  to  that? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I have  that  checked  as  having  been  explained  by 
Edmonds. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  explained,  on  my  notes,  with  a round  mark. 
That  means  that  while  he  may  have  testified  in  regard  to  it  he  did 
not  fully  explain  it. 


432 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Mr.  Littlefield.  Of  course,  I can  not  undertake  to  assert  that  he 
made  these  explanations  satisfactorily  to  the  subcommittee,  but  I 
do  undertake  to  assert  that  I will  look  the  record  up  and  show  you 
what  explanation  he  made,  if  there  is  any  doubt  about  it. 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  that  will  appear.  There  will  not  be  any 
difficulty  in  knowing  what  Mr.  Edmonds  testified  to,  of  course. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  No;  I do  not  want  any  confusion. 

The  Chairman.  This  is  not  as  though  a jury  were  listening  to 
the  statements.  It  is  a matter  of  record. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  True;  but  there  are  a great  many  items  here  and, 
of  course,  the  chairman  appreciates  I want  to  be  quite  sure  and  have 
accounted  for  everything  that  can  be  accounted  for,  and  if  I do  not 
agree  with  the  chairman  as  I go  along,  of  course,  I am  quite  willing 
and  very  glad  to  ascertain  what  the  disagreement  is.  That  is  all. 

The  Chairman.  I think  we  will  not  disagree  about  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  No;  except  I just  want  to  keep  track  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  The  next  item  is  “ G.  L.  Miner.” 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I also  have  that  checked  to  Edmonds. 

The  Chairman.  On  August  25  you  paid  G.  L.  Miner  $300.  What 
was  that  for? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  that  payment  to  Mr.  Miner. 

The  Chairman.  Who  ds  G.  L.  Miner? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I know  Mr.  Miner  personally,  but  I couldn’t  tell  who 
he  is ; I do  not  remember  what  his  business  is. 

The  Chairman.  Where  does  he  live? 

Mr.  Sacket.  In  Richland  County;  Richland  Center,  I think. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  recall  his  appearance? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  I know  Mr.  Miner  whenever  I see  him. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  you  do  not  have  any  recollection  of  pay- 
ing him  that  money? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not. 

The  Chairman.  You  can  not  say  whether  it  was  paid  to  him  or 
not? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  if  I had  paid  Mr.  Miner  money  I would  have 
remembered  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  May  I inquire  there — is  he  any  relation  of  ex- 
Congressman  Miner? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I believe  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  that  ex- Congressman  Miner’s  county? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  is  not,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  say  you  have  no  recollection  of  paying 
him  any  money.  Do  you  know  of  anyone  else  paying  him  any 
money  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  knowledge  of  my  own. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Have  you  any  record  or  data  of  any  kind 
which  will  enable  you  to  show  who  paid  that  money? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  not ; no,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Or  whether  it  was  in  fact  paid,  except  this 
record  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  This  record  shows  that  it  was  paid. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I mean  except  that, 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  not. 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


433 


The  Chairman.  The  next  item  is  one  of  August  21,  to  N.  L. 
James,  $300.  Did  you  pay  that  money? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  can  not  recollect  whether  you  did  or  not? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I can  not  recollect  it. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  have  paid  it  to  him? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I probably  did  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I have  that  checked  also  to  Edmonds.  Is  that 
one  that  the  chairman  has  not  checked  ? 

The  Chairman.  I have  it  checked. 

There  is  an  item  of  $35,  Taylor — I suppose  that  is  Taylor  County, 
is  it  ? There  is  an  interrogation  mark  after  it — to  Plivelich ; did  you 
pay  that  money? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did. 

The  Chairman.  What  for? 

Mr.  Sacket.  For  expenses  incurred  by  Mr.  Plivelich  in  going 
around  electioneering  for  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  How  did  he  electioneer? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Went  among  his  friends  and  acquaintances  and  talked 
to  them  in  favor  of  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  Was  he  a man  employed  because  of  his  nation- 
ality, and  because  he  could  reach  a certain  nationality? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Because  he  could  talk  to  them  in  their  own  language. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  their  language? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  he  was  Polish. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know  what  he  said  or  did  or  promised 
to  the  electors  of  the  Polish  nationality  in  Wisconsin,  do  you? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  knowledge. 

The  Chairman.  The  next  item  is  one  of  $400.  Mr.  Edmonds  testi- 
fied that  he  did  not  know  all  about  that  item  and  he  referred  the 
committee  to  you  for  further  information.  “August  26.  General, 
E.  A.  E.  ($200,  $175,  and  $25),  grouped  as  one  item  of  $400.  Have 
you  any  knowledge  in  regard  to  those  payments? 

Mr.  Sacket.  None  whatever. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know  for  what  they  were  used  or  may 
have  been  used? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not. 

The  Chairman.  The  next  item  is  for  “Advertising.”  Can  you  give 
us  any  information  as  to  what  advertising  that  was  paid  for? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  that  item. 

The  Chairman.  There  is  Mr.  E.  V.  Hayes,  $50.  On  August  27 
you  paid  him  $50;  what  was  that  for? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  that  item  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  recall  Mr.  Hayes  at  all  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not. 

The  Chairman.  On  September  5 you  paid  him  $46 ; what  was  that 
for? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember  that  item  either. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  you  do  not  know  anything  of  that  item? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  There  is  August  27,  “City  of  Fond  du  Lac,  K.  L. 
Morse,  $250.”  What  do  you  know  of  that  item  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  that  item. 

15235°— vol  1—11 28 


434 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know  anything  about  Mr.  Morse? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I had  no  dealing  wTith  Mr.  Morse,  that  I remember, 
at  all. 

The  Chairman.  Now,  we  come  to  the  “ General  ” item  again,  $75; 
do  you  know  anything  about  that? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Nothing. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  the  Neillsville  item,  next  to  it,  of 
$150,  on  August  27? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Nothing;  I do  not. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  anything  about  the  “ Calumet 
County,  Frank  Eklund,  $25  ” ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  that. 

The  Chairman.  The  “Waukesha  County,  $50”? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Nor  that. 

The  Chairman.  The  “Advertising,  W.  B.  Raymond,  $42  ”? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember  that. 

The  Chairman.  There  is  “ D.  G.  Sampson,  $100,  Ashland ;”  do 
you  know  anything  about  that? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  that. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Has  the  chairman  got  that  checked  at  all  to 
Edmonds  ? 

The  Chairman.  That  is  marked  as  imperfect,  unfinished.  Where  I 
did  not  think  Mr.  Edmonds’s  testimony  fully  covered  it  I marked  it 
for  further  inquiry. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  So  as  to  lead  to  inquiry  somewhere  else. 

The  Chairman.  “ City  of  Ashland,  L.  F.  Johnstad,  $100,  August 
28.”  Do  you  know  anything  about  that  item? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  any  such  item  or  any  such 
man. 

The  Chairman.  How  about  “ J.  M.  Reese,  $100,”  next  to  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I made  no  arrangement  with  Mr.  Reese,  that  I re- 
member. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  any  recollection  as  to  the  payment  of 
the  money  to  him  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  Mr.  Edmonds  and  I talked  of  that  payment. 
Mr.  Reese,  as  I remember  it,  runs  a newspaper  in  the  western  part  of 
the  State  somewhere,  and  certain  copy  was  given  him  to  publish  as 
advertisement  in  his  paper,  for  which  he  was  to  receive  $100. 

The  Chairman.  Advertisement  in  regard  to  what? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Senator  Stephenson’s  candidacy. 

The  Chairman.  Favorable  to  his  candidacy? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Now  we  come  to  the  item  of  “ General,  $50,”  on 
August  28 ; do  y-ou  know  anything  about  that  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not. 

The  Chairman.  The  next  item  of  $150  for  “ advertising,”  do  you 
know  anything  about  that? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Nothing. 

The  Chairman.  Is  there  any  source  of  information  that  would 
enable  you  to  testify  regarding  these  items  that  you  are  passing  over 
under  the  head  of  not  remembering  them  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I can  not  think  of  any. 


RODNEY  SACKET.  435 

The  Chairman.  Now,  we  come  to  “ distributing  and  hanging 
posters,  H.  HilsenhofF,  $25 who  paid  that  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  you  know  nothing  about  that? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  it ; no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  The  next  is  “ Clark  County,  J.  H.  Frank,”  August 
28,  $100? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  that  item. 

The  Chairman.  There  is  a “ Dr.  Frank”  and  a “J.  H.  Frank”; 
are  they  the  same  man? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember  either  of  them. 

The  Chairman.  There  is  “ Hugo  Frank  ” with  an  “ E.,”  and  “ Dr. 
J.  H.  Frank  ” in  my  notes.  Now,  this  item  is  to  J.  H.  Frank,  who  is 
the  doctor,  evidently.  You  do  not  know  anything  about  the  payment 
of  $100  to  J.  H.  Frank  on  August  28? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  it  whatever. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  not  Edmonds  testify  to  that? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I have  it  so  checked. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I think  that  was  the  last  thing  he  testified 
to  before  adjournment. 

The  Chairman.  There  are  two  men  named  Frank;  there  are  four 
items  of  this  “ Dr.  Frank :”  On  July  27  he  was  paid  $150,  on  August 
20  he  Avas  paid  $140,  on  August  28  he  was  paid  $100,  and  on  Sep- 
tember 5 he  was  paid  $225,  making  in  all  $515;  have  you  any  recol- 
lection of  a man  who  received  $515  through  your  fund  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I remember  the  name  only.  I do  not  remember  the 
transaction.  I do  not  remember  having  any  talk  with  the  man  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  what  he  was  to  spend  this  money 
for? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not. 

The  Chairman.  Or  did  expend  it  for? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No. 

The  Chairman.  Or  whether  or  not  he  rendered  a statement? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I never  saw  a statement  from  him  and  I never  had 
any  talk  with  him  about  it,  to  the  best  of  my  recollection. 

The  Chairman.  Edmonds  testified  as  to  the  item  of  $150  on  July 
27  and  as  to  the  item  on  August  20.  As  to  the  item  on  August  28, 
$100,  the  record  does  not  indicate  that  Edmonds  testified. 

Senator  Sutherland.  He  did  testify.  It  was  the  last  thing  he 
testified  to  when  we  were  on  the  point  of  adjournment.  I have  it 
here. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I will  look  it  up  on  the  record. 

The  Chairman.  There  is  still  another  payment  to  him  on  Septem- 
ber 5 of  $225. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Does  it  appear  that  Edmonds  did  not  testifv  to 
that? 

The  Chairman.  It  is  in  this  list.  But  just  waive  the  question 
whether  or  not  Edmonds  did  testify  and  let  me  ask  this  witness  about 
it.  Do  you  know  anything  about  these  payments  to  Dr.  Frank  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not. 

The  Chairman.  Especially  the  one  of  $225? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  it. 


436 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Mr.  Littlefield.  I hope  the  chairman  does  not  feel  that  I have 
the  slightest  objection  to  his  inquiry  of  the  witness,  but  I simply 
want  to  check  up. 

The  Chairman.  I understand  the  situation,  but  I must  be  respon- 
sible for  moving  along. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Oh,  certainly,  the  greater  the  speed  the  quicker 
the  dispatch  and,  other  things  being  equal,  the  sooner  we  get  some- 
where. 

The  Chairman.  Counsel  will  understand  that  with  this  witness 
and  Mr.  Edmonds  these  items,  if  attacked  or  inquired  about  at  all, 
must  be  taken  up. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  and  I am  going  to  follow  up  any  I think 
the  chairman  does  not  take  up. 

The  Chairman.  And  it  would  hardly  be  the  proper  thing  to  have 
some  one  picking  out  one  item  and  then  charging  it  was  purposely 
omitted  or  passed  over. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  true.  I do  not  propose  to  have  any  left 
out  myself,  if  I can  help  it. 

The  Chairman.  The  next  item  there  is  “ advertising,  $100  ” ; do 
you  know  what  that  was  for  ? 

Mr.  Sachet.  I do  not. 

The  Chairman.  You  can  give  no  information  in  regard  to  that 
item  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir.  That  item  is  not  correctly  copied  into  this 
record. 

The  Chairman.  The  “ advertising  ” item  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  “ advertising  ” item. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  hardly  a complete  statement.  In  what 
respect  would  you  criticize  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  should  read  “J.  T.  Hansen,  No.  33780,  $100.” 

The  Chairman.  I find  that  J.  T.  Hansen,  on  August  19,  was  paid 
$250.  You  have  testified  in  regard  to  that.  Also  that  on  August 
20  he  was  paid  $150.  You  have  also  testified  about  that.  You  say 
in  addition  to  those  two  payments  he  received  this  payment  of  $100  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  testify  that  you  knew  anything  about 
the  other  payments  to  Mr.  Hansen? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not.  I did  not  intend  to,  of  course. 

The  Chairman.  He  received  an  extra  hundred.  That  makes  the 
amount  Hansen  received  altogether  $500.  What  did  he  receive  that 
money  for? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I made  no  arrangement  with  Mr.  Hansen  that  I 
remember.  I do  not  know  what  he  received  it  for. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know  what  he  did  with  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not. 

The  Chairman.  We  come  now  to  J.  H.  Wells,  on  August  21.  He 
received  $200.  What  was  that  for? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  was  for  organizing  the  city  of  Portage  and 
the  surrounding  country  in  the  interests  of  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  he  do  that  constituted  organization? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  any  knowledge  of  the  manner  of  ex- 
penditure of  that  money  by  Mr.  Wells? 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


437 


Mr.  Sacket.  I have  not ; no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know  whether  he  expended  it  for  the 
purchase  of  votes  for  Senator  Stephenson  or  for  hiring  teams  to 
carry  voters  to  the  polls? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Of  my  own  knowledge,  I do  not. 

The  Chairman.  You  neA^er  had  any  statement  from  him? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I remember  none. 

The  Chairman.  On  August  28  you  paid  him  another  $200.  What 
was  that  for? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I was  looking  at  the  item  of  August  28 — the  second 
item  on  the  same  day. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  the  item  just  after  “ advertising  ” — ■“  City  of 
Portage,  J.  TI.  Wells,  $200.” 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  is  the  item  that  I was  looking  at. 

- The  Chairman.  I supposed  that  was  the  item  that  you  were  look- 
ing at  before.  The  other  item  I refer  to  was  August  21,  on  page 
592.  You  say  you  haAre  no  knowledge  as  to  either  item,  of  any  money 
paid  Mr.  Wells.  Is  that  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I said  I had  no  knowledge  as  to  the  manner  in  which 
he  expended  the  money.  I did  talk  Avith  Mr.  Wells  at  the  time  he 
received  this  money  or  before,  and  did  help  make  an  arrangement 
with  him. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  the  arrangement? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  arrangement  was  that  he  was  to  conduct  Senator 
Stephenson’s  campaign  in  that  locality,  and  do  so  within  the  law. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  Mr.  Wells’s  occupation  or  business? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  keeps  a hotel  in  the  city  of  Portage. 

The  Chairman.  Hoav  large  a place  is  Portage? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I should  think  about  10,000  or  12,000. 

The  Chairman.  This  hotel  has  a barroom  attached  to  it,  has  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  been  in  the  hotel,  but  I do  not  knoAv  whether 
it  has  a barroom  or  not.  I never  was  in  the  barroom,  to  my  knowl- 
edge, of  that  hotel. 

Senator  Pomerene.  NeA^er  in  one,  did  you  say? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Of  that  hotel. 

The  Chairman.  Was  he  receiving  a salary? 

Mr.  Sacket.  To  the  best  of  my  recollection  he  was  not. 

The  Chairman.  Then  he  received  $400  on  local  account,  to  be  ex- 
pended in  the  interests  of  Senator  Stephenson,  and  you  do  not  know 
what  manner  of  expenditure  he  made? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not. 

The  Chairman.  The  next  item  is  “ Mr.  Phlughoefft,  $126.”  Can 
you  tell  us  what  that  gentleman  did  with  that  money? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  that  gentleman,  or  the  item. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know  about  him? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  He  seems  to  have  received  on  August  28,  $126  and 
on  September  5,  $125.  Do  you  know  anything  about  either  of  those 
payments  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  either  of  them. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know  who  he  is? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember  him  at  all. 


438 


HARRY  J.  BROWN. 


The  Chairman.  Let  us  take,  now,  Mr.  Wheeler.  ITe  received  $600 
on  August  28.  Do  you  know  anything  about  that  payment  to  Mr. 
Wheeler? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  what  Mr.  Wheeler  did  with  the 
money  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  Mr.  Wheeler? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do. 

The  Chairman.  What  does  he  do? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  is  a lawyer. 

The  Chairman.  Where? 

Mr.  Sacket.  In  Milwaukee. 

The  Chairman.  Was  he  working  under  your  supervision  or  di- 
rection here? 

Mr.  Sacket.  During  this  campaign  he  was  not  working  under  my 
supervision. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  see  him  during  the  campaign  and  talk 
with  him? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I had  no  talk  with  him  about  the  campaign  that  I 
remember.  I may  have  seen  him. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know  what  he  did  with  any  part  of 
that  money? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  not  pay  it  to  him? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not;  unless  it  was  by  order  of  Mr.  Edmonds, 
of  course. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  about  this  item  on  August  28, 
“ Marshfield,  $35”? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  is  another  mistake  made  in  copying  this  Exhibit 
49  into  the  record  of  the  joint  investigation.  That  should  read, 
“ Marshfield,  W.  B.  Raymond,  No.  33786,  $35.” 

The  Chairman.  Well,  what  of  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember  Mr.  Raymond,  or  the  items. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  page  is  that  on? 

The  Chairman.  It  is  on  page  594  of  Exhibit  49. 

At  this  point  we  will  excuse  Mr.  Sacket  temporarily  in  order  that 
we  may  take  up  the  examination  of  Mr.  Brown,  who  desires  to  get 
away. 

TESTIMONY  OF  HARRY  J.  BROWN. 

Harry  J.  Brown,  having  been  previously  sworn,  was  examined 
and  testified  as  follows : 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Brown,  what  relation  do  you  bear  to  Senator 
Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Brown.  I am  his  son-in-law. 

The  Chairman.  What  business  connection  have  you  with  him? 

Mr.  Brown.  Nothing,  except  that  I am  the  cashier  of  the  Stephen- 
son National  Bank,  of  Marinette. 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  the  active  cashier  of  that  bank  ? 

Mr.  Broavn.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  pay  or  give  to  J.  A.  Van  Cleve  any 
moneys  to  be  used  in  connection  with  the  senatorial  campaign  of 
Senator  Stephenson  in  the  year  1908? 


HARRY  J.  BROWN. 


439 


Mr.  Brown.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  did  you  give  him? 

Mr.  Brown.  $792.75. 

The  Chairman.  Was  that  the  only  sum  that  you  gave  anyone  to 
be  used  in  that  campaign  during  that  year  ? 

Mr.  Brown.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  From  whom  did  you  receive  that  money? 

Mr.  Brown.  I gave  Mr.  Van  Cleve  a check  drawn  against  an  ac- 
count in  the  bank  known  as  the  “ I.  Stephenson  rent  account,”  of 
which  I have  charge  as  agent. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose  did  you  give  Mr.  Van  Cleve 
that  money  ? 

Mr.  Brown.  He  rendered  a bill  or  a statement  of  what  he  had  used 
it  for. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  that  statement  ? 

Mr.  Brown.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Where  is  it  ? 

Mr.  Brown.  I delivered  it  to  Senator  Stephenson’s  office. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  where  it  is  now  ? 

Mr.  Brown.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  the  statement  set  forth  the  items  of  expendi- 
ture ? 

Mr.  Brown.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  mention  any  of  them  ? 

Mr.  Brown.  I do  not  know  that  I could,  only  I know  there  were 
livery  bills  and  some  printing  bills  and  I think  certain  amounts  to 
individuals.  There  were  quite  a number  of  items. 

The  Chairman.  This  was  for  bills  already  contracted  or  expendi- 
tures made  ? 

Mr.  Brown.  Oh,  yes.  This  check  was  given  about  the  15th  of 
September,  I think. 

The  Chairman.  It  was  in  settlement  of  an  account,  was  it  ? 

Mr.  Brown.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  you  never  paid  out  or  disbursed  any 
other  money  in  connection  with  the  Stephenson  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Brown.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  expend  or  authorize  the  expenditure  of 
any  other  moneys  in  behalf  of  Senator  Stephenson’s  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Brown.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Do  you  know  of  any  other  expenditures  which 
were  authorized,  in  addition  to  those  set  forth  in  the  account  that 
has  been  filed  with  the  secretary  of  state  ? 

Mr.  Brown.  No;  I do  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  make  expenditures  on  account  of  the 
Senator’s  campaign,  in  addition  to  those  that  you  have  already  testi- 
fied to,  either  individually  or  as  cashier  of  the  Stephenson  Bank? 

Mr.  Brown.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  in  no  other  capacity  ? 

Mr.  Brown.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  So  that,  so  far  as  you  are  concerned,  that  is  the 
only  connection  either  as  an  individual  or  as  an  official  that  you  had 
with  any  disbursements  that  related  to  the  Senator’s  campaign? 

Mr.  Brown.  That  is  all. 


440 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Mr.  Littlefield.  Have  you  any  knowledge  that  the  Senator  has 
disbursed  any  sums  in  his  campaign  other  than  those  testified  to  here 
before  the  committee  ? 

Mr.  Brown.  I have  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  any  question  ever  raised  or  suggestion  made 
that  any  of  the  expenditures  made  by  Mr.  Van  Cleve  were  improperly 
made,  or  for  an  improper  purpose  ? 

Mr.  Brown.  Not  that  I ever  heard  of;  no,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  all. 

The  Chairman.  That  will  be  all,  Mr.  Brown. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Can  Mr.  Brown  be  permanently  excused? 

The  Chairman.  I think  so. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I think  he  ought  to  hold  himself  subject  to 
process. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Oh,  of  course.  He  is  living  right  here  at  Mari- 
nette, not  very  far  from  Milwaukee. 

Mr.  Brown.  Oh,  I can  come  at  any  time. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Then  unless  otherwise  called  he  is  permanently 
excused  ? 

Senator  Pomerene.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  We  find  on  examination  of  Mr.  Kingsley’s  testi- 
mony in  the  joint  investigation  that  while  it  was  represented  it  would 
be  very  short,  and  something  to  be  disposed  of  in  a few  minutes,  it 
covers  a great  many  pages  in  the  report  of  those  proceedings  before 
the  Wisconsin  Legislature.  He  seems  to  have  been  a game  warden, 
and  his  testimony  seems  to  have  provoked  a great  deal  of  discussion. 
Mr.  Kingsley  asked  that  he  be  allowed  to  testify  to-day  in  order  that 
he  might  be  released,  upon  the  statement  that  his  testimony  would  be 
very  brief.  The  committee  are  of  the  opinion  that  his  testimony  may 
not  be  very  brief,  and  for  that  reason,  having  examined  the  testi- 
mony, we  will  proceed  at  this  time  with  the  examination  of  Mr. 
Sacket,  and  the  chair  will  ask  Mr.  Sacket  to  resume  the  stand. 

TESTIMONY  OF  RODNEY  SACKET— Resumed. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  that  that  Marshfield  item  of  $35  should 
be  charged  to  W.  B.  Raymond,  No.  33786.  What  was  that  money 
paid  for? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  paying  that  money  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  There  is  an  item  here,  “ Distributing  and  hanging 
posters.  No.  33783,  Humphrey  & Williams,  $25.”  Who  paid  that 
money  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  a faint  recollection  of  paying  that  for  that 
purpose. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  for  putting  up  posters  where?  In  this 
city? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No;  around  in  other  counties  and  in  Milwaukee 
County.  I do  not  remember  what  county. 

The  Chairman.  There  is  an  item  of  $50  for  Dane  County  on 
August  29.  Do  you  know  anything  about  that  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  simple  statement,  “ Dane  County,”  would  not 
refresh  my  memory  so  that  I would  be  able  to  make  any  positive 
statement  about  it. 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


441 


The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  of  an  item  of  $40  paid  to  J.  Plive- 
lich,  on  August  31  ? It  is  the  third  item  from  the  bottom  of  page  594. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  I remember  paying  him  that  $40. 

The  Chairman.  What  for? 

Mr.  Sacket.  For  electioneering  for  Senator  Stephenson  among 
people  oi  his  nationality. 

The  Chairman.  Was  that  strictly  within  the  same  class  as  the 
others  of  which  you  have  spoken  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Except  that  he  worked  in  a foreign  language,  among 
people  who  did  not  understand  English  very  well. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  what  he  expended  the  money  for? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  rendered  an  account  of  some  kind  to  me. 

The  Chairman.  Was  any  of  it  expended  for  treating  or  entertain- 
ing electors,  with  a view  to  inducing  them  to  be  friendly  and  vote 
for  Senator  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I could  not  remember  any  specific  item  in  his  account. 

The  Chairman.  How  about  the  item  of  ; 25  to  J.  C.  Miller,  follow- 
ing it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  was  for  expenses,  as  I have  previously  testi- 
fied ; J.  C.  Miller’s  expenses  in  traveling  around. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  what  the  nature  of  the  expenses  was  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Mr.  Miller’s  expenses  were  all  reported  to  me  in  writ- 
ing from  time  to  time.  I do  not  remember  the  nature  of  them  now, 
except  in  a general  way. 

The  Chairman.  Eau  Claire  County,  A.  Johnstone,  $50,  on  August 
21 ; up  near  the  top  of  page  595.  What  was  that  for? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  that  item  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  The  next  item  is  $22,  to  M.  E.  Eank. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember  that  either. 

The  Chairman.  Here  is  an  item  of  $200  to  L.  H.  Stevens.  He  is 
the  banker,  is  he  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  is  the  banker  at  Lancaster. 

The  Chairman.  We  have  already  inquired  about  that. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Now  we  come  to  the  period  after  the  primaries, 
September  5;  E.  H.  McMahon,  $300,  paid  on  September  5.  What 
was  that  for  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  was  his  salary  for  services  rendered. 

The  Chairman.  We  have  gone  into  that,  and  that  item  is  included. 
The  next  item  is  “ Hambright,  $300.”  What  was  that? 

Mr.  Sacket.  His  salary  for  services  rendered. 

The  Chairman.  I think  I have  been  fully  into  the  Hambright 
items.  I will  ask  you  again  about  Wellensgard.  On  September  5 
you  paid  him  $250.  What  was  that  for? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  was  to  reimburse  him  for  money  expended  by 
him  in  Green  Lake  and  Waushara  Counties  in  the  interest  of  Mr. 
Stephenson’s  campaign. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  his  business? 

Mr.  Sacket.  A dealer  in  farm  machinery,  the  owner  of  a pickle 
factory,  and  the  owner  of  several  farms. 

The  Chairman.  Was  he  elected  to  the  legislature? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  was. 


442 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


The  Chairman.  He  was  a member  of  the  legislature  that  elected 
Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  was. 

The  Chairman.  x4nd  he  was  then  a candidate? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  pay  him  that  money  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  have  a conversation  with  him  at  the  time 
you  paid  it  to  him  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  How  did  you  pay  it  to  him  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  In  the  form  of  a cashier’s  check. 

The  Chairman.  Was  he  present  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir;  it  was  mailed  to  him. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  have  a conversation  with  Wellensgard 
during  the  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  At  what  time? 

Mr.  Sacket.  In  the  very  early  part  of  the  campaign.  I can  not 
give  the  date. 

The  Chairman.  He  was  then  a candidate  for  the  legislature, 
was  he? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes ; was  or  was  to  be. 

The  Chairman.  You  knew  that  he  was,  or  was  to  be? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  before  you  gave  him  the  money,  was  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  gave  him  this  money  on  September  5? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  after  the  primaries? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  give  him  the  money  for? 

Mr.  Sacket.  To  reimburse  him  for  money  which  he  expended  in 
the  interest  of  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  What  money  had  he  expended? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  had  expended  $250.80. 

The  Chairman.  What  had  he  expended  it  for? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember  the  items,  but  he  filed  an  itemized 
statement  at  that  time,  which  was  afterwards  filed  with  the  joint 
committee  at  Madison,  and  appears,  I think,  in  one  of  these  volumes. 

The  Chairman.  Yes,  it  appears  in  one  of  these  volumes.  It  ap- 
pears at  page  911  and  following,  $250.  That  is  the  same  item,  is  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  I believe  to  be  a copy  of  the  bill  that  he  sent  me, 
for  which  I sent  him  a check  of  $250.80. 

The  Chairman.  I will  read  this  into  the  record,  from  page  911  of 
the  proceedings  before  the  joint  committee: 

Berlin,  Wis.,  September  3,  1908. 

Mr.  Rodney  Sacket, 

Milwaukee,  Wis. 

Dear  Friend:  Inclosed  please  find  my  bill  against  Stephenson.  I wish  you 
would  please  see  that  they  get  it.  I haven’t  put  in  anything  for  cigars  or  what 
little  I spent.  Please  let  me  hear  from  you.  I beat  Hitchcock  by  347  majority. 

Yours,  truly, 


C.  C.  Wellensgard. 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


443 


Exhibit  G2  received  in  evidence,  and  is  in  words  and  figures  fol- 
lowing, to  wit : 

Berlin,  Wis.,  September  3,  1908. 

Stephenson  Campaign  Committee, 

Milwaukee,  Wis. 

1908. 

July  5.  Livery  to  Princeton $3.  00 

6.  Livery  to  Markesan 3.  00 

Aug.  20.  Livery  at  Markesan 2.  00 

21.  Livery  at  Markesan 2.  50 

22.  Livery  at  Markesan 2.  50 

23.  Livery  at  Markesan 2.  50 

23.  Livery  at  Berlin 2.  50 

24.  Livery  to  different  parts  of  county 2.  50 

28.  Paid  out  to  help  G.  Burlingame  and  4 men 30.  00 

28.  Paid  to  C.  Rosebrook,  town  of  St.  Marie,  and  4 men 25.  00 

28.  Paid  Bill  Anglem,  town  of  Green  Lake 5.  00 

28.  Paid  W.  Burdick,  town  of  Green  Lake 5.  00 

25.  Paid  C.  Schrader  and  men  at  Markesan 30.  00 

28.  Paid  W.  Malena,  town  of  Seneca 5.  00 

Sept.  2.  Telephone  bill 2.  80 

2.  Paid  Mr.  llossa,  city  of  Berlin 4.  00 

2.  Paid  C.  Kisnaska,  city  of  Berlin 5.  00 

2.  Paid  Jack  Grotta 5.  00 

2.  Paid  H.  Wilde,  town  of  Manchester 5.00 

2.  Paid  E.  A.  Umbreight,  town  of  Manchester 5.  00 

2.  Paid  E.  Vaughn,  Kiugston,  and  men 25.  00 

2.  Paid  Wm.  Crook,  Ripon 5.  00 

2.  Paid  Nels  Sorrenson,  Mackford 5.  00 

2.  Paid  Herman  Ebbentroff,  Mackford 5.  00 

2.  For  automobile  election  day , 15.  00 

2.  Paid  Wilson  for  help  on  machine 2.  50 

2.  Paid  postage 4.  00 

3.  Paid  Mr.  Resop,  city  of  Berlin 3.  00 

3.  Paid  P.  Kresal,  city  of  Berlin 1.  00 

3.  Paid  Aug.  Waslinski,  city  of  Berlin 5.  00 

3.  Paid  Steve  Greager,  city  of  Berlin 5.  00 

3.  Paid  J.  Neighbor,  city  of  Berlin 5.  00 

3.  Paid  J.  Weir,  city  of  Berlin 5.  00 

3.  Paid  J.  Briskie,  city  of  Berlin 5.  00 

3.  Paid  F.  Bartow,  city  of  Berlin 5.  00 

3.  Paid  Joe  Gosh,  city  of  Berlin 5.  00 


Total 250.  80 

(Indorsed:)  Paid,  9/5/08.  C.  C.  Wellensgard. 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  is  the  account  to  which  I referred. 

The  Chairman.  These  items  commence  on  July  5,  and  the  first  item 
is  “ livery  to  Princeton,  $3.”  Where  is  Princeton  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Princeton  is  about  16  miles  south  of  Berlin. 

The  Chairman.  Berlin  is  the  place  in  which  Mr.  Wellensgard  lives, 
is  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Berlin  is  the  city  in  which  Mr.  Wellensgard  lives. 

The  Chairman.  In  what  county? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Green  Lake  County. 

The  Chairman.  Is  his  district  included  in  Green  Lake  County  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Green  Lake  County  was  his  district. 

The  Chairman.  Berlin  is  in  the  county  in  which  this  candidate 
resided,  is  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Partially  within  that  county  and  laps  over  into  Wau- 
shara County. 


444 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


The  Chairman.  On  the  28th  of  August  there  is  an  item  “ paid  out 
to  help  George  Burlingame  and  four  men,  $30.”  Do  you  know  what 
they  were  helped  about  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  presume  to  understand  this  account  of  Mr. 
Wellensgard. 

Senator  Pomerene.  This  is  in  your  home,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Is  the  town  of  Manchester  in  Green  Lake  County  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  it  is. 

The  Chairman.  All  the  towns  mentioned  in  this  itemized  account 
are  in  that  county? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Green  Lake  or  Waushara  County.  Mr.  Wellensgard 
did  something  in  Waushara  County. 

The  Chairman.  I see  “ for  automobile  on  election  day,  $15.”  Did 
Senator  Stephenson  carry  that  county  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  he  did.  That  is  my  recollection  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  by  what  majority  or  plurality  he 
carried  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  If  I remember  correctly,  it  was  a small  plurality — 
one  or  two  hundred ; something  of  that  kind. 

The  Chairman.  Was  it  by  as  much  as  347  majority? 

Mr.  Sacket.  As  I member  it,  it  was  not  as  much  as  that. 

The  Chairman.  Then  the  canvasser  had  a larger  majority  than  the 
party  canvassed  for,  did  he? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I believe  he  did. 

The  Chairman.  What  services  do  you  think  he  really  performed 
for  Senator  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I believe  he  actually  expended  the  money  for  the 
items  mentioned  in  his  statement. 

The  Chairman.  Then  there  is  an  item  of  $156,  which  is  made  up 
of  three  items,  under  the  head  of  “General,”  after  the  Wellensgard 
item.  Do  you  know  what  those  sums  were  paid  for  on  September  5 ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  those  items.  The  Sexton 
item,  as  I remember  it,  was  a settlement  with  Mr.  Sexton  covering 
the  expense  account  or  salary,  or  both. 

The  Chairman.  The  Sexton  items  amount  to  $523.08,  commencing 
July  20  and  running  up  to  and  past  the  primary.  Do  you  know 
what  the  money  was  paid  to  Sexton  for  in  these  items  and  what  he 
did  for  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I know  the  arrangement  that  I made  with  Mr. 
Sexton. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  the  arrangement  with  Mr.  Sexton  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  To  travel  throughout  the  State  in  the  localities  where 
he  thought  he  could  do  the  most  good  and  to  promote  Mr.  Stephen- 
son’s interests  in  any  and  every  way,  so  long  as  he  kept  within  the 
law. 

The  Chairman.  Was  he  to  be  the  judge  of  what  was  within  the 
law? 

Mr.  Sacket.  As  far  as  I was  concerned,  yes. 

The  Chairman.  You  left  that  to  your  representative? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  talk  with  him  as  to  what  was  within  the 
law  or  what  the  provisions  of  the  law  were  ? 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


445 


Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  any  such  conversation. 

The  Chairman.  Who  was  Mr.  Sexton? 

Mr.  Sacket.  A man  whose  home  was  in  Waushara  County,  my 
home,  a man  I had  known 

The  Chairman.  What  was  his  business? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  at  that  time  he  was  not  in  any  business. 

The  Chairman.  What  has  he  done? 

Mr.  Sacket.  If  I remember  it  correctly,  his  regular  line  of  business 
was  that  of  a traveling  salesman. 

The  Chairman.  Now,  there  is  W.  J.  Fossbinder,  $61.  Have  you 
knowledge  as  to  what  that  money  was  paid  for? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  the  chairman  omit  J.  Humphrey,  $60.15? 

The  Chairman.  That  is  in  the  combined  item  he  has  just  testified 
about. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Excuse  me  for  the  suggestion,  but  he  has  not 
testified  about  the  item  of  $60.15. 

The  Chairman.  Did  I understand  you  to  say  that  you  only  know 
as  to  the  Hayes  item? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I said  I did  not  know  as  to  the  Hayes  item. 

The  Chairman.  But  that  you  did  as  to  the  Sexton  item? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  know  about  the  Sexton  item. 

The  Chairman.  How  about  the  Humphrey  item? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember  about  the  Humphrey  item. 

The  Chairman.  The  next  is  the  Keyes  item.  We  have  been 
through  the  account  of  Mr.  Keyes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  he  testified  about  Keyes. 

The  Chairman.  Now  we  will  pass  down  to  Mr.  Fossbinder;  $61. 

Mr.  Sacket.  My  recollection  of  that  item  is  that  Mr.  Fossbinder 
did  some  work  in  the  nature  of  hanging  posters  and  other  campaign 
work  during  the  campaign  for  Mr.  Stephenson,  and  sent  in  his  bill 
at  the  close  of  the  campaign,  which  amounted  to  $61,  and  I paid  it. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know  what  he  expended  the  money 
for,  do  you  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  he  rendered  a bill  at  that  time.  I do  not 
recollect  at  this  time  exactly  what  it  was  for. 

The  Chairman.  But  he  was  employed  and  paid  the  money  for 
going  out  among  the  electors  and  canvassing  for  Senator  Stephen- 
son ; is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not  employ  Mr.  Fossbinder.  I think  I remem- 
ber paying  him,  on  his  statement  of  what  he  had  done. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Which  is  just  as  you  have  described? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Now  the  item  of  $30  for  W.  B.  Jones.  What  was 
that  money  paid  for  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  that  item. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Is  there  a Picket  County? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I know  of  a little  station  by  the  name  of  Picket,  on 
the  Chicago,  Milwaukee  & St.  Paul  Road,  between  Ripon  and 
Oshkosh. 

The  Chairman.  On  September  15  you  paid  O.  T.  Johnson  $57.76. 
What  was  that  for? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  that  item. 


446 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


The  Chairman.  Now,  that  completes  the  examination  in  regard 
to  each  item  down  to  the  expenses  in  Milwaukee  County  on  page 
596,  and  the  hour  of  adjournment  having  arrived,  the  committee  will 
stand  adjourned  until  10  o’clock  to-morow  morning. 

At  4 o’clock  30  minutes  p.  m.  the  subcommittee  adjourned  until 
to-morrow,  Saturday,  October  7,  1911,  at  10  o’clock  a.  m. 


SATURDAY,  OCTOBER  7,  1911. 

Federal  Building, 

Milwaukee , Wis. 

The  subcommittee  met  at  10  o’clock  a.  m. 

Present:  Senators  Heyburn  (chairman),  Sutherland,  and  Pomerene. 

Present,  also:  Mr.  C.  E.  Littlefield,  Mr.  W.  E.  Black,  and  Mr. 
H.  H.  J.  Upham,  counsel  for  Senator  Isaac  Stephenson. 

The  names  of  George  W.  Dart,  R.  L.  Morse,  L.  W.  Thayer,  Arthur 
Wilcox,  A.  I.  Hulbert,  and  Le  Roy  E.  McGill  were  called. 

Mr.  Morse,  Mr.  Wilcox,  and  Mr.  Hulbert  responded  to  their  names, 
and  the  oath  was  administered  to  them  by  the  chairman. 

TESTIMONY  OF  RODNEY  SACKET— Resumed. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Sacket,  on  yesterday  we  had  finished  exam- 
ining you  upon  the  items  in  the  account  down  to  the  item  of  “A.  M. 
Jones,  $150,”  on  September  15,  which  is  on  page  596  of  Exhibit  49. 
The  next  heading  is,  “ Expenses  in  Milwaukee  County  as  reported  by 
W.  R.  Knell.  Bills  paid  by  check.” 

Have  you  that  statement  before  you  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  personal  knowledge  of  the  payment  of 
each  and  all  of  the  items  contained  in  that  statement,  aggregating 
$2,864.05? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  not. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  personal  knowledge  as  to  the  payment 
of  any  items  in  that  statement  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  not. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know  to  whom  they  were  paid,  or  for 
what  purpose  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Not  of  my  own  knowledge;  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Who  has  knowledge  of  those  payments,  and  the 
purpose  for  which  the  money  was  expended  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  W.  R.  Knell,  who  made  the  report. 

The  Chairman.  Where  does  he  reside  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Milwaukee  was  the  place  of  his  residence  the  last  time 
I knew. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  his  business  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  was  sheriff  of  Milwaukee  County  at  that  time. 

The  Chairman.  I will  ask  the  secretary  to  see  if  we  have  Mr. 
Knell’s  name  down  for  subpoena. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  He  is  on  your  list  for  next  week.  You  have 
him  down  here  for  Tuesday. 

The  Chairman.  The  secretary  reports  to  me  that  we  have. 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


447 


On  page  597  of  Exhibit  49,  which  you  say  Mr.  Knell  can  account 
for,  we  have  items  commencing  July  1,  under  the  head  of  “Cash 
disbursements/’  and  going  down  to  the  summing  up  of  that  class  of 
items  on  page  599.  Have  you  personal  knowledge  of  the  expenditure 
of  those  sums  of  money,  or  any  of  them  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  not. 

The  Chairman.  Who  has  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Mr.  Knell. 

The  Chairman.  Are  those  part  of  the  Milwaukee  expenses — that 
is,  the  expenses  of  the  Milwaukee  County  organization  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  They  were  so  reported  by  Mr.  Knell. 

The  Chairman.  Commencing  under  the  date  of  August  1,  page  599, 
with  the  item  of  $1,385,  and  going  down  to  the  end  of  that  statement 
on  page  601,  have  you  any  knowledge  of  those  disbursements? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  not. 

The  Chairman.  Who  has  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Mr.  Knell. 

The  Chairman.  Are  they  a part  of  the  expenses  of  the  organization 
in  Milwaukee  County  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  They  were  so  reported  by  him. 

The  Chairman.  To  you  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  To  me;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Commencing  with  the  item  of  August  26,  on  page 
601,  and  going  down  to  the  words  “Disbursements  in  excess  of 
receipts/’  on  page  602,  have  you  any  knowledge  of  those  items? 

Mr.  Sacket.  None  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  Or  statements  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Who  has  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Mr.  Knell. 

The  Chairman.  Were  those  on  account  of  the  Milwaukee  County 
organization  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  They  were  so  reported  by  him. 

The  Chairman.  Page  602:  Commencing  with  August  5,  and 
including  down  to  the  item  of  August  26,  “cash,”  on  page  604,  state 
whether  you  have  any  personal  knowledge  of  those  expenditures,  or 
any  of  them? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  any  knowledge  of  the  items  on  page  602, 
including  August  5,  and  going  to  the  bottom  of  the  page  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  take  up  the  item  on  August  5,  “Pay  of  help 
and  office  expense  from  July  1,  $1,101.91.”  Have  you  that  pay  roll  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  not. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  have  a pay  roll  from  which  that  item  is 
taken  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I made  up  a pay  roll  from  time  to  time  as  these  items 
were  paid,  but  I did  not  keep  those  pay  rolls. 

The  Chairman.  When  you  put  this  item  in  the  account,  where  did 
you  get  the  figures  from  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  From  a note  on  my  card  index. 

The  Chairman.  That  card  index  you  say  you  destroyed  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  it  was  there  and  no  where  else  ? 


448 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Mr.  Sacicet.  No  where  else,  to  m}^  knowledge. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  sufficient  knowledge  to  enable  you  to 
give  the  items  that  make  up  that  aggregate  sum  of  $1,101.91  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  In  a general  way  only. 

The  Chairman.  Suppose  you  give  us  as  much  information  as  you 
can  on  that  subject. 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  was  the  total  amount  of  expenses  for  conduct- 
ing the  office  in  the  Wells  Building,  the  Stephenson  headquarters 
office,  from  the  time  it  was  opened,  about  the  1st  of  July  to  August  5, 
including  pay  of  all  of  our  office  help. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Of  how  many  did  the  office  help  consist  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember  how  many  we  had  at  that  time; 
but  we  have  had  as  high  as  42  girls  addressing  envelopes  and  doing 
clerical  work. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  up  until  after  the  filing  of  the  petitions  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  From  that  time  on  you  seem  to  have  made  fre- 
quent entries.  For  instance,  the  next  item  is  “Office,  $65. 50.” 
What  was  the  nature  of  that  expense  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  From  the  note  here  I simply  know  it  was  expenditure 
for  conducting  the  office — regular  office  expenses  of  some  kind. 

The  Chairman.  No  money  was  paid  out  except  for  services  in  the 
office  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  For  services  in  the  office  and  for  care  of  the  office. 

The  Chairman.  And  for  supplies  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  I notice  on  August  15,  “Pay  roll,  $362.50. ” 
Then  on  August  22  the  amount  of  $387.80  is  entered  for  pay  roll,  and 
on  August  28,  for  pay  roll,  $365.85.  That  was  for  actual  salaries 
and  compensation  paid  to  people  in  the  office  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  And  expenses  directly  chargeable  to  the  management 
of  the  office. 

The  Chairman.  I notice  you  have  made  an  additional  charge  on 
the  18th  of  “Office,  $146.25, ” and  again  on  the  25th  of  $159.95  for 
“Office.”  What  were  those  items  for?  Were  they  for  the  office 
expenses  outside  of  salary  ? 

Mr.  Sacket  Yes;  they  were  for  office  expenses,  possibly  including 
some  salaries. 

The  Chairman.  The  salaries  did  not  all  come  due  on  the  same  day  ? 
Is  that  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  1 paid  the  salaries  when  it  was  convenient  or  when 
the  people  wanted  their  money.  I had  no  regular  day. 

The  Chairman.  That  class  of  items  aggregates  $4,074.38.  It  is 
all  within  the  class  that  you  have  described,  is  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  is;  yes.  sir. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  take  the  telephone  bill  on  page  603  of 
your  account.  I find  that  from  July  1 to  September  5 your  telephone 
bill  was  $256.  What  was  the  nature  of  the  services  for  which  you 
used  the  telephone?  Was  that  all  at  the  office? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  was  all  charged  to  the  office — long-distance  phones 
and  the  regular  rental  of  local  phones. 

The  Chairman.  Does  that  include  the  use  of  the  phone  by  people 
who  were  traveling  over  the  State  in  the  interest  of  Senator  Stephen- 
son? 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


449 


Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir;  it  does  not. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  the  office  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  office  expenses. 

The  Chairman.  The  next  item,  telegraph  expenses,  aggregates 
$37.  State  whether  or  not  that  was  for  telegrams  sent  out  from  or 
received  at  the  city  office  here  in  Milwaukee. 

Mr.  Sacket.  To  the  best  of  my  recollection  it  was. 

The  Chairman.  We  have  next  the  postage-stamp  item,  commenc- 
ing July  1 and  going  to  August  4:  “Cash,  $1,914.”  Who  paid  out 
that  money  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did. 

The  Chairman.  Where  did  you  purchase  these  stamps? 

Mr.  Sacket.  In  the  Milwaukee  office. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose  did  you  purchase  those  stamps? 

Mr.  Sacket.  For  paying  postage  on  the  letters  and  other  matter 
used  in  relation  to  the  Stephenson  campaign. 

The  Chairman.  How  used  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Sent  through  the  mails. 

The  Chairman.  To  whom  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  To  the  people  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin. 

The  Chairman.  To  electors  in  the  State  of  Wisconsin? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  What  class  of  material  was  that  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  There  were  letters — personal  letters,  multigraph  let- 
ters, imitation  typewritten  letters  done  on  a printing  press,  circulars 
of  different  kinds;  and  the  postage  was  paid  on  the  lithographs  that 
were  sent  out. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  furnish  the  committee  with  one  of  each 
of  the  several  kinds  of  literature  included  within  the  scope  of  that  bill 
of  expense? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I can  not. 

The  Chairman.  Who  can? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Where  did  you  have  this  printing  done  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  To  the  best  of  my  recollection,  most  of  it  was  done  in 
Milwaukee. 

The  Chairman.  At  what  office  in  Milwaukee  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember  the  name  of  the  office.  The 
Evening  Wisconsin  did  some  of  it,  I remember,  and  the  other  names 
appear  later  in  the  statements  here,  but  I can  not  remember  them 
now. 

The  Chairman.  You  can  not  furnish  the  committee,  then,  with  a 
copy  of  any  literature  that  was  sent  out  under  this  charge  of  postage  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  copy  at  this  time. 

The  Chairman.  Were  the  letters  copied  in  a letterpress  book,  or 
were  carbon  copies  made  of  them  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  As  I remember,  carbon  copies  were  kept  of  personal 
letters. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  those  copies  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  not. 

The  Chairman.  Has  anyone  those  copies,  within  your  knowledge  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Not  to  my  knowledge. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  done  with  them  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  They  were  probably  put  with  the  waste  paper  when 
we  cleaned  up  the  office. 

15235 3— vol  1—11 29 


450 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Senator  Pomerene.  Why  did  you  save  carbon  copies,  if  they  were 
simply  waste  paper  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  For  reference  during  the  campaign. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  copy  any  of  them  in  a press  copy  book? 

Mr.  Backet.  To  the  best  of  my  recollection,  we  had  no  press  copy 
book. 

The  Chairman.  Then  of  all  of  this  literature  that  was  intended  to 
advise  the  electors  of  the  character  and  qualifications  of  Senator 
Stephenson  and  the  reasons  why  they  should  vote  for  his  reelection, 
not  a trace  of  it,  within  your  knowledge,  is  to  be  obtained  at  this 
time  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  knowledge  of  any. 

The  Chairman.  Not  a single  copy? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Not  a single  copy. 

The  Chairman.  The  pride  you  had  in  the  work  that  you  were  doing 
did  not  induce  you  to  retain  samples  of  it  at  all  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not  retain  any  samples. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  dictate  the  letters  that  were  sent  out 
included  in  this  mail  item  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Some  of  them. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  say  in  any  of  those  letters  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  would  be  very  hard  for  me  to  remember  at  this 
time. 

The  Chairman.  They  were  copied  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Carbon  copies  were  made  of  some  of  them. 

The  Chairman.  The  carbon  copies  were  destroyed  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  By  whom  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  By  my  direction. 

The  Chairman.  This  account  for  postage  stamps,  commencing  on 
page  603  of  the  joint  committee  hearings  and  extending  down  to 
August  26,  including  the  item  of  July  1,  amounts  to  $9,819.  You 
expended  all  of  that  money  for  postage  stamps  to  be  used  in  the 
interest  of  Senator  Stephenson's  campaign  for  nomination  at  the 
direct  primary ; did  you  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did. 

The  Chairman.  I notice  that  on  August  27  you  purchased  $1,200 
worth  of  postage  stamps. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Of  what  denomination  were  those  stamps  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Assuming  this  to  be  a correct  copy,  of  course,  of  my 
original  statement,  to  the  best  of  my  recollection  they  were  2-cent 
stamps,  all  of  them. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  send  out  60,000  documents  with  2-cent 

postage  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  many  thousand  ? 

The  Chairman.  Sixty  thousand  2-cent  postage  items,  sent  out  on 
August  27. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I could  not  say  as  to  the  date  exactly. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  think  it  probable  that  you  did  that? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  quite  a distinct  recollection  of  figuring  up  at 
least  one  day’s  business  where  we  did  send  out  60,000  letters  under 
2-cent  stamps. 

The  Chairman.  What  were  these — dictated  letters  ? 


RODNEY  SACKET.  451 

Mr.  Sacket.  They  were  circular  letters,  printed  copies  in  imitation 
of  typewritten  letters — something  of  that  kind. 

The  Chairman.  Why  did  you  put  2-cent  stamps  on  those  letters  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Because  they  were  supposed  to  be  personal  letters 
and  we  wanted  them  read  and  considered  as  personal  letters. 

The  Chairman.  You  think  you  sent  out  60,000  of  them  in  one  day  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  quite  a distinct  recollection  of  figuring  up  as 
high  as  60,000  in  one  day. 

The  Chairman.  How  many  clerks  did  you  have  directing  letters 
at  that  time  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Forty- two,  if  I remember  correctly. 

The  Chairman.  That  would  be  1,500  letters  for  each  person 
directing  them  on  that  day  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  mean  to  say  that  they  were  written  and 
inclosed  and  directed  all  in  one  day.  They  were  all  sent  out  in  one 
day,  but  it  might  have  taken  a week  to  get  them  ready. 

fine  Chairman.  You  had  been  running  $600  and  $800  a day  before 
that  for  stamps.  The  day  before  that  was  $805;  the  day  before  that 
was  $600;  the  day  before  that  was  $800.  Do  you  think  those  stamps 
were  used  up  on  that  day — on  August  27  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I could  not  be  as  exact  as  that. 

The  Chairman.  I notice  that  on  August  28  you  paid  $200  more 
for  stamps.  On  the  day  before  you  had  expended  $700  for  stamps. 
In  other  words,  on  the  22d,  the  24th,  the  25th,  the  26th,  the  27th, 
and  the  28th  you  expended  $3,700  for  stamps — and  how  many  girls 
did  you  have  working  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Forty-two,  if  I remember  correctly. 

The  Chairman.  Just  addressing  envelopes  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Addressing  envelopes,  inclosing  them,  sealing  them, 
putting  stamps  on  them,  and  doing  that  sort  of  work. 

The  Chairman.  That  accounts  for  that  item  of  $9,819  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Now  we  come  to  the  newspaper  advertising — the 
items  on  page  604  of  the  account,  commencing  with  August  1. 
The  first  item  there  is  “E.  B.  Usher,  $205.55.”  That  is  “ sundry 
advertising.”  What  advertising  was  that? 

Mr.  Sacket.  From  my  recollection  of  it,  it  was  advertising  sent 
out  to  the  different  papers  in  the  State.  The  letter  “R”  in  this 
statement 

Mr.  Littlefield.  If  the  chairman  will  excuse  me,  I will  ask  Mr. 
Sacket  why  he  does  not  explain  who  Mr.  Usher  is  and  what  connec- 
tion he  had  with  Mr.  Sacket’s  office.  That  may,  perhaps,  facilitate 
matters. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Mr.  Usher  was  employed  to  look  after  the  newspaper 
advertising — the  publicity  end  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  He  was,  then,  your  publicity  man,  was  he  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  There  are  six  items  that  Mr.  Usher  seems  to  be 
charged  with.  There  are  more  later,  but  on  that  page  there  are  six 
items. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Under  date  of  August  1 ? 

The  Chairman.  Under  date  of  August  1,  all  of  them.  They  are 
all  designated  as  “sundry  advertising.”  What  is  the  letter  “R” 
for? 


452 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Mr.  Sacket.  That  indicates  that  I had  on  file  a receipt  or  a 
receipted  bill  from  Mr.  Usher  covering  that  item. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  any  copy  of  the  matter  covered  in  this 
advertising,  so  that  we  may  find  out  the  character  of  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  copies. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  procure  some  item  of  this  advertising  for 
which  Usher  was  paid  some  five  or  six  hundred  dollars  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  1 do  not  think  I could.  Possibly  if  I had  time  I 
might  get  Mr.  Usher  to  find  some  for  me. 

The  Chairman.  Where  is  Mr.  Usher  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I saw  him  in  Milwaukee  last  night. 

The  Chairman.  There  is  an  item,  “Minneapolis  Tidende” 

Mr.  Littlefield.  May  I inquire,  if  the  chairman  please  (so  that  I 
may  not  have  to  go  back  over  this)  if  what  you  have  said  about  Mr. 
Usher  relates  to  these  six  items  under  date  of  August  1 ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I find  six  items  for  which,  except  the  last  two  items, 
I do  not  know  that  I have  a receipt.  The  cashier’s  check  number 
given  there  shows  that  the  money  was  paid. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Why  were  you  so  particular  to  note  on  this 
account  the  fact  that  you  had  a receipt  in  these  particular  few 
instances  when  in  most  of  the  cases  there  is  no  reference  at  all  to  a 
receipt  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  bills  in  the  schedules  that  have  been  taken  up 
to-day  were  the  business  bills.  They  were  bilk  for  regular  services 
with  regular  business  men  and  business  houses. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Were  not  the  others  business  bills? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  others  were  campaign  bills. 

Senator  Pomerene.  How  do  you  distinguish  between  the  two  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I should  be  a little  more  exact  and  careful  and  feel  a 
little  more  at  liberty  to  demand  that  strict  business  rules  be  lived  up 
to  in  doing  business  with  a business  house  than  I would  with  a 
friend  of  mine  who  was  campaigning  for  me. 

Senator  Pomerene.  The  business  houses  would  ordinarily  have 
books  by  which  you  could  trace  these  things,  while  the  average 
politician  probably  would  not  have  books  or  does  not  seem  to  have 
had  them  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Assuming  that  we  are  the  average. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I will  not  make  any  comments. 

The  Chairman.  Where  are  the  bills  that  are  referred  to  here  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  they  were  left  with  the  joint  committee,  and 
I think  they  appear  later  in  the  record  here — copies  of  some  of  them, 
at  least. 

Mr.  Black.  I might  say  to  the  subcommittee  that  I made  an 
effort  to  reach  the  superintendent  of  public  property  at  Madison, 
who  I suppose  has  the  custody  of  all  that  matter  that  was  produced 
there  before  the  committee.  I do  not  know  that  it  is  there,  but  I 
assume  that  it  is;  and  I think  perhaps  the  subcommittee  should  call 
upon  the  proper  authorities  there  to  send  that  matter  here  if  it  is 
desired. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  the  intention  of  the  subcommittee  to  make 
all  possible  efforts  to  secure  the  papers. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  I understand  you  to  say  you  did  reach 
him,  Mr.  Black,  or  that  you  simply  tried  to  reach  him  ? 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


453 


Mr.  Black.  I did  not  succeed  in  reaching  him.  He  had  not  come 
to  the  office.  I assume  the  papers  are  in  Madison.  That  is  what  I 
wanted  to  ask  him  about. 

The  Chairman.  The  subcommittee  have  assumed  that  those 
papers  are  obtainable;  and  at  the  proper  time,  in  the  judgment  of 
the  subcommittee,  all  proper  efforts  will  be  made  to  bring  those 
papers  before  us.  First  we  will  have  sifted  his  knowledge  to  deter- 
mine what  may  be  desirable,  what  may  be  necessary,  and  then  we 
will  take  up  the  matter  for  consideration. 

I should  like  to  ask  counsel  a question.  You  appeared  before  the 
committee  in  these  examinations,  did  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Black.  I was  before  the  committee  practically  all  the  time. 

The  Chairman.  Into  the  hands  of  what  immediate  person  did  these 
papers  pass  ? Who  marked  the  exhibits  ? 

Mr.  Black.  They  were  marked  as  exhibits  by  the  reporter,  and 
then  they  were  kept  in  the  custody  of  some  clerk  of  the  committee. 
There  was  quite  an  accumulation  of  them,  and  I think  they  were  put 
in  boxes  and  everything  was  retained  by  the  committee  except  the 
checks  I spoke  to  the  chairman  about  the  other  day — Mr.  Stephen- 
son’s checks. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  If  it  is  agreeable  to  the  subcommittee,  I should 
like  to  have  the  subcommittee  make  a request  on  the  superintendent 
of  public  property  to  submit  these  papers  to  the  subcommittee  at 
his  earliest  convenience.  We  should  be  very  glad  to  use  them  our- 
selves in  connection  with  our  examination.  Our  fear  is  that  they 
would  hardly  be  likely  to  transmit  them  to  us  as  representing  Senator 
Stephenson  or  any  private  party.  Of  course  we  assume  that  the 
subcommittee,  sitting  here  in  a public  capacity,  have  the  right  to 
make  the  request ; and  we  assume  that  undoubtedly  the  superintend- 
ent will  comply  with  the  request. 

Senator  Pomerene.  This  class  of  exhibits  is  a little  out  of  the  ordi- 
nary. Are  you  sure  they  would  be  in  the  custody  of  the  superin- 
tendent of  public  property  ? 

Mr.  Black.  I will  say  that  that  was  my  purpose  in  calling  him  up. 
I do  not  assume  they  are  in  his  legal  custody. 

The  Chairman.  Beginning  on  page  4650,  in  the  last  volume  of  the 
proceedings  before  the  joint  committee,  and  running  down  to  page 
4667,  we  find  what  may  be  presumed  to  be  a complete  list  of  all  of 
the  exhibits  and  papers  that  were  used  before  the  committee ; and  it 
is  the  intention  of  the  subcommittee  to  find  those.  The  presumption 
is  they  are  all  in  the  hands  of  some  person.  Some  of  those  have  been 
copied  into  the  testimony,  and  some  have  not. 

Mr.  Black.  The  committee  had  some  chests  into  which  they  put 
all  those  things  from  time  to  time. 

The  Chairman.  That  committee  has  passed  out  of  existence  with  the 
legislature,  and  some  difficulty  is  being  experienced  in  locating  those 
papers;  but  we  shall  doubtless  be  able  to  locate  them. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  the  list  that  begins  on  page  4650  and 
ends  on  page  4667. 

vSenator  Pomerene.  When  was  the  legislature  elected  that  memo- 
rialized the  United  States  Senate? 

Mr.  Black.  In  the  fall  of  1910. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  they  sat  at  what  time  ? 


454 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Mr.  Black.  They  met  the  second  Monday  in  January,  1911,  and 
continued  from  that  time. 

The  Chairman.  They  had  nothing  to  do  with  this  examination  of 
exhibits  or  witnesses,  had  they  ? 

Mr.  Black.  Nothing  whatever. 

The  Chairman.  It  was  the  previous  legislature? 

Mr.  Black.  The  previous  legislature.  This  investigation  began, 
as  I recollect,  either  the  15th  or  16th  of  February,  1909,  and  con- 
tinued through  until  the  end  of  the  session,  which  was  about  June 
of  that  year. 

Senator  Sutherland.  The  first  investigation  ? 

Mr.  Black.  Yes.  The  first  investigation  began  in  February  and 
continued  until  about  the  1st  of  April,  and  then  the  senate  members 
continued  from  that  time  till  June. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  my  intention  that  between  to-day  and 
Monday  these  exhibits  shall  be  arranged  in  such  order  that  we  can 
turn  to  them  readily,  and  if  possible  procure  them;  but  that  is  a 
matter  yet  to  be  determined.  It  is  not  convenient  to  hunt  out  each 
of  these  items  now;  so  for  that  reason  I am  asking  this  witness,  for 
the  purpose  of  seeing  if  he  can  give  any  information. 

Who  employed  Mr.  Usher? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I made  the  arrangement  with  him. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  make  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  In  the  early  part  of  the  campaign. 

The  Chairman.  Was  it  in  writing? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir;  it  was  not. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  the  arrangement  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Mr.  Usher  was  to  receive  certain  compensation  for 
looking  after  the  publicity  end  of  the  campaign. 

The  Chairman.  There  were  just  two  words  in  that  answer  that  I 
did  not  get.  He  was  to  receive  certain  compensation  for  what  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  For  taking  charge. 

The  Chairman.  For  taking  charge  of  what? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Of  the  publicity  end  of  the  campaign. 

The  Chairman.  Was  there  a specific  agreement  as  to  what  he  was 
to  do  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  agreement  was  more  general  than  specific.  He 
was  to  look  after  the  advertising,  to  keep  us  advised.  He  was  a 
man  of  considerable  experience  in  that  line  of  work. 

The  Chairman.  What  do  you  mean  by  “looking  after  the 
advertising?” 

Mr.  Sacket.  To  make  contracts  for  advertising,  submit  them  to 
me  for  approval,  and  then  see  that  the  contract  was  carried  out. 

The  Chairman.  Was  he  to  prepare  the  advertising  matter? 

Mr.  Sacket.  In  some  cases;  yes. 

The  Chairman.  Was  it  agreed  in  what  cases  he  was  to  prepare 
the  matter? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  think  there  was  any  special  agreement  as 
to  the  cases.  I remember  that  he  did  help  prepare  some. 

The  Chairman.  Was  there  an  agreement  as  to  the  class  of  cases 
in  which  he  was  to  prepare  the  matter  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Not  to  my  recollection;  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  see  any  of  the  advertising  matter  that 
he  did  prepare? 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


455 


Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  For  which  these  accounts  were  paid? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  describe  or  recall  any  such  items  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I would  rather  not  attempt  to  at  this  time. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  hardly  a proper  answer — that  you  would 
“rather  not  attempt  it.”  Can  you  do  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I am  afraid  I can  not;  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Will  you  try?  You  seem  not  to  be  quite  sure 
that  you  can  not  do  it. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Only  in  a general  way.  I only  have  a general  recol- 
lection of  it.  The  advertisements  were  written,  setting  forth  the 
reasons  why  Senator  Stephenson  should  be  voted  for  and  elected. 
That  is  about  as  far  as  I can  remember. 

The  Chairman.  What  reasons  were  given  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  His  eminent  business  qualifications;  his  long  service 
to  the  Republican  Party  in  the  State. 

The  Chairman.  Were  those  statements  printed  as  advertising 
matter,  or  as  editorials? 

Mr.  Sacket.  As  advertising  matter — that  was  my  understanding — 
every  time. 

The  Chairman.  That  is,  were  they  starred,  after  the  usual  custom 
of  newspapers,  to  indicate  matter  that  was  paid  for  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  so  that  the  public  knew  that  it  was  adver- 
tising matter  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  during  the  session  to-day  produce  some 
one  or  more  copies  of  papers  containing  such  advertising  as  you  have 
referred  to  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know  where  I could  find  any.  I shall  be 
very  glad  to  try. 

The  Chairman.  Doubtless  there  are  files  of  the  papers  here  in  the 
city. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I will  try.  I shall  be  very  glad  to  try. 

The  Chairman.  The  committee  are  interested  to  know  the  nature 
of  these  advertisements — whether  they  were  general  advertisements, 
or  specific  ones.  On  August  1,  under  the  head  of  “Newspaper 
Advertising,”  you  paid  H.  Rasmussen  $333.33.  What  was  that  for? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  was  for  running  an  advertisement  in  Mr.  Ras- 
mussen’s paper. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  the  name  of  the  paper? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  forgotten  the  name  of  the  paper.  I think 
his  bill  will  show. 

The  Chairman.  Where  is  it  published  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  In  the  northern  part  of  the  State,  or  over  the  line  in 
Minnesota;  I am  not  sure  which. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  make  that  arrangement  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I made  it,  or  ratified  it. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  the  nature  of  the  advertisement,  its 
purpose  and  its  object? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  nature  of  it  1 do  not  remember.  The  purpose 
was  to  set  forth  Senator  Stephenson’s  qualifications  for  the  position 
of  United  States  Senator,  and  the  object  was  to  obtain  votes  for  him. 

The  Chairman.  To  obtain  votes  where  ? 


456 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Mr.  Sacket.  In  Wisconsin,  for  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  At  what  election  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  At  the  primary  election. 

The  Chairman.  Which  primary  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  primary  election  held  about  the  first  of  Septem- 
ber, 1908. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  marked  “paid  advertising,”  was  it,  in 
the  paper?  That  is,  it  was  indicated;  was  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  To  the  best  of  my  recollection  it  was  run  as  a paid 
advertisement.  I can  not  recollect  whether  they  starred  each  one, 
because  I do  not  know  that  I saw  each  one. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  not  finish  as  to  the  “Minneapolis  Tidende, 
$563.79.”  Where  is  that  paper  published?  • 

Mr.  Sacket.  In  Minneapolis,  Minn. 

The  Chairman.  You  paid  $563.79  for  advertising  in  that  paper? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes.  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  your  purpose  in  advertising  in  a Minne- 
apolis paper  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I was  informed  that  that  paper  had  a very  large  cir- 
culation through  the  northern  and  western  part  of  Wisconsin ; and 
we  supposed  that  we  should  reach  the  voters  through  that  paper 
better  than  through  a small  local  paper  in  Wisconsin. 

The  Chairman.  Who  prepared  the  advertising  matter  for  that 
paper  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  distinct  recollection  at  this  time  as  to  who 
prepared  it. 

3 ’he  Chairman.  Did  you  pay  someone  for  preparing  it,  in  addition 
to  this  sum  of  $563.79  for  printing  it? 

Mr  Sacket.  Mr.  Usher  received  a salary  for  helping  in  those 
matters. 

The  Chairman.  His  name  does  not  appear  in  connection  with  this 
item. 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  does  not;  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  say  he  would  prepare  that  advertising 
material  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  did  in  some  cases  prepare  advertisements,  or  assist 
in  their  preparation,  and  I presume  he  did  in  a great  many  cases. 

The  Chairman.  I should  like  to  know  whether  he  did  in  this  case. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  as  to  this  particular  item. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  was  paid  for  preparing  the  advertise- 
ments for  which  the  newspaper’s  charge  is  $563.79?  I want  to  get 
at  the  gross  expense. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is,  you  want  to  get  at  the  literary  work, 
if  any? 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  I want  to  get  at  the  gross  expense.  This  is 
only  one  item. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I believe  Mr.  Usher’s  salary  is  included  under  this 
heading  of  “Newspaper  Advertising;”  so  that  the  sum  on  page  605 
of  the  printed  hearings  before  the  joint  committee  would  be  the  total 
for  that  sort  of  work. 

The  Chairman.  You  mean  the  account  aggregating  $12,696.76 
would  include  his  services  as  well  as  his  disbursements? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Is  Mr.  Usher  a newspaper  writer? 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


457 


Mr.  Sacket.  He  is. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  paper  does  he  write  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  think  he  writes  for  any  particular  paper.  He 
writes  for  numerous  papers. 

The  Chairman.  Name  one  of  them. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  seen  his  articles  in  the  Berlin  Journal,  of  Berlin, 
Wis. 

The  Chairman.  On  what  subject  was  the  article  written  that  you 
recall  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  articles  that  I recall  in  the  Berlin  Journal  are 
under  the  heading  “Our  Milwaukee  Letter,”  and  treat  of  subjects 
generally — matters  of  general  information. 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  a special  letter,  or  is  it  a regular  serial? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I am  not  familiar  enough  with  the  business  to  say 
positively. 

The  Chairman.  Now  proceed  as  to  Mr.  Rasmussen. 

Mr.* Littlefield.  Before  you  leave  the  Tidende  may  I ask  whether 
that  is  printed  in  English  or  not  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  is  a Scandinavian  paper,  and  I believe  it  is  printed 
in  Scandinavian. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  appealing  particularly  to  that  class  of 
people  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  here  “Sunday  advertising,  August  1, 
R.,  E.  B.  Usher.”  You  have  already  explained  that  he  is  the  man 
who  prepared  material;  and  all  of  these  amounts  paid  Usher  were  for 
preparing  material  for  advertisements,  were  they  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Except  where  you  have  a receipt,  where  the  letter 
“R”  indicates  that  it  was  a business  transaction? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Just  make  that  plain. 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  letter  “R”  simply  indicates  that  there  was  a 
receipt,  an  itemized  and  receipted  bill,  filed  for  that  item.  The  two 
other  items  on  August  1 indicate  that  there  was  a cashier’s  check, 
with  Mr.  Usher’s  indorsement  upon  it,  produced  before  the  commit- 
tee, but  whether  there  was  an  itemized  bill  or  not  I could  not  say 
positively.  My  recollection  is  that  there  was. 

The  Chairman.  I want  you  to  be  a little  more  specific  in  regard  to 
the  item  on  August  1 — “H.  Rasmussen,  cash,  $333.33.”  What  was 
that  for  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Advertising. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  not  for  preparing  an  article,  but  for  the 
publishing  of  it,  is  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  think  we  paid  anyone  except  Mr.  Usher  for 
preparing  articles,  and  he  was  paid  a regular  salary. 

The  Chairman.  On  August  8 you  paid  the  same  Mr.  Rasmussen, 
or  the  Rasmussen  Publishing  Co.,  $333.33,  and  on  August  18  you 
again  paid  $333.34,  making  $1,000? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  paid  $1,000  to  the  Rasmussen  Publishing  Co. 
in  cash  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  was  the  $1,000  paid  to  that  company? 


458 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Mr.  Sacket.  For  advertising. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  In  what  paper  were  the  advertisements  run  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  forgotten  the  name  of  the  paper.  It  will  prob- 
ably appear  on  the  bills  that  are  on  file. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  it  involve  anything  for  subscriptions  as  well 
as  advertising? 

The  Chairman.  I was  about  to  bring  up  that  question. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Excuse  me.  I was  breaking  in  on  some  of  these 
items  because  it  might  save  me  the  necessity  of  picking  them  up  again 
and  going  over  the  same  ground. 

The  Chairman.  That  seems  to  be  explained  on  page  916,  wheue  the 
bills  of  the  Rasmussen  Publishing  Co.  are  marked  “Exhibit  73.”  We 
will  try  to  get  those  exhibits. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  If  we  can  get  them;  yes. 

The  Chairman.  I am  testing  this  witness,  as  to  the  knowledge  he 
may  have  of  them,  in  anticipation  of  the  production  of  the  bills. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Certainly.  There  is  no  objection  to  that. 

The  Chairman.  The  bills  seem  not  to  have  been  copied  in  the  place 
where  ordinarily  they  would  have  been  copied  in  the  taking  of  testi- 
mony. I notice  that  in  a number  of  similar  instances  documents  are 
copied  into  the  record,  but  in  some  cases  they  are  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  There  does  not  seem  to  have  been  any  uniform 
practice  in  that  regard. 

Mr.  Black.  No;  there  was  not. 

The  Chairman.  I notice  that  on  August  19  you  paid  the  Tidende 
$1,000.  For  what  was  that  paid? 

Mr.  Sacket.  For  advertising. 

The  Chairman.  I notice  on  page  917  that  there  was  produced  a 
bill  of  the  Minneapolis  Tidende  for  $540,  and  that  there  were  several 
bills  rendered  by  that  publishing  company,  and  that  Mr.  Usher  paid 
those  bills. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  the  chairman  referring  to  the  Minneapolis 
Tidende  now? 

The  Chairman.  Yes.  That  was  the  $1,000  item. 

Mr.  Black.  Mr.  Usher  simply  O.  K’d  those  bills. 

The  Chairman.  I am  calling  attention  to  the  page  of  the  printed 
record  of  the  joint  committee  investigation  (p.  917),  where  that  was 
introduced  as  an  exhibit,  merely  for  the  purpose  of  identification. 

Mr.  Black.  Mr.  Usher  merely  O.  K’d  the  bill;  did  he  not?  It 
shows  that  he  did  so. 

The  Chairman.  I am  identifying  the  reference  for  the  convenience 
of  the  committee  when  we  have  the  bills  here.  Now,  we  will  pass  on 
from  that  $1,000  item,  and  we  come  to  the  Koch  Advertising  Agency, 
to  which  you  paid  $3,000  on  August  26.  What  did  you  pay  $3,000 
to  that  corporation  for? 

Mr.  Sacket.  For  advertising. 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  the  statement  which  we  find  on  pages  874, 
875,  876,  877,  878,  879,  880,  881,  882,  and  883? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I find  a statement  from  the  Koch  Advertising  Agency 
on  page  863  and  another  statement  on  page  874. 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  I have  both  of  those. 

Mr.  Sacket.  And  I think,  if  I remember  correctly,  there  should 
be  another  one  somewhere. 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


459 


The  Chairman.  Those  are  the  items  that  make  up  that  charge. 
There  is  Exhibit  63,  on  page  862,  and  Exhibit  64  following  on  page 
872.  That  is  a total  bill  of  $3,304.17,  paid  by  two  checks.  Exhibit 
63  amounts  to  $4,764.10.  That  is  the  first  bill  here,  as  I find  it,  and 
a second  bill  contained  in  this  statement  is  $826.97;  and  in  connec- 
tion with  that  are  items  amounting  to  $1,800.69  in  the  aggregate. 
Then,  following  that,  is  Exhibit  64,  amounting  to  $3,304.17. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Exhibit  64,  if  the  chairman  will  notice,  takes 
care  of  the  item  “August  25,  $302.91.” 

The  Chairman.  It  takes  care  of  a statement  of  items  that  make 
up  the  aggregate  sum  which  is  contained  in  that? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Who  would  know  as  to  the  character  of  the  items — 
that  is,  items  contained  in  the  “advertisements”?  For  instance, 
“Racine  News,  $46.58,”  “Racine  Times,  $43.47.”  What  did  the 
Racine  News  and  the  Racine  Times  do  in  the  way  of  advertising? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  exact  knowledge  about  it. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  have  any  knowledge  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Not  to  my  recollection. 

The  Chairman.  Here  is  the  “Milwaukee  Revnost” — is  that 
correct  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  recall  any  such  name. 

What  page  is  it  ? 

The  Chairman.  Page  882;  and  the  amount  is  $18. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Revnost  ? I do  not  recall  any  such  paper  as  that.  It 
may  be  a misprint. 

The  Chairman.  Milwaukee  Farmers’  Record;  I suppose  you  know 
about  that  paper?  Milwaukee  Columbia,  Milwaukee  W.  Germania, 
Milwaukee  Excelsior,  Milwaukee  Catholic  Citizen,  Milwaukee  Domac- 
nost — you  know  all  those  papers,  do  you  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  heard  of  all  of  them. 

The  Chairman.  Those  are  weekly  papers.  “Ten  inches,  3 times”: 
That  means  10  inches  of  space,  does  it?  We  will  have  to  hunt  up 
some  of  those  papers.  The  newspaper  advertising  amounted  to 
$12,696.76.  All  of  that  expense  was  contracted  by  you,  was  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  paid  for  out  of  the  campaign  fund  furnished 
by  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  was. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose? 

Mr.  Sacket.  For  the  purpose  of  advertising. 

The  Chairman.  Advertising  to  whom  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  To  the  voters  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin. 

The  Chairman.  Advertising  what  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Senator  Stephenson’s  candidacy  and  his  qualifications. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  the  purpose  in  advertising  these  things 
to  the  voters  of  Wisconsin  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  So  that  they  might  know  the  qualifications  of  Senator 
Stephenson,  and  exercise  their  judgment  in  voting. 

The  Chairman.  Was  it  to  induce  them  to  vote  for  Senator  Stephen- 
son ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I believed  that  if  they  knew  him  as  well  as  I did  they 
would  all  vote  for  him. 


460 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


The  Chairman.  No;  the  question  is  about  the  inserting  of  these 
advertisements.  You  inserted  them?  You  made  the  contracts? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Was  it  your  purpose  to  get  the  electors  of  the  State 
of  Wisconsin,  through  the  means  of  this  advertising,  to  vote  for 
Senator  Stephenson  for  United  States  Senator  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  was. 

The  Chairman.  At  the  direct  primary  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  was. 

The  Chairman.  Now,  we  go  to  the  “sundry”  items  on  page  605. 
Did  you  make  those  payments  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did. 

The  Chairman.  “Wisconsin  Agriculturist,  R”:  What  does  the 
“R”  mean? 

Mr.  Sacket.  A receipted  bill  is  indicated  by  that  letter. 

The  Chairman.  You  paid  them  $760.25,  and  then  you  again  paid 
the  same  people,  in  the  next  item,  $362.42,  for  what  purpose? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I could  not  say  as  to  that  particular  item,  positively; 
but  I think  that  was  for  the  use  of  a list  of  names  that  they  had. 

The  Chairman.  The  two  items  together  amounting  to  something 
over  $1,100. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  There  is  another  one  on  the  other  page,  if  your 
honor  please,  of  $338.52 — page  606.  I suggest  that  so  that  we  can 
group  them  all  together. 

The  Chairman.  Altogether  about  $1,400  or  $1,500.  What  did  you 
pay  them  that  money  for  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  My  recollection  of  the  arrangement  with  this  news- 
paper publishing  company  was  that  they  were  to  furnish  us  a list  of 
names  of  farmers  throughout  the  State — their  mailing  list;  and  we 
were  to  pay  them  1 cent  for  each  name  for  the  first  use  of  those  names. 
I think  that  $760.25  represents  that.  We  were  to  pay  them  half  a 
cent  for  each  subsequent  use  of  that  name.  One  of  the  other  items, 
I think,  covers  that.  We  also  paid  them  for  addressing  the  en- 
velopes, for  the  envelopes  themselves,  and  for  trouble  in  mailing 
them. 

The  Chairman.  They  had  an  addressing  machine,  did  they? 

Mr.  Sacket.  They  had  the  list  in  their  office  in  Racine. 

The  Chairman.  And  they  used  the  mailing  machine  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know  what  their  machinery  was.  They  had 
the  list  in  their  office,  and  they  gave  us  the  list  in  the  form  of  ad- 
dressed envelopes.  We  paid  them  for  the  addressing. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  So  that  you  had  the  envelopes  all  ready  to  fill 
in  your  material,  put  on  the  stamps,  and  send  them  out  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  So  that  you  had  something  more  than  the  list  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  We  had  the  list  and  the  envelopes.  The  cent  and  a 
half  did  not  include  those  envelopes,  or  the  work  of  addressing  them. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  paid  for  the  envelopes? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I paid  for  the  envelopes,  and  the  work  of  addressing 
them,  and  everything  that  they  did  in  connection  with  that  work. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Then  you  paid  the  newspaper  for  the  work 
of  addressing  the  envelopes  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


461 


Senator  Sutherland.  You  did  not  pay  them  for  the  privilege  of 
using  the  names  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir;  both. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I should  like  to  understand  that.  Upon 
what  theory  did  the  newspaper  charge  you  for  the  privilege  of  using 
the  names? 

Mr.  Sacket.  We  used  their  names,  their  list,  to  send  our  circulars 
to — our  circular  letters  and  literature.  We  paid  them  for  the  use  of 
those  names,  about  70,000  names,  1 cent  for  the  first  using  and  half 
a cent  for  the  subsequent  using. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Were  these  the  names  of  their  subscribers? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Tell  me,  if  you  can,  upon  what  theory  they 
charged  you  for  the  use  of  the  names. 

Mr.  Sacket.  They  had  the  list;  we  wanted  the  list,  and  the  pub- 
lisher offered  to  sell  us  the  use  of  the  list. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  could  not  get  it  without  their  permission, 
could  you  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  They  furnished  you  the  list  of  names  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  list  of  their  subscribers. 

The  Chairman.  The  newspapers  have  a system  of  transferring 
those  names  by  machinery  to  envelopes,  or  to  the  mailing  package, 
or  whatever  it  is. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  they  have  mailing  machines.  I do  not 
know  whether  this  paper  had  one  or  not;  but  there  are  such  machines. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  was  for  the  list  itself,  and  not  for  the 
privilege  of  using  the  names?  In  other  words,  you  could  have  ob- 
tained the  names  from  some  other  source  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes;  the  payment  was  for  the  use  of  their  list.  When 
I said  “names”  I meant  “list,”  of  course. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Let  me  ask  right  here:  Did  the  cent  that  you 
paid  them  for  the  first  use  include  the  right  to  use  their  list  and  their 
services  in  putting  the  names  of  the  subscribers  on  the  envelopes 
furnished  by  you  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  did  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  paid  them  in  addition  to  that? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  much  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember.  By  footing  up  these  items  it 
would  show. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  These  disbursements  to  them  included  not  only 
the  cent  a name  for  the  use  of  the  list,  but  the  services  performed  by 
the  company  in  putting  the  names  on  the  envelopes  furnished  by  you  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir;  and  the  envelopes,  too.  They  bought  and 
charged  me  for  the  envelopes,  in  some  cases. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  paid  them  for  the  envelopes? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  They  furnished  the  envelopes,  put  on  the  ad- 
dress, and  put  in  these  bills,  and  you  paid  them  for  both  envelopes 
and  addressing  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  In  some  cases ; yes,  sir. 


462 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Senator  Sutherland.  Let  me  ask  you  further:  I suppose  in  fur- 
nishing you  the  list  they  had  somebody  write  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  On  our  envelopes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  How  was  the  list  furnished  you — in  writing, 
or  was  it  printed,  or  what  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  was  furnished  us  on  envelopes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  They  did  not  have  it  separately  from  the 
envelopes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  had  no  separate  list  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Practically,  they  agreed  to  address  the  envelopes. 

The  Chairman.  They  did  for  you  just  exactly  what  they  do  for 
themselves  at  the  time  of  every  issue:  They  prepared  the  wrapper 
(whether  it  was  an  envelope  or  a paper  wrapper)  with  the  name  of 
the  subscriber  on  it  and  handed  it  to  you;  did  they  not? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  that,  of  course,  gave  them  the  opportunity 
to  reach  every  subscriber  that  paper  had. 

The  Chairman.  Newspapers  generally  charge  for  the  use  of  their 
subscription  lists,  do  they  not — that  is,  you  can  not  go  to  a newspaper 
and  get  a subscription  list  without  a consideration  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I should  not  expect  to  get  anything  without  a con- 
sideration. 

The  Chairman.  You  paid  a price  for  that  in  order  that  you  might 
use  it  in  the  interest  of  Senator  Stephenson’s  nomination  for  United 
States  Senator  at  the  direct  primary.  You  paid  them  this  money  in 
order  that  you  might  have  the  use  of  their  subscription  list  on  his 
behalf.  Is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  The  Wisconsin  Agriculturist  is  a Republican 
newspaper,  is  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know  that  it  is  especially  political  in  any  way. 
It  is  an  agricultural  paper.  I do  not  know  what  its  political  policy  is. 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  I want  to  get  at  is  the  purpose  of 
your  getting  this  particular  list.  Were  these  people  supposed  to  be 
Republicans  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I had  no  knowledge  of  their  political  affiliations. 

Senator  Sutherland.  They  were  supposed  to  be  farmers,  and  you 
wanted  to  reach  that  class  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I wanted  to  reach  the  farmers  on  their  subscription 
list. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Then  it  was  for  that  particular  object  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Most  of  their  subscribers  would  naturally 
be  farmers  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  It  was  to  enable  you  to  reach  that  class  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  personal  knowledge  of  the  items  under 
“ Sundry  bills”  on  pages  605  and  606,  have  you — of  their  payment 
and  purpose  of  payment  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Were  they  paid  out  for  services  or  substance  to 
be  used  in  the  interest  of  Senator  Stephenson,  to  procure  votes  for 
him  at  the  primary  election  for  the  nomination  of  a United  States 
Senator  ? 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


463 


Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  think  there  is  anything  in  that  schedule  for 
services  such  as  organizing;  in  fact,  I am  quite  certain  there  is  not. 
If  you  mean  by  “service”  the  printing  of  envelopes  or  anything  of 
that  kind  there  was. 

The  Chairman.  The  printing  of  advertisements  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  For  instance,  take  page  606:  “Van  de  Kamp  & 
Lorberter,  $290.”  What  was  that  item  for? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I am  certain  I knew  all  about  it  at  the  time  it  was 
paid;  but  I have  forgotten  the  business  in  which  that  firm  was 
engaged. 

The  Chairman.  How  about  “Whitehead  & Hoag,  $502.25,”  at 
the  bottom  of  page  605  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  was  for  campaign  buttons. 

The  Chairman.  Wliere  did  you  purchase  those  buttons  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  order  was  given  to  the  agent  of  this  company, 
who  had  an  office  in  the  Wells  Building.  I think  he  came  into  our 
headquarters  office  and  took  the  order. 

The  Chairman.  WTiat  were  these  buttons  ? Describe  them. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Small  buttons  to  be  worn  in  the  lapel  of  the  coat, 
having,  as  I remember  it,  a picture  of  Senator  Stephenson,  and  in 
letters  “For  U.  S.  Senator,  Isaac  Stephenson.” 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  do  with  those  buttons  after  you 
had  purchased  them  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  We  sent  them  to  our  organizers  and  friends  throughout 
the  State,  for  distribution  to  the  voters. 

The  Chairman.  Did  they  distribute  them  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  personal  knowledge  that  they  did. 

The  Chairman.  They  reported  that  they  distributed  them  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  They  did;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  The  distribution  of  those  buttons  was  one  of  the 
items  of  service  for  which  you  paid  salaries  to  these  organizers,  was 
it  not  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Some  of  them;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  see  them  being  worn  by  electors  in 
the  State  of  Wisconsin  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  In  quantities  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know  that  I ever  kept  track  of  the  number; 
but  I saw  them  quite  frequently  on  men’s  coats. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  wear  one  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did. 

The  Chairman.  Where  did  you  get  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Out  of  the  box  of  them  that  we  had  in  the  office. 

The  Chairman.  On  page  606  there  is  an  item  of  $660  paid  to  L. 
Breithaupt.  What  was  that  for  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I can  not  be  absolutely  positive;  but  if  I remember 
correctly,  that  was  for  printing  of  some  kind. 

The  Chairman.  Where  does  he  print? 

Mr.  Sacket.  In  Milwaukee. 

The  Chairman.  Has  he  a printing  establishment  here  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  is  my  recollection  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  tell  us  where  it  is  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know,  I am  sure.  I have  forgotten. 


464 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


The  Chairman.  Or  what  the  printing  consisted  of? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Not  that  item;  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Who  can  tell  us  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  his  bill  is  on  file  in  the  papers  that  we  are 
waiting  for;  and  that  should  show. 

The  Chairman.  Go  below  to  the  “Mandel  Engraving  Co.,  $278.35.” 
For  what  work  was  that  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  My  recollection  of  that  item  is  that  it  was  for  the 
large  lithographs  of  Senator  Stephenson  that  we  sent  over  the  State. 

The  Chairman.  Lithographs  that  were  generally  distributed  over 
the  State  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  seem  to  have  paid  Whitehead  & Hoag  another 
sum  of  $110.10,  at  the  top  of  page  607,  and  $356.97  on  September  5. 
Were  those  items  for  buttons  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  All  for  buttons;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Referring  to  the  Van  de  Kamp  & Lorberter  item 
of  $290  near  the  top  of  page  606,  and  the  item  of  $775.50  near  the 
bottom,  and  $641.15  on  the  next  page:  Can  you  tell  what  those  items 
were  for  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  distinct  recollection. 

The  Chairman.  What  business  were  they  in  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  they  were  printers. 

The  Chairman.  There  is  an  item  of  $210.62  on  page  608,  the  last 
item  of  that  class.  What  was  that  paid  for?  It  says  here  “ Sun- 
dries, Wells  Co.” 

Mr.  Sacket.  $3.26  of  that  was  paid  to  the  Wells  Co.  in  check 
No.  33963. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  the  other  portion  of  it  for  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  other,  as  I remember  it,  consisted  of  a lot  of 
small  bills. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  undertaken  to  classify  the  other  items 
under  August  8,  page  608,  as  “Circulating  nomination  papers.” 
Have  you  included  in  the  list  all  the  people  who  were  employed 
specially  for  that  purpose  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  not;  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Those  items  seem  to  have  been  paid  shortly  after 
the  expiration  of  the  time  in  which  those  papers  should  be  filed. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Will  you  explain  those  items,  and  how  you  came 
to  include  them  in  a separate  statement  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Those  are  persons  who  circulated  nomination  papers, 
not  on  any  special  contract  with  our  office,  but  from  the  fact  that 
they  received  a blank  which  we  sent  out  broadcast  over  the  State, 
with  a circular  letter  requesting  Senator  Stephenson’s  friends 

The  Chairman.  How  much  a name  did  you  pay  for  getting  signa- 
tures to  the  nomination  papers  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not  calculate  to  pay  anything  for  the  circulating 
of  the  nomination  papers  that  were  circulated  in  that  way. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  pay,  however.  What  was  the  basis  of 
payment  ? The  sums  seem  to  be  in  odd  figures. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I paid  these  men  what  they  claimed,  you  know. 

The  Chairman.  How  would  a man  arrive  at  the  conclusion  that  he 
ought  to  have  $3.55  ? Why  not  $3.60,  or  $4  ? 


RODNEY  SACKET.  465 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know  how  they  arrived  at  the  conclusion; 
but  they  demanded  those  sums. 

The  Chairman.  Or  the  next  one,  $7.56  ? Do  you  not  think  you 
had  a basis  of  so  much  a name  ? « 

Mr.  Sacket.  I had  no  such  basis;  no,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Just  explain  fully  how  you  happened  to  make 
those  payments. 

Mr.  Sacket.  They  were  made  in  compliance  with  the  letters,  the 
demands  of  these  persons  for  payment  for  those  services,  for  the 
service  of  circulating  papers.  I paid  them  what  they  asked  in  each 
case. 

The  Chairman.  “S.  A.  Holdridge,  .25,”  marked  “Not  cashed.” 

Mr.  Sacket.  I remember  that  item. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  send  him  a lesser  amount  than  he  de- 
manded, and  did  he  refuse  to  receive  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir.  His  letter  I remember,  because  of  the  fact 
that  it  was  so  small.  He  wanted  25  cents  for  paying  the  officer  who 
swore  him  to  the  correctness  of  that  list.  I sent  him  just  what  he 
asked  for. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  remember  that  because  it  was  so  small? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  The  others  you  forget  because  they  were  so 
large  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No;  no,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Those  were  common  occurrences.  This  was  an 
uncommon  occurrence,  was  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Very  uncommon. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  about  its  not  being  cashed  ? Just  explain 
that,  if  there  is  any  explanation  of  it. 

Mr.  Sacket.  These  check  numbers  I obtained  by  going  through 
the  cashier’s  checks  in  Marshall  & Ilsley’s  bank.  I found  on  their 
stub  book  this  No.  33480;  and  we  were  unable  to  find  among  the  paid 
and  canceled  checks  the  check  that  came  from  that  stub.  So  I con- 
cluded at  the  time  I made  this  list  that  the  check  had  not  been  cashed. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  simply  indicates  that  it  was  outstanding, 
and  had  not  been  returned  for  collection  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  pass  over  the  “Express”  account  you 
paid.  Evidently  there  is  a voucher  for  the  express  items  of  $235.87. 
That  was  for  sending  your  campaign  material  about  from  place  to 
place ; was  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  pass  now  to  the  “Sundries,  small,”  com- 
mencing with  July  7,  on  page  609.  I notice  that  on  the  day  after  you 
opened  this  account  you  spent  $10.75  for  cigars.  Where  were  those 
cigars  purchased  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  On  July  8 ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  page  609. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  that  particular  item. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  who  purchased  them  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  positive  recollection. 

The  Chairman.  In  those  “Sundries,  small”  accounts  there  are  a 
large  number  of  items,  under  the  head  of  “Sundries,”  running  up 
sometimes  to  considerable  amounts.  Are  we  to  take  it  that  those 
15235°— VOL  1—11 30 


466 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


items  were  money,  cash  paid  out  for  treats  by  you  or  others  working 
under  your  direction  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  is  not  what  is  intended  by  the  word  1 ‘sundries. ” 
They  may  have  included  something  of  that  kind. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  is  the  fact  about  it — not  what  was 
intended  ? What  is  the  fact  about  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not  intend  to  cover  up  an  item  of  drinks  and 
cigars  by  using  the  word  “ sundries.’ ’ I know  that  in  some  of  those 
items  there  were  charged  drinks  and  cigars. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  were  the  items  made  up  of?  Explain  it 
while  you  are  going  along.  Under  what  circumstances  did  you  make 
an  entry  of  “Sundries,”  if  you  remember?  State  it  in  detail. 

Mr.  Sacket.  When  my  card  showed  a number  of  entries,  cash 
payments,  and  the  card  footed  up  $50,  or  whatever  it  was,  I entered 
it  as  an  item  here  from  that  card. 

Senator  Pomerene.  There  are  a number  of  places  here  where  you 
have  used  the  word  “Cigars.”  Why  did  you  not  enter  that  as 
“Sundries”  ? Why  did  you  distinguish  between  them? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Because  that  was  one  payment  for  cigars  entirely — 
all  cigars;  a bill  for  boxes  of  cigars. 

The  Chairman.  On  page  610  there  is  also  nearly  $100  for  “Suns 
dries.”  Can  you  give  any  approximate  statement  as  to  the  item- 
making up  that  charge  for  sundries  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  You  would  like  to  have  me  give  examples  of  what 
I have  in  those  items  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  what  they  are  trying  to  find  out  and  have 
been  for  live  minutes. 

Mr.  Sacket.  In  the  time  that  we  were  busy  we  kept  those  42 
girls  working  into  the  night,  sometimes  as  late  as  10  or  11  o’clock, 
to  get  out  our  literature.  In  one  instance  when  we  kept  them  in 
that  way  I gave  the  lady  in  charge  of  them  money  to  take  them  ali 
out  and  buy  their  dinner.  They  did  not  have  time  to  go  home  and 
back  again.  It  is  such  items  as  that.  The  “Sundries”  in  there 
covered  my  own  personal  expenses. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Ice  cream  and  candies  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Not  for  myself;  no,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  For  the  girls,  I mean. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know;  probably. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  other  items  does  it  include,  if  you  remem- 
ber any  others?  Give  them  all,  so  that  we  will  not  have  to  keep 
going  over  that  every  15  or  20  minutes. 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  would  include  any  expense,  any  little  payment  of 
money  made  by  anyone  in  the  office,  probably  for  hiring  an  express 
wagon  to  carry  our  mail  to  the  post  office,  and 

The  Chairman.  Take  an  item  of  $20  in  one  day,  September  5. 
You  would  not  spend  $20  in  one  day  for  furnishing  refreshments  for 
your  help  or  for  wagons,  would  you  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I guess  the  dinners  cost  as  much  as  $20  when  the 
whole  40  of  them  went  out.  But  the  fact  that  $20  is  entered  on  one 
day  does  not  mean  that  it  was  expended  on  one  day. 

The  Chairman.  There  was  $33.65  on  the  same  day  for  “Sundries;” 
and  again,  on  the  same  day,  $12.70 — about  $78  expended  for  sun- 
dries on  one  day. 


RODNEY  SACKET.  467 

Mr.  Sacket.  They  were  simply  entered  on  one  day.  That  does 
not  indicate  that  they  were  expended  on  one  day. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  the  best, explanation  you  can  give  of  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  no  recollection? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  definite  recollection. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  merely  speculating  on  what  it  might 
have  been  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  stated  instances  in  which  I do  have  definite 
recollection;  otherwise,  I have  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  say  that  a payment  of  “ Sundries”  might 
represent  items  that  had  been  accumulating  for  several  days  on  a 
card.  Is  that  what  you  say  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes;  that  is  certain.  I remember  making  the  account; 
and  the  date  on  which  it  was  charged  would  not  indicate  that  it  was 
disbursed  on  that  day. 

The  Chairman.  Where  you  made  four  entries  in  a day,  you  would 
not  carry  it  up  piecemeal,  would  you?  Suppose  you  made  four 
entries  of  “ Sundries,”  as  you  did  on  September  5,  one  on  September 
6,  one  on  September  8,  one  on  a later  date,  and  so  on.  Here  is  “ Sun- 
dry expenses’ 7 in  one  item,  $250 ■ 

Mr.  Littlefield.  There  are  three  on  September  5. 

The  Chairman.  There  are  five  right  together  on  the  account. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  five  in  three  days. 

The  Chairman.  There  is  $250  on  the  15th  marked  “ Sundries.” 
What  is  that  for  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  the  component  parts  of  that 
item.  That  is  as  I took  it  off  my  cards. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  on  these  cards  that  you  destroyed  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  All  of  these  items  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  All  of  the  items  in  this  account  entitled  “ Sun- 
dries, small,”  on  pages  609  and  610,  were  on  your  cards  in  the  card- 
index  system  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  those  cards  are  the  ones  that  you  destroyed  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Now  we  have  the  bills  commencing  on  page 
611 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Before  you  pass  from  that  question  of  “Sun- 
dries,” September  5 — because  I think  I shall  probably  forget  it — will 
you  be  kind  enough  to  let  him  explain  what  this  entry  of  “Sundries, 
No.  33944  (Lambeck)  33.65”  means — that  is,  if  it  has  any  different 
signification  from  the  other  entries  ? I do  not  know  what  it  may  be, 
but  I should  like  him  to  do  that. 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  means  that  a cashier’s  check  No.  33944  was 
given  to  Arthur  Lambeck,  who  was  assisting  in  the  management  of 
the  office,  to  reimburse  him  for  incidental  expenses  that  he  had  paid 
out. 

The  Chairman.  Now,  we  will  pass  to  the  next  list  of  items  on  pages 
611  and  612.  Quite  a number  of  those  items,  such  as  “Rogers,”  and 
“Telephones,”  and  “Wisconsin  Agriculturist,”  you  have  already 
explained.  The  “Sexton”  item  you  have  explained.  I only  desire 


468 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


to  ask  you  why  you  put  these  “ Marinette  Advertiser”  items  on  that 
page,  and  not  over  with  the  newspaper  advertising? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  accounts  under  date  of  October  16  are  of  bills 
which  were  presented  long  after  the  campaign,  and  were  not  consid- 
ered in  the  schedules  before. 

The  Chairman.  Were  these  items  on  your  card-index  system  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Those  of  October  16,  to  the  best  of  my  recollection, 
were  not. 

The  Chairman.  Where  were  they  noted  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I kept  track  of  these  on  a sheet  of  paper,  if  I remember 
correctly. 

The  Chairman.  I notice  you  have  “L.  H.  Stevens,”  the  banker, 
“$200,”  in  the  next  to  the  last  item? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  I thought  you  had  made  a complete  settlement 
with  him,  according  to  the  statement  in  connection  with  that  item  to 
Stevens— the  items  that  we  went  over  yesterday. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  He  discussed  this  same  item,  if  the  chairman 
please,  in  connection  with  that. 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  I find  we  had  this  item  in  the  statement 
yesterday. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  I have  it  checked.  That  is,  he  made  all  the 
explanation  he  could  make  about  that. 

The  Chairman.  These  items  were  paid  out  by  you  to  the  various 
persons  set  forth  in  the  statement  for  the  purpose  of  securing  their 
services  in  creating  a sentiment  in  favor  of  the  election  of  Senator 
Stephenson  for  United  States  Senator  during  the  direct-primary 
campaign,  were  they  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Not  exactly.  The  payments  were  made  long  after  the 
campaign  had  closed. 

The  Chairman.  For  services  rendered  during  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  They  were  made  in  response  to  their  demand  for 
money  which  they  claimed  we  owed  them  for  services  rendered. 

The  Chairman.  During  the  primary  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  During  the  primary  campaign;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  for  services  rendered  by  them  on  behalf  of 
Senator  Stephenson  to  secure  his  nomination  at  that  direct  primary  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  mean  altogether  services,  or  services  and 
disbursements  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Services;  and  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise  come  in 
here,  too,  I presume. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  disbursements  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Things  of  value  furnished  to  them — that  is,  of 
value,  in  your  judgment,  to  the  extent  that  you  paid  for  them? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Furnished  to  them  to  secure  the  nomination  of 
Senator  Stephenson  at  the  direct  primary  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  “goods,  wares,  and  merchandise”  do 
you  have  in  mind  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Cigars. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Is  that  all? 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


469 


Mr.  Sacket.  Stationery  and  office  supplies. 

The  Chairman.  Some  of  these  items  were  for  liquors  as  well  as 
cigars,  were  they  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  n®  knowledge  of  any  such  item  on  the  16th. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Do  not  limit  it  to  the  16th.  During  the 
campaign,  what  was  the  fact  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  There  was  money  spent  for  liquors  and  cigars,  to  my 
certain  knowledge. 

The  Chairman.  On  the  24th  day  of  August,  the  first  item,  “Hotel 
Meyer,  Janesville,  $17. 50,”  was  for  entertainment  of  electors  in 
behalf  of  Senator  Stephenson,  was  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember  exactly  what  that  item  is. 

The  Chairman.  I think  if  you  would  put  your  mind  to  work  on 
that,  you  would  remember  that  item.  Then,  on  the  same  day, 
“Cigars,  $4.”  They  were  bought  for  the  purpose  of  treating  electors 
of  the  State  of  Wisconsin  with  a view  of  securing  their  vote  for 
Senator  Stephenson,  were  they  not  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  knowledge  of  that  particular  item. 

The  Chairman.  That  item  was  on  your  card  index  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  destroyed  that  card  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  That  card  probably  would  have  enabled  you  to 
remember  it,  would  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  would  not,  any  better  than  this. 

The  Chairman.  On  the  same  day  there  is  “Sundries,  $12.25.” 
That  included  liquors  as  well  as  cigars,  did  it  not? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Not  to  my  knowledge;  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  willing  to  swear  that  it  did  not  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  On  the  same  day  there  is  another  item  of  “Cigars, 
$2.”  Those  were  purchased  by  the  men  that  you  had  employed  to 
represent  Senator  Stephenson,  for  the  purpose  of  treating  electors, 
were  they  not  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  that  particular  item. 

The  Chairman.  And  the  next  item  of  “Sundries,  $16,”  on  the 
same  day,  was  a part  of  the  same  transaction,  was  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I could  not  say;  no,  sir;  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  That  day,  the  24th  of  August,  was  the  day  that 
you  were  making  arrangements  with  the  various  men  who  had  teams 
to  take  electors  to  the  polls,  was  it  not  ? When  you  come  to  items 
on  those  days,  August  22  and  24,  there  are  quite  a number  of 
them  as  to  men  with  whom  you  had  made  contracts  to  haul  people 
to  the  polls  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  arrangement  for  the  work  at  the  polls  was  made 
before  this  day,  August  22. 

The  Chairman.  It  was  made  August  22,  I think  you  have  stated. 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  was  made  before  August  22.  On  about  August 
22,  my  recollection  is,  we  sent  the  men  their  money  to  do  this  work — 
the  men  up  through  the  State.  That  is  why  I charge  those  amounts 
to  teams  and  poll  workers,  because  my  recollection  is  it  was  on  about 
the  22d  of  August  that  we  concluded  to  supply  them  with  the  money 
to  get  ready. 


470 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


The  Chairman.  The  items  on  the  22d  and  24th  seem  to  be  fairly 
numerous  expenditures  for  those  purposes.  About  that  time  quite  a 
number  of  men  came  down  to  Milwaukee  to  get  supplies  and  make 
arrangements  for  spending  money,  did  they  not?  I have  not  figured 
up  the  sums  that  you  paid  between  the  beginning  of  the  22d  and  the 
beginning  of  the  25th;  but  I think  I am  safe  in  suggesting  to  you 
that  the  items  of  money  that  you  paid  were  very  large.  Was  there 
not  what  you  might  call  a political  round-up  about  that  time — a 
large  number  of  people  coming  into  Milwaukee,  to  your  headquarters, 
for  the  purpose  of  getting  money? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember  that  there  was  a particularly 
large  number  at  that  time;  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  paid  out  nearly  $5,000  in  those  two  days, 
did  you  not? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  made  no  computation.  I could  not  say. 

The  Chairman.  It  seems  from  the  statement  to  have  been  a sort 
of  a financial  climax. 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  is  my  recollection  that  about  that  time  we  supplied 
the  men  with  money  for  work  at  the  polls,  to  be  done  later. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I do  not  suppose  the  subcommittee  really 
expect  Mr.  Sacket  to  undertake  to  remember  independently  of 
dates  the  amount  he  paid  out,  even  though  there  were  a cataclysm 
impending. 

The  Chairman.  I am  merely  refreshing  the  witness’s  mind.  I 
have  the  figures  before  me. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes,  I know;  but  it  is  impossible,  as  it  seems  to 
me,  if  the  chairman  please,  for  Mr.  Sacket  to  undertake  to  locate 
expenditures  on  particular  days,  without  his  memorandum  before 
him. 

The  Chairman.  He  has  a book  before  him. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes.  If  you  give  him  time  to  look  it  up,  of 
course,  he  will  do  those  things. 

The  Chairman.  There  is  no  controversy  about  the  amount. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Oh,  no. 

The  Chairman.  I was  reading  from  the  book. 

You  prepared  this  summary  statement  found  on  page  612,  which 
shows  that  you  disbursed  $98,083.72;  did  you? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  prepared  that  from  the  data  we  have 
been  going  over  with  you  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  And  the  data  contained  in  this  same  account. 

The  Chairman.  The  classification  of  items  in  that  summary  is 
correct,  is  it,  or  approximately  so  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  So  nearly  so  that  you  do  not  desire  to  make  any 
corrections  now,  after  having  gone  over  it  as  we  have  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  do  you  know  about  the  expenditures  made 
in  Milwaukee  County? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Nothing  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  any  personal  knowledge  about  them  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Not  the  least. 


RODNEY  SACKET.  471 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Knell  made  the  expenditures  in  Milwaukee 
County;  did  he? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  furnish  him  the  money  that  he  expended  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I gave  Mr.  Puelicher  a receipt  for  the  money. 

The  Chairman.  For  instance,  let  us  take  the  item  of  the  15th  of 
July,  where  he  paid  $50  for  “one  man  to  attend  colored  picnic.” 
Did  you  authorize  the  payment  of  that  $50  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Where  does  that  item  appear? 

The  Chairman.  Under  date  of  July  15,  on  page  484  of  the  joint 
committee  investigation. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  In  Milwaukee  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes.  It  is  the  account  of  Mr.  Knell,  page  484, 
and  is  the  sixth  item  from  the  top  of  the  page — the  item  under  date 
of  July  15.  It  reads,  “Exp.  one  man  to  attend  colored  picnic,  $50.” 
Did  you  authorize  a payment  of  that  kind  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  find  the  item  here  as  stated,  but  I authorized 
no  such  payment. 

The  Chairman.  You  will  find  it  as  I read  it  on  page  484. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  it  suggested  that  that  was  m an  effort  to  paint 
the  town  red  ? 

The  Chairman.  I will  not  make  any  suggestion  in  respect  to  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Or  is  the  hue  of  a different  color  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Mr.  Chairman,  I have  no  knowledge  whatever  of  that 
item. 

The  Chairman.  You  went  over  his  accounts,  I think  you  said,  and 
approved  them  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not;  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know  any  more  than  is  stated  on  the 
face  of  that  item  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I know  nothing  about  Mr.  Knell's  expenditures,  but 
I will  say  in  regard  to  this  item  that  I think  the  same  item  appears  in 
Exhibit  49  of  the  State  investigation  (this  that  you  refer  to  being  in 
Exhibit  47  of  the  State  investigation),  and  that  it  appears  there  as 
$5  instead  of  $50,  and  is  on  page  597. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  It  seems  as  though  the  printing  press  has  con- 
spired against  us  in  connection  with  this  investigation.  Where  do 
you  get  that  item? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Near  the  bottom  of  the  page. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  July  15,  “expense  of  one  man  to  attend 
colored  picnic,  $5.” 

Senator  Sutherland.  Perhaps  it  was  another  man. 

The  Chairman.  No;  this  is  the  expense  of  “one  man  to  attend 
colored  picnic,  $50.”  Which  is  correct  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know.  This  is  the  first  time  that  I have 
heard  of  it. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Was  it  the  same  man? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  If  I were  going  to  paint  anything  red,  I should 
probably  put  in  the  charge  at  $50,  I know,  instead  of  $5. 

The  Chairman.  We  shall  have  to  inquire  of  Mr.  Knell  about  that. 
Then  there  is  the  item,  “One  man  to  Allis-Clialmers  picnic  at  Wau- 
kesha, $10.”  Do  you  know  anything  about  that? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Absolutely  nothing. 


472 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


The  Chairman.  Then,  here  is  an  item,  “One  man  to  picnic  of 
colored  church,  $5.”  Is  that  the  $5  item? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  is  not  the  item  of  $5  that  I was  calling  atten- 
tion to. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I suppose  we  ought  to  find  out  whether  that 
went  into  the  contribution  box.  This  man  might  have  put  in  a 
suspender  button  instead  of  the  $5. 

The  Chairman.  On  the  30th  of  July  we  find  the  charge,  “Exp. 
checking  poll  list  of  city  of  Milwaukee,  $130.”  That  was  for  office 
expenses,  I suppose  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  knowledge  whatever  of  that  expense. 

The  Chairman.  Here  is  a charge  of  “One  man  at  Welsh  picnic, 
$5.”  That  is  only  half  as  much  as  you  paid  the  man  to  attend  the 
Allis-Chalmers  picnic. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  knowledge  of  any  of  these  items,  and  made 
none  of  these  payments. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  There  may  be  an  automobile  in  the  Allis- 
Chalmers  picnic.  I know  there  is  an  automobile  of  that  name. 

The  Chairman.  I do  not  desire  to  pick  out  any  items  merely  for 
the  purpose  of  levity,  but  I do  want  to  direct  the  attention  of  the 
witness  to  the  serious  side  of  this  question.  Under  date  of  August  23 
I find  “Exp.  trip  through  Ghetto  (three  men),  $35.”  What  is  the 
Ghetto  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  knowledge  of  the  Ghetto,  or  of  that  item. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know  to  what  it  refers  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  knowledge  of  that  item.  I did  not  make 
the  payment. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  the  meaning  of  the  item  on  the  25th, 
“Touch  by  two  old  soldiers,”  and  the  item  “Touch  by  two  ‘heelers,’” 


Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  knowledge  of  either  of  those  items. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  think  those  are  legitimate  campaign 


. Sacket.  I am  not  absolutely  certain  of  what  the  money  was 
expended  for. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  not  realize  that  you  were  in  a position 
of  responsibility,  where  you  should  be  certain  as  to  whether  expendi- 
tures were  legitimate?  The  ordinary  citizen  not  interested  may  be 
innocent,  but  the  responsible  man  must  not  be  innocent.  I merely 
make  that  suggestion  in  order  that  your  mind  may  get  to  work  on 
items  of  that  kind. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I had  absolutely  nothing  to  do  with  those  items. 

The  Chairman.  You  paid  them? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not;  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  When  this  man  presented  his  account  to  you,  you 
paid  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I paid  it  as  a whole. 

The  Chairman.  You  must  realize  that  it  was  your  duty,  in  paying 
out  a sum  of  $9,239.16  in  an  account,  to  see  that  the  account  did  not 
contain  any  unlawful  expenditures.  Did  you  not  look  it  over  to  see 
whether  it  did  or  not  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not  examine  it  by  items;  no,  sir. 


each  $2  ? 


ex  ises  ? 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


473 


The  Chairman.  You  will  doubtless  concede  that  such  items  as  that 
are  improper  charges — “ touch  by  two  ‘heelers/”  and  “touch  by  two 
old  soldiers.” 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I wish  we  had  some  law  that  rendered  us  all 
immune  from  touches. 

The  Chairman.  I would  not  ask  that  question  of  any  other  witness 
except  one  who  was  responsible  for  the  expenditure,  and  who  testi- 
fies he  did  pay  this  money. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  that  is  true. 

The  Chairman.  Here  is  an  item,  “Expense  to  ward  and  town 
managers,  including  conveyances,  primary  day  workers,  etc.,  $5,833.” 
There  is  attached  to  that  item  a note  at  the  bottom  to  this  effect: 

“This  sum  was  not  expended  in  one  day,  but  was  gradually  paid 
out  to  the  various  ward  managers  as  the  work  progressed.” 

Do  you  know  anything  personally  about  that? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Absolutely  nothing. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  May  I ask  Mr.  Sacket  here  this  question:  Did 
Mr.  Knell  have  money  on  deposit  against  which  he  checked  himself  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  was  my  understanding  of  the  arrangement; 
yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  paid  no  part  of  this? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I paid  no  part  of  it,  except  to  give  Mr.  Puelicher  a 
receipt  for  the  whole  amount. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Mr.  Puelicher  disbursed  it,  and  in  the  adjust- 
ment you  gave  Mr.  Puelicher  a receipt  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  was  between  yourselves  as  a matter  of 
arranging  the  account? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  no  part  of  the  expenditure  was  paid  by  you, 
as  I understand  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Not  a cent  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  I asked  this  witness  because  of  his  statement  of 
the  official  position  which  he  held. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  The  law  of  Wisconsin  recognizes  the  managers  of 
a campaign  .as  officials  under  the  law,  because  the  law  provides  for 
them;  it  designates  them.  That  is,  it  provides  for  a man  having 
managers  or  representatives,  giving  them  a semiofficial  character  at 
least. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  does  the  chairman  mean  ? 

The  Chairman.  I do  not  care  to  argue  the  matter;  but  this  wit- 
ness having  paid  this  money  in  that  capacity 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  I understand  the  chairman  as  having  found 
something  in  the  Wisconsin  law  that  creates  the  office  of  manager? 

The  Chairman.  I do  not  think  it  is  a proper  question  for  counsel 
to  ask  whether  the  chairman  has  found  something  in  the  law. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I wanted  it  for  my  own  information,  in  order 
that  I might  look  it  up. 

The  Chairman.  The  Chair  will  stand  ready  to  explain  at  any  time. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I would  like  to  have  the  chairman  at  his  con- 
venience give  me  the  reference. 


474 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


The  Chairman.  Yes;  I shall  be  very  glad  to  do  so  at  my  conven- 
ience. 

On  pages  489  and  490  there  are  items  under  the  general  head 
‘‘Postage  stamps ,”  which  aggregate  the  sum  of  $9,819,  in  connection 
with  the  Milwaukee  campaign.  Is  that  in  addition  to  your  postage 
account  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  On  what  page  is  that  ? 

The  Chairman.  It  commences  on  page  489,  and  runs  over  onto 
page  490.  Is  that  in  addition  to  your  stamp  account  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  is  the  account  that  we  went  through  just  a 
little  while  ago.  That  is  my  account. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  I understand  the  chairman  to  say  that  he 
has  found  an  item  of  over  $9,000  for  postage? 

The  Chairman.  I did  not  say  that  I had  found  an  item.  I asked 
Mr.  Sacket  if  this  item  for  postage  stamps  on  pages  489  and  490  is 
an  item  in  addition  to  what  he  has  already  testified  to. 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  is  pot.  It  is  the  same  item. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  a sufficient  answer. 

Mr.  Sacket,  as  before  stated,  the  committee  will  take  what  steps 
it  may  to  procure  these  receipts  and  vouchers;  and  when  they  are 
procured,  if  they  are,  we  shall  desire  to  recall  you  for  the  purpose  of 
explaining  some  of  them.  So  you  will  remain  in  attendance. 

Mr.  Black.  I may  say  right  in  that  connection,  for  the  information 
of  the  committee,  that  Mr.  Essman,  the  superintendent  of  public 
property,  reports  this  morning  that  he  believes  he  knows  where  those 
boxes  of  exhibits  are;  that  he  is  the  custodian  of  them,  and  will  pro- 
duce them  on  subpoena. 

The  Chairman.  I will  ask  the  secretary  to  make  a note  of  that. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  is  Mr.  Essman’ s full  name  ? 

Mr.  Black.  Mr.  William  Essman,  of  Madison. 

Senator  Sutherland.  When  were  you  first  spoken  to  by  anybody 
with  reference  to  your  engagement  in  this  work  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  On  one  of  the  last  days  of  June.  I do  not  remember 
the  exact  date. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Here  in  Milwaukee  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Senator  Stephenson  called  me  up  by  telephone  at 
Berlin. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is,  you  were  at  Berlin  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes.  He  was  at  Marinette. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  he  asked  you  to  come  and  see  him  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Which  you  did  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Who  else  was  present  when  you  called  on 
him  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Mr.  Puelicher. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Anybody  else  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Nobody  else*  that  I remember. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  you  three  talked  over  the  matter  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  The  suggestion  of  your  employment  came 
from  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  At  that  time,  yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  suggest  it  yourself  ? 


RODNEY  SACKET.  475 

Mr.  Sacket.  Long  before  that  time  I volunteered  my  services  to 
Senator  Stephenson  in  case  he  should  become  a candidate. 

Senator  Sutherland.  In  what  way  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I simply  told  him  that  in  case  he  should  be  a candidate 
for  reelection  it  would  give  me  great  pleasure  to  do  anything  I could 
to  help  him. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  was  simply  to  volunteer  general  assist- 
ance? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Not  to  become  manager,  or  to  take  charge 
of  office  work  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Nothing  specific.  It  was  general. 

Senator  Sutherland.  The  suggestion  to  do  specific  work  came  from 
him  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  think  he  was  specific.  He  simply  told  me  to 
go  ahead  and  do  what  I could  for  him,  and  keep  within  the  law.  That 
is  the  substance  of  all  he  said. 

Senator  Sutherland.  When  did  you  first  talk  over  opening  the 
headquarters  and  your  taking  charge  of  the  office  here  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Mr.  Puelicher  and  I went  into  details  on  the  train 
coming  down  from  Marinette,  as  I remember  it. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  then  determine  to  open  the  office  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  communicate  that  fact  to  Senator 
Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  I wrote  him  or  called  him  up  as  soon  as  the 
office  was  opened. 

Senator  Sutherland.  It  was  understood  that  you  would  have 
charge  of  the  office  work  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know  that  there  was  any  special  understand- 
ing to  that  effect.  I simply  took  charge — went  ahead. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  simply  went  ahead  and  took  charge  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  not  tell  Senator  Stephenson  that 
you  were  doing  that  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember  telling  him  specifically  what  I was 
doing  at  any  time. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  ever  talk  with  him  in  advance  about 
the  expenditures  that  it  would  be  necessary  to  make  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  any  such  conversation. 

Senator  Sutherland.  As  I understand,  the  money  that  was  used 
in  the  campaign  was  not  paid  over  to  you  by  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  was  not,  except  $5,000. 

Senator  Sutherland.  He  gave  you  $5,000  when? 

Mr.  Sacket.  In  the  latter  part  of  August;  I think  the  27th.  I am 
not  certain  about  the  date,  however. 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  was  that  to  be  expended  for? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I was  not  to  expend  that,  exactly.  As  I understood 
it,  I took  that  check  just  as  a messenger,  and  carried  it  down  to  the 
bank,  and  left  it  with  the  other  funds. 

Senator  Sutherland.  It  went  into  the  general  fund  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  There  was  no  separate  fund  in  your  hands  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 


476 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Senator  Sutherland.  At  no  time? 

Mr.  Sacket.  At  no  time. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  have  any  agreement  with  the 
Senator  as  to  payment  for  your  services  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  receive  any  payment  for  your 
services  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not. 

Senator  Sutherland.  None  whatever  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  None  whatever. 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  you  did  was  entirely  gratuitous? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  How  long  altogether  were  you  employed  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  From  about  the  1st  of  July  until  after  October  16. 

Senator  Sutherland.  When  you  first  began  the  office  work  did 
you  make  any  estimate  in  your  own  mind,  and  communicate  it  to 
others,  as  to  what  the  total  expense  of  the  campaign  would  be  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember  communicating  an  estimate  to 
others,  but  I did  have  an  idea  in  my  own  mind. 

Senator  Sutherland.  At  that  time,  what  did  you  estimate  the 
entire  expense  would  be  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I estimated  that  to  organize  thoroughly  down  to  the 
smallest  unit  would  cost,  according  to  my  notion,  practically  between 
$150,000  and  $200,000. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  advise  the  Senator  to  pay  that  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Was  the  matter  of  making  as  detailed  an 
organization  as  that  talked  over  by  you  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  think  I talked  to  anyone  about  it,  unless 
possibly  to  Mr.  Edmonds. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Then  you  made  up  your  mind  that  it 
would  not  be  necessary  or  advisable  to  organize  the  precincts  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did;  yes.  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  make  up  your  mind  how  far  your 
organization  should  extend  under  all  the  circumstances? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I was  not  in  charge  of  the  State  organization  generally. 
If  I made  up  my  mind,  it  was  simply  something  that  was  in  my  own 
mind,  in  my  own  thoughts,  in  respect  to  the  matter. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  make  up  your  mind  about  that  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I had  some  thought  as  to  how  far  we  ought  to  go; 
yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Was  that  to  organize  the  counties,  as  you 
did  finally  do  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Not  exactly;  no,  sir.  It  was  to  organize  larger  dis- 
tricts and  counties,  and  do  it  in  a more  systematic  manner  than  we 
did. 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  did  you  estimate  would  be  the 
expense  of  such  an  organization  as  you  deemed  advisable  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I thought  we  could  get  out  of  it  for  $50,000  or  $60,000. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  do  more  than  you  anticipated  at 
that  time  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  others  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  More  was  done;  yes,  sir. 


RODNEY  SACKET.  477 

Senator  Sutherland.  So  that  the  expense  went  beyond  what  you 
originally  expected  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Oh,  yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you,  when  you  began,  think  of  the  neces- 
sity of  keeping  accounts  of  your  expenditures  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Keeping  permanent  accounts  ? I mean  for 
preservation. 

Mr.  Sacket.  No;  I did  not  consider  that  necessary. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  knew  that  the  law  required  that  detailed 
statements  of  expenditures  should  be  filed  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  By  the  candidate;  yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  that  that  law  required  that  the  items 
of  expenditures  should  be  filed  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  As  far  as  they  came  to  his  knowledge;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  knew  that  that  meant  the  particular 
items  of  expenditure,  and  did  not  mean  the  grouping  of  a number  of 
items  together  under  one  designation;  did  you  not? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not;  no,  sir;  and  I do  not  now. 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  did  you  understand  by  the  expression 
in  the  law  that  the  account  should  show  each  item  exceeding  $5  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Disbursed  by  the  candidate  or  for  him,  to  the  best  of 
his  knowledge,  as  reported  to  him.  The  law,  as  I understand  it,  does 
not  require  anyone  but  the  candidate  to  make  this  report. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I want  to  call  your  attention  specifically  to 
the  language  of  the  statute.  The  law  provides  that  the  candidate  shall 
make  the  statement  in  writing — 

Setting  forth  in  detail  each  item  in  excess  of  $5  in  money  or  property  contributed, 
disbursed,  expended,  or  promised  by  him,  and,  to  the  best  of  his  knowledge  and  belief, 
by  any  other  person  or  persons  for  him  or  in  his  behalf,  wholly  or  in  part,  in  endeavoring 
to  secure  or  in  any  way  in  connection  with  his  nomination  or  election  to  such  office  or 
place  or  in  connection  with  the  election  of  any  other  person  at  said  election,  the  dates 
when,  and  the  persons  to  whom,  and  the  purpose  for  which  all  said  sums  were  paid, 
expended,  or  promised,  and  the  total  aggregate  sum  paid,  expended,  or  promised  by 
such  candidate  in  any  sum  or  sums  whatever. 

Did  you  not  understand  that  the  law  contemplated  that  the  can- 
didate should  in  his  statement  make  an  exhibit  of  every  item  ex- 
ceeding $5,  together  with  the  name  of  the  person  to  whom  it  was  dis- 
bursed, and  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  disbursed  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  the  date  when  it  was  disbursed. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  the  date  when  it  was  disbursed? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  the  candidate  should  make  the  statement  was 
my  understanding. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  it  was  his  duty  under  the  statute  to 
do  that? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  To  the  best  of  his  knowledge  and  informa- 
tion ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  you  knew  that  in  order  to  do  that  he 
would  be  obliged  to  rely  upon  the  statements  of  his  disbursing  agents; 
did  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Not  necessarily;  no,  sir. 


478 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Senator  Sutherland.  How  else  could  he  get  the  information  $ 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  statement  that  was  filed,  in  my  opinion,  complied 
with  the  law  in  the  matter  exactly. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I have  not  asked  you  that.  How  did  you 
expect  Senator  Stephenson  to  get  whatever  information  it  was  neces- 
sary for  him  to  have?  From  his  disbursing  agents? 

Mr.  Sacket.  From  his  own  books  of  the  sums  expended  and  dis- 
bursed by  him. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  you  understand  that  if  Senator  Stephen- 
son had  handed  over  $107,000  to  you,  and  said,  “Expend  this  in  my 
behalf,”  it  would  have  been  sufficient  for  him  to  have  merely  made 
the  statement  that  he  had  furnished  $107,000  to  be  expended  in  his 
behalf  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  he  would  have  complied  with  the  law  if  he 
had  done  so. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  think  that  would  have  been  enough? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Provided  that  I had  not  furnished  him  with  any  items. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Then  what  do  you  make  of  this  provision 
of  the  law  that  the  candidate  was  to  state,  to  the  best  of  his  knowl- 
edge and  belief,  the  disbursements  made  by  any  other  person  or  per- 
sons for  him  or  in  his  behalf?  Is  it  not  perfectly  clear  to  you  that 
that  does  not  mean  that  he  was  to  simply  state  the  amount  that  he 
furnished  to  any  particular  person,  but  that  he  was  to  make  a state- 
ment of  the  amounts  expended  by  that  person,  and  the  items? 

Mr.  Sacket.  As  reported  to  him.  If  it  was  not  reported  to  him, 
he  was  not  responsible. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Then  he  had  to  rely  upon  that  person  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  the  law  contemplates  that  some  effort 
shall  be  made  to  secure  information  as  to  those  various  details,  does 
it  not  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know  how  far  the  law  contemplates  going  in 
that  matter.  I know  that  it  simply  says  “the  candidate.  ” ft  might 
be  reasonable  to  presume  that  it  meant  the  next  man  to  him;  but 
where  would  you  stop  ? I do  not  think  I would  construe  that  law  as 
meaning  anything  but  just  what  it  says — the  candidate,  and  so  far 
as  he  knows. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Let  us  illustrate  it.  You  have  an  item  here 
of  “Sundries,  $250.”  That  aggregate  sum  is  evidently  made  up  of 
a number  of  items. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Some  of  them  exceeding  $5.  Is  not  that 
true  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Not  necessarily.  They  might  all  be  smaller  than  $5. 

Senator  Sutherland.  As  a matter  of  fact,  there  are  in  these  aggre- 
gate sums  many  items  exceeding  $5,  are  there  not  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I should  think  there  were  some  items;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  take  any  pains  to  preserve  a mem- 
orandum of  those  items  which  exceeded  $5  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not;  no,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  the  necessity  of  keeping  a book  of 
accounts  occur  to  you  at  all  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


479 


Senator  Sutherland.  You  simply  kept  a memorandum  of  these 
expenditures  upon  slips  of  paper,  which  you  afterwards  transferred 
to  your  cards  ? That  was  the  way  it  was  done  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I kept  them  on  cards  and  slips  of  paper  in  the  card- 
index  box.  I afterwards  transferred  it  to  typewriting  on  a sheet  of 
paper. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  then  destroyed  it  and  the  sheet  of 
paper  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  destroyed  your  cards  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  the  original  memorandum  and  the  slips 
as  well,  if  you  had  any  slips  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  When  you  made  these  entries  upon  the  slips 
of  paper  and  upon  the  cards,  did  you  know  the  facts  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I might  have  known  the  facts,  but  do  not  know  that 
I knew  all  in  every  case. 

Senator  Sutherland.  In  the  case  of  each  entry  which  you  made, 
did  you  at  the  time  you  made  it  know  that  it  was  an  expenditure, 
and  that  you  had  to  set  it  down  correctly  on  the  cards  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes;  I knew  practically  all  about  it  at  the  time  I set 
it  down. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  you  did  set  it  down  on  all  these  cards  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I set  it  down  as  it  appears  in  my  statement  now. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I say,  you  did  set  down  the  item  of  expendi- 
ture, as  to  the  person  to  whom  it  was  paid  and  the  amount,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  facts  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  amount  was  always  in  accordance  with  the  facts, 
but  not  always  as  to  the  person  to  whom  paid. 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  do  you  mean  by  that  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not  make  an  entry  showing  the  person  to  whom 
the  amount  was  paid  in  all  cases. 

Senator  Sutherland.  When  you  did  state  the  name  of  the  person, 
was  it  stated  truly  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  As  far  as  you  did  state  the  facts  upon  your 
memoranda,  the  statement  was  true  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  you  knew  it  to  be  true  at  the  time  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Although  the  circumstances  have  since 
escaped  your  recollection  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Then,  are  you  able  to  say  that  this  statement 
of  account  which  Senator  Heyburn  has  been  going  over  is  a truthful 
statement  of  expenditures  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Assuming  the  copy  is  a true  copy  of  the  statement 
that  I filed,  it  is  correct  as  to  the  figures. 

Senator  Sutherland.  The  statement  you  filed  was  a true  state- 
ment ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 


480 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Senator  Sutherland.  In  these  items  of  expenditure  which  you 
have  set  down,  what  sort  of  items  were  included  under  the  designation 
“General”  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  item  was  to  be  expended,  to  the  best  of  my  recol- 
lection, for  organizing,  campaigning,  and  work  of  that  kind  through- 
out the  State,  or  a territory  larger  than  one  county.  I should  have 
put  the  county  down  if  it  had  been  just  in  one  county,  but  “general” 
meant  more  than  one  county. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Was  it  an  expenditure  for  hiring  teams,  or 
something  else  ? 

• Mr.  Sacket.  It  would  include  the  hiring  of  teams  and  all  of  the 
component  parts  of  the  work  of  organizing. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Can  you  not  give  me  a little  more  in  detail 
what  that  means  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  is,  distributing  campaign  literature,  buttons, 
hanging  up  lithographs,  the  traveling  expenses  of  the  local  manager 
in  going  from  place  to  place,  the  hiring  of  livery  teams  and  of  automo- 
biles, the  hiring  ©f  halls  and  bands,  the  distributing  of  nomination 
papers,  and  all  of  the  little  things  that  go  to  make  up  a campaign. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Let  me  ask  you  whether  or  not,  in  keeping 
this  account  as  you  did  and  putting  the  expenditure  of  so  many  sums 
of  money  under  the  general  head  of  “Sundries”  and  “General  expen- 
ditures,” it  was  any  part  of  your  purpose  that  Senator  Stephenson 
should  not  be  able  to  know  what  the  various  items  of  expenditure 
were  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  was  not. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  have  any  purpose  in  keeping  your 
account  in  that  way  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I omitted  the  name  of  the  person  to  whom  the  money 
was  given  in  some  instances  because  I felt  that  he  did  not  want  his 
name  to  be  known. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Why  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Simply  because  the  man  did  not  want  it  to  be  known. 

Senator  Sutherland.  But  why  did  the  man  not  want  it  to  be 
known  ? What  was  the  point  of  that  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I presume  he  did  not  want  it  to  be  known  because  the 
newspapers  might  say  things  about  him — that  is,  the  newspapers  that 
opposed  Senator  Stephenson. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  you  mean  that  he  did  not  want  it  to  be 
known  because  he  felt  he  was  doing  anything  that  was  improper  or 
wrong  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Not  that  he  was  doing  anything  wrong  or  that  he  was 
ashamed  of,  but  that  he  did  not  want  to  get  into  public  notice.  He 
did  not  want  to  be  talked  about  in  the  newspapers.  He  did  not  want 
to  be  accused  by  the  opposing  newspapers  of  doing  wrong. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  you  call  to  mind  any  of  these  persons 
now  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I do  not  understand  that  he  states  they  so  stated 
to  him,  but  this  is  his  reasoning. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I can  recall  persons  who  asked  that  their  names  be 
not  used. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Oh,  I did  not  understand. 

Senator  Sutherland.  To  whom  money  was  paid? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


481 


Senator  Sutherland.  What  reason  did  they  give  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  “I  do  not  wank  to  appear  in  the  matter.” 

Senator  Sutherland.  “I  do  not  want  my  name  connected  with 
it?” 

Mr.  Sacket.  “I  do  not  want  to  be  published  in  connection  with 
this.” 

Senator  Sutherland.  Have  those  names  since  been  added  to  the 
account  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Where  I was  able,  after  the  joint  committee  de- 
manded them,  I furnished  them  in  every  case;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  you  recall  anybody  who  made  that 
request,  whose  name  has  not  been  added  to  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not;  no,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  would  not  apply  to  the  item  of  “ Sun- 
dries”? The  persons  from  whom  you  made  purchases  of  cigars  or 
meals  or  liquors  would  not  make  any  such  request  as  that. 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  would  apply  to  items  under  the  head 
of  “ General  expenses”? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Under  the  head  “ General  expenses”  they  made  such 
a request. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  have  any  purpose  other  than  you 
state  in  lumping  these  various  items  under  the  head  of  “ Sundries”? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not;  no,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  can  give  no  other  reason  than  you  have 
already  given  for  doing  it  in  that  way  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  “ sundry”  items  were  simply  for  my  own  con- 
venience. They  related  to  comparatively  small  expenditures.  I 
think  $250  is  the  largest  item  of  “Sundries”  that  appears.  I simply 
bunched  those  in  order  to  save  bookkeeping.  On  my  card  I figured 
“sundries,”  “sundries,”  “sundries,”  and  I simply  added  them  up 
and  put  them  in  a bunch  for  convenience.  In  the  “general”  items 
I left  out  the  names,  when  I did  so,  purposely  and  because  of  the  fact 
that  I thought  the  men  did  not  want  their  names  to  appear. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  have  said  that  a portion  of  the  money 
which  is  represented  in  this  account  was  expended  for  liquors  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  In  what  way  was  that  expenditure  made  ? 
Did  you  purchase  liquor  in  bulk  to  give  to  people,  or  did  you  treat 
them,  or  how  was  it  expended  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  expenditures  for  liquors  and  cigars  that  I know 
of  I made  myself  in  several  instances.  I do  not  remember  particu- 
larly. I would  take  men  who  were  our  friends,  from  out  around  the 
State,  to  meals.  I bought  them,  possibly,  a cocktail  before  their 
dinner  and  some  beer  with  the  dinner,  or  some  wine  and  some  cigars 
after  dinner. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Men  with  whom  you  were  doing  business  in 
your  office  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Men  with  whom  I was  doing  business  in  the  office; 
yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  would  take  them  out  and  buy  them 
drinks  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

15235°— vol  1—11 31 


482 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Senator  Sutherland.  How  large  an  amount  did  you  spend  in  that 
way  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I kept  no  particular  track  of  it,  but  it  certainly  was 
not  very  large,  because  I was  very  busy  and  had  very  little  time,  and 
was  in  the  office  most  of  the  time.  I did  not  have  time  to  do  those 
things  much. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  you  go  into  any  of  the  saloons  and  call 
up  people  generally  to  drink  with  you  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  To  spend  money  with  you? 

Mr.  Sacket.  In  no  instance;  no,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  authorize  anybody  else  to  do  that  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  On  the  contrary,  did  you  not  instruct  them  not 
to  do  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Whom  did  you  so  instruct  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Practically  all  of  the  men  who  were  working  on  a 
salary. 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  did  you  say  to  them  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I said,  “Ido  not  want  you  to  conduct  a saloon  campaign. 
I do  not  want  you  to  go  into  barrooms  and  say,  ‘Come  on,  every- 
body, and  have  a drink.’  I do  not  mean  that  you  can  not  go  in  and 
buy  a drink  for  yourself  if  you  want  to;  but  do  not  run  a saloon 
campaign.” 

Senator  Sutherland.  Can  you  give  me  any  approximate  estimate 
of  the  aggregate  sum  that  was  spent  for  liquors  and  cigars  during  the 
campaign  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  would  have  to  be  a guess.  I never  made  any 
computation  as  to  that  item.  If  you  would  like  my  opinion— — 

Senator  Sutherland.  I should  like  to  have  you  give  your  estimate. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  think  $500  was  spent  for  liquor  and  cigars 
in  the  whole  campaign. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  you  mean  $500  that  you  know  about  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  There  was  nothing  like  that  sum  that  I know  about. 

Senator  Sutherland.  How  much  do  you  know  about  ? Put  it  at 
the  outside  figures. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I only  know  of  my  own  expenditures,  and  I do  not 
think  they  would  amount  to  $20. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Not  more  than  $20? 

Mr.  Sacket.  They  would  not  amount  to  $20;  no,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  would  leave  $480  outside.  Do  you 
mean  $500  would  be  the  outside  sum  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Clear  outside;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  think  under  no  circumstances  could  it 
have  exceeded  $500  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I am  simply  guessing. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I understand. 

Mr.  Sacket.  My  opinion  is  that  it  is  rather  less  than  over  $500. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Have  you  any  basis  for  that  opinion  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  examination  of  the  accounts  that  these  men  sent 
to  me,  the  itemized  expense  accounts.  My  recollection  of  that  is  that 
I looked  for  items  that  would  indicate  a thing  of  that  kind,  because 
I did  not  want  men  traveling  around  the  State  for  me  who  were  in 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


483 


the  habit  of  spending  their  time  and  money  in  barrooms.  I examined 
the  expense  accounts  with  a special  idea  of  that  kind,  and  I only 
found  one  man  whose  account  indicated  anything  of  that  kind. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Then  your  estimate  of  $500  is  an  estimate, 
and  not  a mere  guess  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  is  an  estimate;  yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Will  you  allow  me,  please,  to  ask  him  to  state 
what  he  did  in  connection  with  this  one  man  ? 

Senator  Sutherland.  Very  well. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Who  was  this  man,  and  what  were  the  circum- 
stances ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  There  was  only  one  man.  Do  you  insist  on  my  using 
his  name  ? I would  rather  not,  if  it  makes  no  difference. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  what  you  told  him.  I do  not  care  whether 
you  use  his  name  or  not. 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  man  was  sent  to  a distant  part  of  the  State  to  do 
organizing  work  for  Senator  Stephenson.  He  was  given  $50,  if  I 
remember  correctly,  with  which  to  pay  his  railroad  fare  and  expenses. 
His  railroad  fare  to  this  point  in  the  State  would  amount,  I think,  io 
less  than  $10.  Within  12  hours  or  24  hours  of  the  time  he  left  here  he 
telegraphed  for  $25  more.  I sent  him  his  railroad  fare  to  come  home, 
with  instructions  to  come  right  back.  I paid  him  off  and  discharged 
him. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  ascertain  how  he  had  been  spending 
the  $50  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I was  reasonably  certain  at  that  time  that  he  had 
spent  it  in  drinking. 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  made  you  reasonably  certain  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  man  himself  had  been  drinking  when  he  talked  to 
me  and  he  seemed  like  that  sort  of  a man,  and  he  offered  no  reason- 
able excuse  for  spending  $50  in  24  hours. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  say  “when  he  talked  with  you.”  Do 
you  mean  after  he  came  back  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I made  the  arrangements  with  him  one  day.  He 
came  in  for  his  expense  money  at  a subsequent  time  and  when  he 
came  in  for  his  expense  money  I did  not  have  time  to  bother  with 
him  very  much,  but  his  appearance  was  against  him  at  that  time, 
when  I gave  him  the  money.  I should  not  have  done  it,  but  I got  rid 
of  him.  I had  to.  I was  busy. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  you  discharged  him  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I discharged  him  when  he  came  back. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  know  of  instances  of  that  kind  in 
connection  with  anybody  else  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I only  have  that  one  instance  in  mind  now. 

Senator  Sutherland.  The  investigating  committee  of  the  Wiscon- 
sin Legislature,  in  a report  that  I have  already  called  Mr.  Edmonds’s 
attention  to,  report  that,  in  their  opinion  (that  is,  taking  the  testimony 
which  was  before  them),  $30,000  was  misappropriated  and  spent  for 
treating  to  beer,  liquors,  and  cigars  in  saloons  and  elsewhere. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I beg  pardon.  The  report  said  “misappropri- 
ated” and  spent  for  those  things. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is  what  I said.  You  knew  the  per- 
sonnel of  that  committee,  did  you  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did;  yes,  sir. 


484 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Senator  Sutherland.  And  do  you  agree  with  Mr.  Edmonds  that 
they  were  not  unfriendly  to  Mr.  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  is  my  opinion  that  the  assembly  members  of  that 
committee  were  not  unfriendly  to  him. 

Senator  Sutherland.  This  report  seems  to  have  been  made  by  the 
assembly  members. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I so  understand  it. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  not  concurred  in  by  the  senate  members. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I so  understand  it. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Then  would  you  say  that  the  members  of 
the  committee  reporting  were  not  unfriendly  to  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I would;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Has  your  attention  ever  been  called  to  that 
statement  before  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I heard  it  read  here. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Prior  to  the  time  I called  Mr.  Edmonds’s 
attention  to  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  recollect  ever  having  heard  of  it  before. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  never  heard  of  that  statement  before  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Can  you  account  for  such  a statement  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Of  course,  I do  not  know  why  they  made  it,  or  what 
was  in  their  minds;  but  I should  take  this  language  “ misappropri- 
ated and  spent  for  liquors  and  cigars”  and  ask  them  to  divide  the 
statement  and  say  how  much  was  misappropriated  and  how  much  of 
the  $30,000  was  spent  for  liquors  and  cigars. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Have  you  any  way  of  accounting  for  the 
statement  that  such  a sum  of  money,  $30,000,  found  its  way  in  one 
way  or  another  into  an  investment  in  liquors  and  cigars  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  think  that  statement  is  correct. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Or  any  other  misappropriation? 

Senator  Sutherland.  Or  any  other  misappropriation  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I would  not  want  to  say  that  the  misappropriation  of 
money  was  small,  but  I do  not  think  the  money  expended  for  liquors 
and  cigars  amounted  to  anything  like  $30,000  or  $1,000. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  understand  the  language  to  mean  that 
the  $30,000  is  to  be  divided  into  two  classes,  first,  a portion  of  it 
misappropriated 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Not  spent  for  liquors  and  cigars,  and  another 
portion  spent  for  beer,  liquors,  and  cigars  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  is  the  only  solution  that  I can  see  of  the  state- 
ment made  there. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I have  read  it  as  though  it  meant  that 
$30,000  was  misappropriated,  and  that  that  whole  sum  of  $30,000, 
being  misappropriated,  was  spent  for  cigars,  liquors,  and  beer. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I should  not  understand  it  that  way. 

Senator  Sutherland.  At  any  rate,  you  never  heard  of  any  such 
expenditure  as  that  for  that  purpose  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  at  this  time  believe  there  was  any  such 
expenditure. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  get  any  word  from  any  source  dur- 
ing the  progress  of  the  campaign  that  any  of  your  agents  were 
spending  money  for  liquors  and  cigars  ? 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


485 


Mr.  Sacket.  I had  reports  from  time  to  time,  oral  or  written  (I 
have  forgotten  which) , which  indicated  that  they  did  in  some  instances 
buy  liquor  and  cigars  in  the  way  of  treating. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Were  those  reports  in  the  nature  of  com- 
plaints ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir.  The  men  themselves  told  me  that  they  had 
expended  part  of  the  money  for  that. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  get  anything  in  the  way  of  com- 
plaints of  that  nature  from  any  of  these  counties  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I remember  nothing  of  that  kind. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  hear  anything  in  the  way  of  rumors 
that  they  were  spending  money  extravagantly  for  that  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I heard  nothing  of  that  kind. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Or  any  suggestions  of  anything  of  that  kind 
during  the  progress  of  the  campaign — that  anything  of  that  sort  was 
going  on? 

Mr.  Sacket.  None. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Now,  I want  to  ask  you  about  another 
subject  for  a moment.  You  say  $250  was  paid  to  Mr.  Bancroft, 
who  was  a candidate  for  the  legislature? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  But,  as  I understand  you,  you  did  not  talk 
with  Mr.  Bancroft  yourself  about  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not;  no,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  When  did  you  first  know  of  the  payment 
to  him  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  it  was  the  day  following  the  date  on  which 
the  payment  was  made. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  make  the  payment  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not  ; no,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  How  did  you  come  to  know  about  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Mr.  Puelicher  told  me  that  he  had  made  the  pay- 
ment, and  I gave  him  a receipt  for  it. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  learn  by  whose  authority  the  pay- 
ment was  made? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  By  whose  authority  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I asked  Mr.  Puelicher  to  talk  with  Mr  Bancroft  and 
make  arrangements  with  him. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  asked  him? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I asked  Mr.  Puelicher  to  do  so;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  So  that  the  arrangement  was  made  by 
your  authority? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  When  you  came  to  make  the  arrangement, 
did  you  know  that  Mr.  Bancroft  was  a candidate  for  the  legislature  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  it  occur  to  you  that  there  was  any 
impropriety  in  making  an  arrangement  of  that  sort  with  a candidate 
for  the  legislature? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I talked  that  matter  over  with  Mr.  Puelicher,  and  it 
was  our  opinion  that  so  long  as  we  gave  Mr.  Bancroft  no  money, 
nothing  for  himself  or  to  aid  in  his  own  campaign,  there  was  nothing 
unlawful  or  improper  about  it. 


486 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Senator  Sutherland.  Do  you  see  how  it  would  be  possible  for 
Mr.  Bancroft  to  expend  $250  for  the  benefit  of  Mr.  Stephenson  without 
at  the  same  time  deriving  some  benefit  from  it  himself? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  When  he  was  a candidate  at  the  same 
primary  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I can  see  how  it  would  be  possible  for  him  to  expend 
that  money  without  deriving  any  benefit  from  it  himself,  and  I can 
see  how  it  would  be  possible  to  spend  that  money  to  his  own  detriment. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I wish  you  would  explain  just  how  that 
could  be  done. 

Mr.  Sacket.  There  were  several  candidates  for  United  States 
Senator  on  the  Republican  ticket.  Mr.  Bancroft  was  a candidate 
for  the  nomination  as  a member  of  the  assembly.  His  openly  taking 
the  side  of  Senator  Stephenson  might  result  in  the  friends  of  the 
other  three  candidates  opposing  Mr.  Bancroft.  He  could  not  spend 
this  $250  in  Mr.  Stephenson’s  interest  without  people  knowing  it, 
and  knowing  that  he  was  for  Mr.  Stephenson.  That  would  cost  him 
the  support  of  the  supporters  of  the  other  candidates. 

Senator  Sutherland.  On  the  other  hand,  to  the  extent  that  the 
use  of  this  $250  induced  electors  to  support  Senator  Stephenson, 
would  it  not  to  that  same  extent  induce  the  same  electors  to  support 
Mr.  Bancroft? 

Mr.  Sacket.  If  Mr.  Bancroft  employed  persons  to  do  work  jointly 
for  him  and  Mr.  Stephenson  it  would,  but  it  was  understood  with 
him,  according  to  Mr.  Puelicher,  that  he  was  not  to  do  that. 

Senator  Sutherland.  But  the  voter  would  understand  that  in 
order  for  Mr.  Stephenson  to  be  elected  it  might  be  quite  important 
that  the  member  of  the  legislature  nominated  should  be  friendly  to 
Mr.  Stephenson,  would  he  not  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  might  have  that  effect. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Then,  if  the  voter  was  desirous  of  advancing 
the  political  fortunes  of  Mr.  Stephenson,  would  it  not  be  quite  natural 
for  him  not  only  to  vote  for  Mr.  Stephenson  as  the  nominee  for  United 
States  Senator,  but  also  to  vote  for  the  candidate  for  the  legislature 
who  was  friendly  to  him  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  it  would  be  perfectly  natural  for  the  voter  to 
be  friendly  to  both  men  in  a case  of  that  kind.  I do  not  think  the 
money  paid  him  for  Mr.  Stephenson  would  influence  him  for  Ban- 
croft. In  working  for  Mr.  Stephenson  he  would  probably  be  in  favor 
of  Mr.  Bancroft,  too,  in  any  case,  whether  he  got  any  money  or  not. 

Senator  Sutherland.  In  other  words,  to  give  you  a concrete 
illustration — though  I do  not  mean  to  suggest  that  it  is  anything  that 
has  occurred  in  this  case — suppose  Mr.  Bancroft  had  used  the  money 
to  purchase  votes  outright  for  Mr.  Stephenson;  it  would  have  been 
quite  natural  that  that  same  vote  should  have  gone  for  him,  would 
it  not  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  If  that  was  a part  of  the  understanding. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  think  that  would  follow;  no,  sir. 

(At  12  o’clock  and  32  minutes  p.  m.  the  subcommittee  took  a recess 
until  2 o’clock  p.  m.) 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


487 


AFTER  RECESS. 

The  recess  having  expired,  the  subcommittee  reassembled. 

The  names  of  George  W.  Dart,  L.  W.  Thayer,  and  Le  Roy  E.  McGill 
were  called  by  the  secretary.  Mr.  Thayer  responded,  and  was  duly 
sworn  by  the  chairman. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  If  it  is  agreeable  to  the  committee,  I think  Mr. 
Thayer  desires  to  be  excused  until  Monday.  Am  I right  about  that, 
Mr.  Thayer? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I live  so  close  to  Milwaukee  that  I presume  I might 
be  called  when  the  subcommittee  desires  my  presence. 

The  Chairman.  The  witness  may  be  excused  until  Monday. 

DEATH  OF  JUDGE  QUARLES. 

The  Chairman  The  members  of  the  subcommittee  have  just  learned 
with  deep  regret  of  the  death  of  Judge  Quarles,  the  United  States  district 
j u dge  who  presided  over  the  court  sitting  in  this  building.  The  members 
of  the  subcommittee  served  with  the  deceased  when  he  was  a member 
of  the  United  States  Senate  and  entertained  for  him  a very  high  regard 
as  a man  and  as  a public  officer.  They  feel  that  it  is  due,  as  a tribute 
to  the  high  esteem  in  which  Judge  Quarles  was  held  during  his  life- 
time, and  as  an  evidence  of  respect  to  his  memory  and  consideration 
to  those  he  leaves  behind  him,  that  the  subcommittee  adjourn. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  May  I say,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  I had  the  honor 
of  being  a member  of  the  lower  House  during  quite  a portion  of  Judge 
Quarles's  service  in  the  Senate;  and  I desire  to  concur  most  heartily 
with  the  suggestions  made  bv  the  chairman  with  reference  to  Judge 
Quarles  and  his  character  and  position. 

The  Chairman.  The  subcommittee  will  stand  adjourned  until 
Monday  at  10  o'clock. 

(At  2 o'clock  and  10  minutes  p.  m.  the  subcommittee  adjourned 
until  Monday,  October  9,  1911,  at  10  o'clock  a.  m. 

MONDAY,  OCTOBER  9,  1911. 

Federal  Building, 

Milwaukee,  Wis. 

The  subcommittee  met  at  10  o’clock  a.  m. 

Present:  Senators  Hey  bum  (chairman),  Sutherland,  and  Pomerene. 

Present  also:  Mr.  C.  E.  Littlefield,  Mr.  W.  E.  Black,  and  Mr.  H.  H. 
J.  Upham,  counsel  for  Senator  Isaac  Stephenson. 

The  names  of  George  W.  Dart,  Thomas  Reynolds,  and  Edward 
McMahon  were  called. 

Thomas  Reynolds  responded  to  his  name,  and  the  oath  was  ad- 
ministered to  him  by  the  chairman. 

TESTIMONY  OF  RODNEY  SACKET— Resumed. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Mr.  Sacket,  at  the  time  of  the  adjournment 
on  Saturday  I was  asking  you  about  this  payment  of  money  to  Mr. 
Bancroft.  Did  you  have  a talk  with  Senator  Stephenson  about  that 
expenditure  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not:  no,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  inform  him  that  it  was  being  made  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not. 


488 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Senator  Sutherland.  Did  he  say  anything  to  you  about  it  at  all? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Not  to  my  recollection,  at  all. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  you  know  whether  he  knew  of  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  knowledge  that  he  knew  of  it. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  you  know  whether  any  money  was  paid 
into  the  hands  of  any  other  candidate  for  the  legislature? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes;  Mr.  C.  E.  Wellensgard. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Where  did  he  live  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  In  Berlin. 

Senator  Sutherland.  How  much  money  was  furnished  him? 

Mr.  Sacket.  If  I remember  correctly,  $258. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I have  the  exact  amount  here.  It  was  $250.80. 
Let  me  ask  you  this  question,  Mr.  Sacket:  Mr.  Wellensgard  lived  in 
your  home  town  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  How  did  that  arrangement  happen  to  be 
made  with  him  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I asked  Mr  Wellensgard  over  the  telephone  to  come 
up  into  Senator  Stephenson’s  headquarters  and  see  me  the  next  time 
he  was  in  Milwaukee.  He  came  up,  and  I asked  him  if  he  would  look 
after  Senator  Stephenson’s  interests  in  Green  Lake  County,  and  he 
agreed  to  do  it.  The  substance  of  the  conversation  was  that  he  was 
to  look  after  Senator  Stephenson’s  interests  and  keep  track  of  the 
money  he  expended  in  Senator  Stephenson’s  interest.  He  was  not 
to  charge  any  money  that  he  expended  for  his  own  campaign,  and  he 
was  to  render  me  a statement  of  it  after  it  was  over  with,  which  he 
did,  and  which  amount  I paid. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  say  it  was  stated  that  he  was  not  to 
use  any  money  in  his  own  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  is,  none  of  the  money  that  I was  to  furnish  him. 

Senator  Sutherland.  He  was  a candidate  at  the  same  primary? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  to  be  voted  for  at  the  same  time  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  he  render  you  an  itemized  statement? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  did. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Is  that  on  file  here  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  is. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  On  file  where? 

Mr.  Sacket.  In  the  record  of  the  proceedings  before  the  joint  com- 
mittee. That  is,  there  is  a copy  of  it. 

Senator  Sutherland.  In  a general  way,  what  was  the  nature  of 
his  expenses  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Hiring  teams,  distributing  posters  and  literature,  the 
employment  of  workers  at  the  polls,  and  expenses  for  traveling  around 
the  county  in  Senator  Stephenson’s  interest  in  some  cases,  I think. 

Mr.  Black.  That  statement  will  be  found  on  page  911  of  the  pro- 
ceedings before  the  joint  committee. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Traveling  about  the  county  in  the  interest 
of  Senator  Stephenson  would  give  him  a very  good  opportunity  to 
travel  about  the  county  in  his  own  interest,  would  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  According  to  my  recollection,  he  filed  a sworn  state- 
ment of  his  own  expenditures,  according  to  law;  and  when  he  traveled 
in  his  own  interest  he  paid  his  own  expenses. 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


489 


Senator  Sutherland.  Did  it  occur  to  you  that  it  would  be  difficult 
to  separate  the  two  ? By  traveling  about  the  county  “in  the  interest 
of  Senator  Stephenson/7  I suppose  you  mean  advocating  his  nomina- 
tion at  the  primary  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  understand  that  Mr.  Wellensgard  did  any 
electioneering,  as  I would  call  it,  for  Senator  Stephenson.  He  simply 
employed  people  to  look  after  Senator  Stephenson7s  interests  at  the 
polls,  to  circulate  his  nomination  papers,  to  hang  lithographs,  and  to 
distribute  literature  generally. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  there  any  objection  to  having  inserted  in  the 
record  here  this  exhibit  which  has  been  referred  to  in  the  joint  com- 
mittee’s investigation,  while  you  are  examining  upon  it? 

Senator  Sutherland.  I think  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Then  the  reporter  may  insert  at  the  present 
place  Exhibit  62,  beginning  on  page  911  and  covering  page  912  of  the 
proceedings  before  the  joint  committee.  That  will  put  the  subject 
matter  right  together. 

Senator  Sutherland.  There  is  no  objection  to  that. 

(The  exhibit  referred  to  is  as  follows:) 

Exhibit  62. 


Berlin,  Wis.,  September  3,  1908. 

Mr.  Rodney  Sacket,  Milwaukee , Wis. 

Dear  Friend:  Inclosed  please  find  my  bill  against  Stephenson.  I wish  you  would 
please  see  that  they  get  it.  I haven’t  put  in  anything  for  cigars  or  what  little  I spent. 
Please  let  me  hear  from  you.  I beat  Hitchcock  by  347  majority. 

Yours,  truly, 

C.  C.  Wellensgard. 

[Exhibit  62  received  in  evidence  and  is  in  words  and  figures  following,  to  wit:] 

Berlin,  Wis.,  September  3 , 1908. 
Stephenson  Campaign  Committee,  Milwaukee , Wis. 


1908. 

July  5.  Livery  to  Princeton $3.  00 

6.  Livery  to  Markesan 3.  00 

Aug.  20.  Livery  at  Markesan 2.  00 

21.  Livery  at  Markesan 2.  50 

22.  Livery  at  Markesan 2.  50 

23.  Livery  at  Markesan 2.  50 

23.  Livery  at  Berlin 2.  50 

24.  Livery  to  different  parts  of  county 2.  50 

28.  Paid  out  to  help  G.  Burlingame  and  4 men 30.  00 

28.  Paid  to  C.  Rosebrook,  town  of  St.  Marie,  and  4 men 25.  00 

28.  Paid  Bill  Anglem,  town  of  Green  Lake 5.  00 

28.  Paid  W.  Burdick,  town  of  Green  Lake 5.  00 

28.  Paid  C.  Schrader  and  men  at  Markesan 30.  00 

28.  Paid  W.  Malena,  town  of  Seneca 5.  00 

Sept.  3.  Paid  M.  Resop,  city  of  Berlin 3.  00 

3.  Paid  P.  Kresal,  city  of  Berlin 1.  00 

3.  Paid  Aug.  Waslinski,  city  of  Berlin 5.  00 

3.  Paid  Steve  Greager,  city  of  Berlin 5.  00 

3.  Paid  J.  Neighbor,  city  of  Berlin 5.  00 

3.  Paid  J.  Weir,  city  of  Berlin 5.  00 

3.  Paid  J.  Briskie,  city  of  Berlin 5.  00 

3.  Paid  F.  Bartow,  city  of  Berlin 5.  00 

3.  Paid  Joe  Gosh,  city  of  Berlin 5.  00 

2.  Telephone  bill 2.  SO 

2.  Paid  Mr.  Rossa,  city  of  Berlin 4.  00 

2.  Paid  C.  Kisnaska,  city  of  Berlin 5.  00 

2.  Paid  Jack  Grotta 5.  00 


490 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


1908. 

Sept.  2.  Paid  H.  Wilde,  town  of  Manchester $5.  00 

2.  Paid  E.  A.  Umbreight,  town  of  Manchester 5.  00 

2.  Paid  E.  Vaughn,  Kingston,  and  men ...  25.  00 

2.  Paid  William  Crook,  Ripon 5.  00 

2.  Paid  Nels  Sorrenson,  Mackford 5.  00 

2.  Paid  Herman  Ebbentroff,  Mackford 5.  00 

2.  For  automobile  election  day 15.  00 

2.  Paid  Wilson  for  help  on  machine 2.  50 

2.  Paid  postage 4.  00 

Total 250.80 


(Indorsed:)  Paid,  October  5,  1908.  C.  C.  Wellensgard. 

Senator  Sutherland.  With  whom  did  you  talk  over  the  matter  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember  having  talked  of  it  with  anyone. 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  you  did  you  did  entirely  of  your  own 
motion  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Had  Mr.  Wellensgard  announced  his  can- 
didacy at  that  time  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know  whether  he  had  announced  it  formally 
or  not.  I understood  he  was  to  be  a candidate. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  he  was  a candidate  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  other  candidate  for  the  legislature  did 
you  employ  in  the  same  way? 

Mr.  Sacket.  There  was  no  other  candidate  that  I made  the  arrange- 
ment with,  or  ratified  the  arrangement  with. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Was  there  any  other  candidate  to  whom 
money  was  paid  that  you  know  of  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  a Mr.  Shauers  was  employed  by  Mr.  Edmonds. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  has  been  gone  over. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Anybody  else  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  There  was  no  money  paid  to  anyone  else  out  of  our 
office  that  I know  of. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is,  to  anyone  else  who  was  a candidate 
for  the  legislature  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Oh,  I beg  your  pardon.  There  is  one  instance — a 
man  named  Kempf.  I think  he  was  a candidate  for  the  legislature. 
He  sent  in  a bill  for  posting  bills  for  Senator  Stephenson. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Posting  bills  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes.  It  was  a regular  business  bill,  and  had  nothing 
else  to  do  with  the  campaign. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  he  a bill-poster? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  There  is  no  other  candidate  for  the  legisla- 
ture whom  you  now  recall  who  received  money  in  any  way  whatever  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  None  that  I recall;  no,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Were  any  accounts  that  do  not  appear  in 
the  books  rendered  to  you  by  these  different  employees  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  looked  through  the  books  very  carefully,  and 
I fail  to  find  the  expense  accounts  of  the  following — may  I use  this 
memorandum  ? 

Senator  Sutherland.  Certainly. 


RODNEY  SACKET.  491 

Mr.  Sacket.  Mr.  McMahon,  Mr.  Larson,  Mr.  Remold,  and  Mr. 
Rowe. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Have  you  the  amounts  of  their  bills  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Would  you  like  them  to  go  in  as  he  states  them  ? 
Senator  Sutherland.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I think  I can  give  them  to  you. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Mr.  Sacket,  you  mean  by  what  you  have 
said  that  these  men  whose  names  you  are  now  about  to  give  us  ren- 
dered itemized  statements  of  expenditures  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes;  at  least  in  part. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  McMahon  account  was  for  $500.  I have 
here  an  alphabetical  list  of  all  the  men  who  were  employed  as  subman- 
agers or  representatives.  It  is  not  yet  quite  complete. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Perhaps  that  had  better  go  in  the  record. 
Mr.  Littlefield.  I would  rather  not  have  this  particular  one  go 
in  now,  because  later  on  I will  have  it  a little  more  complete. 
Senator  Sutherland.  You  gave  the  name  of  Mr.  McMahon  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  the  next  is  Mr.  Larson  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Mr.  Larson. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Mr.  Larson’s  account  aggregates  $524.80. 
What  was  the  next? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Mr.  Reinold. 

Senator  Sutherland.  $161.05.  The  next? 

Mr.  Sacket.  And  Mr.  Rowe. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Over  $400. 

Senator  Sutherland.  $499.34.  What  is  the  next  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Keyes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is  not  totaled  right. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  nearly  $300. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is  J.  R.  Keyes? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is  $276.20.  What  is  the  next? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Ames. 

Senator  Sutherland.  A.  R.  Ames? 

Mr.  Sacket.  A.  R.  Ames;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Give  those  full  names,  if  you  have  them. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  not  them  here.  We  only  have  one  Keyes  and 
only  one  Ames. 

The  Chairman.  We  have  the  names  and  dates. 

Senator  Sutherland.  A.  R.  Ames,  $450.  What  is  the  next? 

Mr.  Sacket.  J.  T.  Sexton. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Is  it  J.  P.  Sexton? 

Mr.  Sacket.  J.  T.  Sexton,  according  to  my  recollection  of  it.  I 
only  have  “Sexton”  here. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I have  it  as  “T.  J.  Sexton.” 

Senator  Sutherland.  We  have  “T.  J.”  here. 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  is  right;  T.  J Sexton.  * 

Senator  Sutherland.  T.  J.  Sexton,  $523.98.  What  is  the  next? 
Mr.  Sacket.  L.  H.  Stevens 
Senator  Sutherland.  L.  H.  Stevens  you  say  ? 


492 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Mr.  Sacket.  That  is  my  recollection  of  the  initials.  I fust  have 
“ Stevens”  here. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  seems  to  he  $728.92.  The  next? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  is  all,  except  those  which  appear  as  exhibits  in 
the  testimony  before  the  joint  committee. 

Senator  Sutherland.  The  names  that  you  have  given  me  are 
those  of  men  who  rendered  itemized  accounts,  but  which  accounts  do 
not  appear  here  in  the  record  of  the  legislative  investigating  com- 
mittee ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I would  not  want  to  say  positively  that  they  did  not 
appear.  I looked  for  them,  and  could  not  find  them. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Are  these  footings  which  you  are  giving  us 
here  your  own  ? 

Senator  Sutherland.  No;  I gave  them. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  No;  the  footings  were  given  by  the  Senator. 

Senator  Sutherland.  They  are  shown  by  the  record. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Yes;  I understand. 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  became  of  these  accounts  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  My  best  recollection  is  that  they  were  among  the 
papers  left  with  the  joint  committee  at  Madison. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  they  should  be  among  those  papers 
now  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  In  addition  to  the  accounts,  what  other 
papers  bearing  upon  this  matter  did  you  leave  with  the  joint  com- 
mittee ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Bills  and  accounts  and  receipts  are  all  that  I remember. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Bills  and  accounts  and  receipts  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Have  you  any  way  of  telling  us  which  of 
these  payments  were  made  without  itemized  statements  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I would  not  be  able  to  identify  the  payments  to  these 
men. 

Mr.  Littlefield  Does  the  Senator  mean  which  of  the  individual 
payments  to  these  various  men  were  made  in  that  way  ? 

Senator  Sutherland.  Yes;  which  of  the  payments  to  your 
employees  and  workers  out  in  the  field  were  made  without  having 
itemized  statements  from  them  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Do  you  mean  the  general  lot,  or  this  special  lot  ? 

Senator  Sutherland.  All  of  them. 

Mr.  Sacket.  All  of  them?  I should  say  that  the  exhibits  that 
appear  in  the  testimony,  and  this  list  of  names  that  I have  given,  are 
all  that  I have  a distinct  recollection  of  as  having  filed  expense 
accounts. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Then  are  we  to  understand  that  all  other 
payments  were  made  without  itemized  statements  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I could  not  say  th.at.  I have  a distinet  recollection 
that  these  were.  There  may  have  been  a great  many  others  that  1 
do  not  remember. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  have  no  recollection  of  any  others? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is  as  much  as  you  are  able  to  say  about 
them  now  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 


RODNEY  SACKET.  493 

Senator  Sutherland.  Have  you  any  idea  how  much  money  you 
paid  out  without  itemized  statements  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  made  no  figures  as  to  that. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Will  it  be  possible  for  you  to  do  that  by 
running  over  your  accounts  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  I could  do  it;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Please  give  us  approximately  the  amount  of 
money  which  was  paid  out  by  you  during  this  campaign  without 
having  itemized  statements.  Do  you  understand  what  I want  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  From  the  parties  that  received  the  money  ? 

Senator  Sutherland.  Yes;  from  the  parties  that  received  the 
money. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  I can  do  that,  but  it  would  take  some  time — 
perhaps  two  or  three  hours. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  can  come  on  at  a later  time  and  present 
the  information. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Let  me  see  if  I understand  what  you  want.  You 
would  like  to  have  me  give  the  amounts  of  money  paid,  the  items 
paid  people,  regardless  of  whether  I authorized  the  payment,  or  paid 
them  on  Mr.  Edmonds’s  order — the  whole  account  ? 

Senator  Sutherland.  Yes.  What  I want  you  to  do,  Mr.  Sacket, 
is  to  divide  this  expenditure  of  $107,000  into  two  classes:  First,  the 
amount  that  was  paid  out  upon  itemized  statements  showing  what  the 
expenditures  were  made  for;  second,  the  amount  that  was  paid  out 
without  having  any  such  statements. 

Mr.  Sacket.  You  see,  the  persons  with  whom  I made 
arrangements 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Just  a moment.  I think  the  scope  of  the  Sena- 
tor’s question  is  broader  than  you  had  in  your  mind.  You  have  been 
testifying  about  disbursements  to  the  managers.  The  Senator,  as  I 
understand  it,  would  like  to  have  a stetement  covering  the  whole 
$98,000. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Covering  the  entire  sum. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  entire  $98,000.  That  is  what  Exhibit  49 
of  the  joint  committee  investigation  takes  care  of. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  would  like  to  have  him  give  you  a state- 
ment showing  how  much  of  all  of  that  sum  was  paid  out  and  predi- 
cated upon  itemized  statements  rendered?  The  balance,  of  course, 
would  be  what  was  paid  out  without  itemized  statements. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  understand,  Mr.  Sacket?  That  would 
apply  to  the  whole  $98,000;  not  your  managers  alone,  but  every- 
thing else.  Am  I right,  Senator? 

Senator  Sutherland.  Yes;  that  is  right;  but  I will  add  to  that 
that  I wish  you  would  separate  the  one  item  which  I think  you  call 
for  “ organization  work.”  In  the  summary  of  your  account  there 
is  an  item,  li General  expenses  in  organizing  State,  $46,052.29.” 
When  you  come  to  give  us  the  figures  that  I have  asked  for,  please 
separate  that  particular  class,  so  as  to  be  able  to  state  to  us  how 
much  of  that  forty-six-odd  thousand  dollars  was  paid  out  upon  item- 
ized statements  and  how  much  of  it  was  paid  out  without  any  such 
statements. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 


494 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Mr.  Littlefield.  You  would  like  to  have  him  go  right  down 
through  the  summary  in  the  same  way,  as  I understand  ? 

Senator  Sutherland.  Yes;  I should  like  to  have  him  take  the 
various  items  and  give  us  the  information  in  that  way. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I should  like  to  offer  this  explanation  of  my  ability 
to  do  that:  I can  probably  remember  every  case  in  which  I made 
arrangements.  Mr.  Edmonds  may  have  made  arrangements  in  a 
great  many  cases  and  received  itemized  statements  that  I would 
know  nothing  of. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  can  give  us  the  approximate  data. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  can  exhaust  your  recollection,  and  Mr. 
Edmonds  will  be  here  later  and  the  committee  can  take  up  that 
matter  further  with  him. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is  all  I wish  to  ask. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Mr.  Sacket,  what  was  your  business  prior  to 
your  assuming  the  duties  of  your  present  position? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I was  in  the  hardware  business. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  ever  study  law? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  have  been  actively  engaged  politically 
for  a good  many  years  here  in  Wisconsin,  have  you  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  For  how  long  a time  have  you  been? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  think  I ever  took  any  personal  active  part 
in  any  campaign  except  the  Stephenson  campaign  which  is  now 
being  investigated. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Just  the  one?  You  were  familiar  with  politi- 
cal conditions  here  in  the  State,  were  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I had  watched  them  with  interest  for  years. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  you  knew  that  for  a good  many  years 
there  was  a good  deal  of  complaint  about  the  amount  of  money  that 
was  expended  in  the  various  campaigns  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  think  I noticed  any  particular  complaint. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  remember  when  this  statute  was  passed 
requiring  the  filing  of  expense  accounts,  do  you  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I remember  having  read  the  statute.  I think  it  was 
passed  in  1905. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Prior  to  that  time  there  was  a good  deal  of 
complaint  in  this  State,  was  there  not,  about  the  amount  of  money 
that  was  expended  in  a number  of  the  campaigns  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  think  I ever  noticed  any  particular  com- 
plaint. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  understood,  of  course,  as  you  have  testi- 
fied, that  each  candidate  was  required  to  file  a special  account  showing 
the  persons  to  whom  money  was  paid,  the  amount  paid,  and  the 
purpose  for  which  it  was  paid  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  were  acting  in  this  matter  as  the  agent 
of  Senator  Stephenson,  were  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  knew  that  the  law  required  him  to  file 
this  account  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


495 


Senator  Pomerene.  And  good  faith  on  your  part  toward  him 
required  that  you  should  keep  this  account  in  such  shape  as  to  enable 
him  to  comply  with  that  statute,  did  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  do  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  How  do  you  expect  him  to  file  an  account 
complying  with  that  statute  when  a number  of  your  items  show 
simply  that  a given  amount  was  paid  out  tor  organizing  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  statute,  as  I understand  it,  required  him  to  file 
an  account  of  the  money  expended  by  him,  and  the  money  expended 
by  others  that  he  had  knowledge  of. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  good  faith  on  his 
part  toward  the  people  of  Wisconsin  would  be  met  by  such  a condition 
as  you  speak  of  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Do  you  not  understand  that  when  a man  does 
a thing  through  his  agent  he  is  practically  doing  it  himself? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  did  you  not  understand  that  when  he 
said  to  you  that  you  should  keep  within  the  law,  that  must  have 
meant  that  you  should  keep  such  accounts  as  would  enable  him  to 
comply  with  the  law  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Why  did  you  not  do  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  1 think  J did. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  have  referred  here  to  a number  oi  items 
in  which  you  have  simply  given  the  purpose  as  being  “organizing,” 
without  stating  to  whom,  the  amounts  were  paid. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  How  could  he  comply  with  the  law  under  a 
statement  of  account  like  that  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  By  filing  a statement  of  the  items  that  he  expended, 
and,  to  the  best  of  his  knowledge,  that  were  expended  for  him. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Why,  he  expended  all  of  these  items,  in  fact 

Mr.  Sacket.  Does  the  Senator  want  me  to  give  my  construction 
of  the  law  ? 

Senator  Pomerene.  I am  asking  you  whether  i,  is  not  a fact. 
He  furnished  this  money,  did  he  not  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  It  was  his  money  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  it  was  expended  by  you  as  his  agent  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Then  why  did  not  you,  in  keeping  your 
account,  give  the  names  of  the  persons  to  whom  this  money  was 
given,  and  the  purposes  for  which  it  was  given  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Because  my  understanding  of  the  law  was  that  it 
did  not  require  me  to  give  them. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Then  why  did  you  do  it  in  a number  of 
instances  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Because  it  was  convenient  to  do  it,  and  I had  time. 

Senator  Pomerene.  So  that  you  simply  consulted  your  con- 
venience ? 


496 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Mr.  Sacket.  In  a great  many  cases;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  do  you  mean  by  saying  that  you  did 
this  when  you  “had  time”  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I mean  that  I was  very  busy,  and  that  I made  the 
account,  my  original  account  that  I kept,  as  full  as  I felt  I had  time 
to  make  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Why,  Mr.  Sacket,  you  had  42  girls  here  to 
send  out  literature  and  letters. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Could  you  no,  have  gotten  another  girl  to 
have  assisted  you  in  keeping  proper  accounts  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I preferred  to  keep  them  myself. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Then  why  did  you  not  take  the  time  to  keep 
them  properly  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not  have  the  time.  I had  other  things  to  do. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Let  me  see  if  I understand  your  rule  of  con- 
duct in  this  matter.  It  is  your  judgment  that  the  statute  would 
only  hold  Senator  Stephenson  responsible,  in  the  filing  of  his  account, 
for  such  knowledge  as  he  had  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  that  he  would  not  be  held  responsible 
for  such  acts  as  you  did,  though  you  were  acting  as  his  agent  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  In  the  keeping  of  the  account — no,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  think  that  was  exercising  proper 
faith  with  the  people  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  think  this  law  was  made  to  be  evaded 
in  that  kind  of  a way  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not  think  it  was  evaded. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Suppose  a man  by  the  name  of  John  Jones, 
who  had  no  direct  connection  whatever  with  Senator  Stephenson’s 
campaign,  had  seen  fit,  of  his  own  free  will,  to  expend  $5,000  in  behalf 
of  Senator  Stephenson,  and  Senator  Stephenson  had  no  control 
whatsoever  over  him,  and  therefore  could  not  compel  him  to  furnish 
him  with  a detailed  statement  of  the  expenses,  do  you  not  think  that 
would  be  such  a case  as  might  be  within  the  meaning  of  this  statute 
when  it  says  that  he  must  file  an  account  according  to  his  best 
belief  when  the  money  is  expended  by  others  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  that  case  would  be. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  is  not  that  to  be  differentiated  from  your 
expending  his  money,  furnished  by  him,  for  his  purposes  as  his 
manager  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  There  is  nothing  in  the  statute  to  indicate  the  dif- 
ference. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  received  these  various  accounts  from 
time  to  time  during  the  campaign  from  your  submanagers,  I take  it ; 
did  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  You  refer  to  the  itemized  accounts  ? 

Senator  Pomerene.  Yes. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  you  noticed  that  some  of  these  accounts 
would  give  in  detail  the  amount  expended  and  the  specific  purpose 
for  which  it  was  expended;  as,  for  instance,  for  a team,  or  railroad 
fare,  or  hotel  bills,  and  the  like.  Did  not  that  suggest  to  you  the 


RODNEY  SACKET.  497 

necessity  of  keeping  a detailed  account  of  all  of  these  men  who  were 
handling  the  money  of  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  did. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Then  why  did  you  not  require  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not  have  authority  to  require  it  in  all  cases. 

Senator  Pomerene.  From  whom  did  you  expect  authority — from 
Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I had  no  general  authority  over  those  employed  by 
others. 

Senator  Pomerene.  This  money  was  placed  in  your  hands,  was 
it  not  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Or  under  your  control  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  issued  orders  from  time  to  time  for  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  To  that  extent  it  was  within  your  control  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  do  you  mean  by  telling  us  that  you  did 
not  have  authority  to  require  a detailed  statement  from  each  of  the 
men  to  whom  you  were  giving  this  money  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  When  Mr.  Edmonds  made  an  arrangement  with  a 
man,  I did  not  consider  that  I had  authority  to  give  directions  to  that 
man.  I left  that  with  Mr.  Edmonds. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Do  I understand  that  there  was  a shifting  of 
this  authority  from  you  to  Mr.  Edmonds,  or  from  Mr.  Edmonds  to 
you  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  There  was  no  intent  on  the  part  of  either  of  us  to  shift 
anything.  Mr.  Edmonds  did  the  engaging  of  people  in  some  cases. 
In  those  cases  I did  not  consider  that  I had  a right  to  butt  in. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Who  was  the  manager  in  fact  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Mr.  Edmonds. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  he  ever  examine  your  accounts  to  see 
whether  they  were  correct  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Not  to  my  knowledge;  no,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  ever  submit  them  to  him  and  ask  him 
to  go  over  them  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir;  I did  not. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  ever  submit  those  accounts  to  Senator 
Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  he  ever  ask  you  as  to  what  you  were  doing 
with  this  money  ? 

Mr.  Sacket,  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  At  no  time? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  heard  him  complaining  of  the  amount 
which  it  was  costing,  did  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  not  that  suggest  to  you  the  necessity  of 
keeping  a detailed  expense  account  of  all  of  these  items  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  suggested  to  me  that  I should  keep  an  account 
that  would  satisfy  him  as  to  the  expenditure  of  his  money. 

15235°— vol  1—11 32 


498 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Senator  Pomerene.  How  did  you  expect  to  satisfy  him  in  this 
matter  ? By  simply  saying,  for  instance,  that  $250  was  expended  for 
organization  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not  think  Mr.  Stephenson  would  question  that 
account  at  all. 

Senator  Pomerene.  So  you  relied  upon  the  fact  that  he  would  not 
question  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I thought  he  would  know  that  it  was  all  right  if  I 
presented  it  to  him. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Let  me  see  if  I understand  you.  You  say  that 
he  was  required  to  file  a detailed  account,  as  the  statute  provides  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Do  you  mean  to  tell  us  that  he  would  not 
question  the  manner  in  which  you  had  expended  this  money  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  items  in  his  statement  as  filed  were  submitted  to 
him.  The  account  that  has  been  examined  here  was  not. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  do  you  mean  by  “the  items”  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  items  that  appear  in  the  account  that  he  filed, 
under  the  law,  with  the  Secretary  of  State. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  is,  that  short  resume  of  the  expenditures? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  was  examined;  but  he  never  examined 
this  account. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Not  to  my  knowledge;  no,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  He  left  that  entirely  to  you  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  it  not  occur  to  you,  when  he  complained 
about  the  amount  of  money  the  thing  was  costing,  that  there  might 
be  room  for  further  complaints  later  on  by  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Do  you  mean  in  the  nature  of  a question  as  to  whether 
his  agents  had  expended  the  money,  or  kept  it  themselves  ? 

Senator  Pomerene.  Yes. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  such  idea. 

Senator  Pomerene.  He  had  the  faith  that  removes  mountains,  had 
he?  In  your  testimony  here  the  other  day  you  testified  to  certain 
amounts  which  you  had  expended  by  way  of  refreshments.  When  it 
came  to  cigars,  you  sometimes  gave  the  items.  When  it  came  to 
liquid  refreshments,  you  did  not  say  anything  about  it.  Why  was 
that  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  think  I tried  to  cover  up  the  expenditure  for 
liquid  items  in  any  instance.  My  account  shows  cigars  bought  in 
boxes,  for  which  in  a number  of  cases  regular  bills  were  rendered  and 
checks  sent.  Those  bills,  I presume,  were  placed  on  file  with  the  joint 
committee.  The  cigars  that  were  bought  over  the  counter  went  m as 
sundries,  just  the  same  as  the  liquid  refreshments. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  testified  the  other  day  that  there  were  a 
number  of  men  to  whom  you  had  given  money  whose  names  you 
purposely  kept  off  your  records. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  How  many  of  them  were  there? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I could  not  give  the  number.  There  were  quite  a 
number,  though. 

Senator  Pomerene.  About  how  many  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  there  were  15  or  20,  anyway;  possibly  more. 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


499 


Senator  Pomerene.  How  much  did  you  turn  over  to  those  15  or 
20  men  to  expend  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I made  no  compilation  of  that  class  of  accounts. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Can  you  not  give  us  some  idea? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I should  think  it  amounted  to  several  thousand  dollars. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Four  or  five  thousand? 

Mr.  Sacket.  As  much  as  that,  I should  think. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Six  or  seven? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Eight  or  nine? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I should  think  so. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Ten  thousand  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I should  not  think  any  more  than  that. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Is  it  fair  to  have  the  record  here  show  that 
you  expended  or  paid  out  $10,000  to  15  or  20  persons  without  making 
any  record  of  the  names  of  the  persons  to  whom  this  money  was 
given  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  With  the  understanding  that  the  amount  is  simply  a 
guess  on  my  part. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Yes;  I understand  that. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I give  no  exact  figures.  With  that  understanding,  I 
will  say  “yes.” 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  make  any  memorandum  of  the  pur- 
pose for  which  this  money  was  given  to  these  gentlemen  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Were  those  men  who  were  directly  interested 
for  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr  Sacket.  Men  who  were  interested  in  Senator  Stephenson’s 
campaign;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Was  any  of  this  money,  given  to  any  of  these 
men,  to  be  used  in  behalf  of  other  candidates  for  the  United  States 
Senate  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir;  not  a cent. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  did  not  try  to  split  up  the  vote  of  those 
who  might  be  opposed  to  Senator  Stephenson  in  order  to  improve  the 
Senator’s  chances  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  There  was  no  such  deal  as  that,  to  my  knowledge. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Had  you  heard  of  any  such  deal  as  that? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  seems  to  me  I heard  a rumor  of  that  kind;  but  we 
were  charged  with  everything. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Was  that  during  the  campaign? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not  hear  of  it  during  the  campaign.  It  was 
afterwards. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  say  you  were  charged  with  everything? 
For  instance,  what? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Corruption,  bribery,  and  almost  everything  that  some 
of  our  newspaper  friends  could  think  of. 

Senator  Pomerene.  For  how  long  a time  were  you  charged  with 
corruption,  bribery,  etc.  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Most  of  it  was  after  the  campaign. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Was  any  of  it  before  the  campaign? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember  seeing  anything  that  I took 
seriously  before,  or  very  seriously  afterwards. 


500 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Senator  Pomerene.  Was  it  before  these  charges  were  made  that 
you  destroyed  your  books  and  card  system  and  memoranda  which 
you  had  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  was  before. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  is,  you  heard  these  charges  before? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No;  I destroyed  my  cards  before. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  was  your  real  reason  for  destroying 
these  cards  and  records  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  To  make  my  account  better,  and  simpler  and  easier 
to  get  at.  I could  not  carry  the  cards  in  my  pocket.  I could  carry 
on  slips  of  paper  in  my  pocket  the  copy  of  the  data  on  those  cards. 
I had  no  regular  office  in  Wisconsin 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  had  some  card  system,  had  you  not? 

Mr.  Sacket.  During  the  time  that  I had  an  office  here;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  did  not  suppose  for  one  moment  that 
anybody  would  expect  you  to  carry  all  those  cards  in  your  pocket? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not.  I could  not  have  done  so  if  they  had 
expected  me  to. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Are  there  not  some  safe  deposit  boxes  here  in 
the  city  of  Milwaukee  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I presume  so.  I have  none,  though,  of  my  own. 

Senator  Pomerene.  How  is  that? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  none  that  I rent,  that  belong  to  me. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  knew  that  in  a strenuous  fight  of  this 
kind  it  was  possible,  if  not  probable,  that  some  question  might  be 
raised  as  to  the  legitimacy  of  these  expenditures  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I had  no  idea  that  any  question  would  be  raised,  to 
amount  to  anything. 

Senator  Pomerene.  When  Senator  Stephenson  was  complaining 
about  the  amount  of  this  expense,  did  it  not  occur  to  you  that  some 
of  his  friends  might  question  the  genuineness  of  these  expenditures  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  did  it  not  occur  to  you  that  you  ought  to  be 
in  a position  where  you  could  defend  yourself  by  your  record  against 
any  charge  of  this  kind  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  record  that  I filed  was  fully  as  complete  as  that 
kept  on  the  cards. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  it  copied  from  the  cards? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Giving  the  names  and  all? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Giving  all  that  appeared  on  the  cards.  The  names 
did  not  always  appear  on  the  cards. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  also  transfer  the  names  from  the  cards 
to  the  account? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Always,  when  the  name  appeared  on  the  card;  yes, 
sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  always  transfer  to  the  account  the 
purpose  for  which  the  expenditure  was  made  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  When  it  appeared  on  the  card;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  On  any  of  these  cards  did  you  have  a memo- 
randum, for  instance,  with  one  who  was  to  receive  compensation, 
showing  how  much  he  was  to  receive  for  compensation  and  how  much 
for  other  expenditures  ? 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


501 


Mr.  Sacket.  I had  a memorandum  somewhere,  in  case  of  those  who 
were  employed  at  a salary,  showing  the  salary  that  they  were  to 
receive.  But  I did  not  consider  that  memorandum  of  any  value  after 
I had  settled  with  them. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Mr.  Edmonds  from  time  to  time  would  report 
to  you  that  he  had  made  an  arrangement  with  one  of  these  lieutenants 
by  which  he  was  to  receive  so  much  salary  and  so  much  for  expendi- 
tures, would  he  not  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember  any  particular  instance  where  he 
reported  the  amount  of  salary. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  he  not  report  approximately  35  men  with 
whom  he  had  special  arrangements  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  For  salary?  No,  sir;  I do  not  think  he  did. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  he  not  report  from  a dozen  to  fifteen  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember  any  instance  where  he  reported 
to  me  himself. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  heard  him  testify  the  other  day  that  he 
had  special  arrangements  with  representatives  in  perhaps  about  one- 
half  of  the  counties  of  the  State  and  that  when  he  made  arrangements 
at  that  time,  which  was  in  the  first  instance,  he  reported  that  fact  to 
you.  You  heard  him  testify  to  that,  did  you  not,  in  substance? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember  that  he  testified  exactly  that  way; 
but  if  he  did  I do  not  remember  it  that  way. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  did  you  not  hear  him  later  on  testify  with 
respect  to  a statement  that  he  furnished  to  me,  showing  some  12  or 
14  names,  with  the  amounts  which  his  memory  told  him  he  was  to 
pay  to  these  men  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember  his  testimony  in  regard  to  the 
salary  in  any  instance. 

Senator  Pomerene.  When  you  were  keeping  this  account,  and 
when  you  were  furnishing  a transcript  of  it  for  the  purpose  of  filing, 
you  had  in  mind  then  that  information  that  Senator  Stephenson  did 
not  have  would  not  hurt  him  any  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I should  like  to  hear  that  question  repeated. 

(The  reporter  read  the  question  as  follows:) 

Senator  Pomerene.  When  you  were  keeping  this  account,  and  when  you  were 
furnishing  a transcript  of  it  for  the  purpose  of  filing,  you  had  in  mind  then  that  infor- 
mation that  Senator  Stephenson  did  not  have  would  not  hurt  him  any? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I had  no  idea  of  concealing  any  information  because 
I thought  it  might  hurt  him. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Then  why  did  you  not  give  him  the  names  of 
the  persons  to  whom  you  furnished  this  money  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not  have  the  names  at  that  time. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Why  did  you  not  furnish  those  names  to  him 
from  time  to  time? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not  want  to  bother  him  with  them. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  you  did  not  want  him  to  bother  the  public 
with  having  a detailed  statement  of  this  account?  Is  that  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No;  there  was  no  intent  to  hide  anything  that  was 
improper  in  any  way.  I did  not  intend  that  the  names  of  our  friends 
who  did  not  want  publicity  should  come  out  unless  we  were  obliged 
to  give  them. 


502 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  not  understand  that  this  statute 
really  obliged  you  to  give  those  names  to  Senator  Stephenson,  so 
that  they  could  be  put  in  the  account? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  not  understand  that  he  was  depending 
upon  you  to  keep  that  account  correctly,  and  in  conformity  with 
the  statute  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Why  did  you  not  do  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did. 

Senator  Pomerene.  How  can  you  say  that,  when  you  have  just 
told  us  that  you  did  not  even  keep  a memorandum  of  the  names  of 
persons  to  whom  you  had  given  approximately  $10,000  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not  understand  the  law  to  require  me  to  keep 
such  an  account. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  knew,  did  you  not,  that  if  he  did  not 
file  an  account  which  complied  with  the  provisions  of  that  statute, 
he  was  amenable  to  a fine  for  not  doing  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  did  you  not  understand  as  a matter  of 
law  that  if  you  were  keeping  these  accounts  in  such  a way  that  he 
could  not  file  that  account,  you  likewise  would  be  amenable  as  an 
aider  and  abettor  under  the  law? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  have  a statute  on  that  subject,  I take  it; 
have  you  not,  Mr.  Black? 

Mr.  Black.  I do  not  know. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Punishing  aiders  and  abettors  ? 

Mr.  Black.  I do  not  know  of  its  application  to  this. 

Senator.  Pomerene.  You  have  a general  statute,  have  you  not? 

Mr.  Black.  Oh,  yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is,  on  the  general  theory  of  the  criminal 
law  that  whoever  participates  in  an  offense  is  guilty? 

Senator  Pomerene.  Yes.  Nearly  all  the  codes  provide  that 
whoever  aids  or  abets  in  the  furtherance  of  any  offense  shall  be  punish- 
able as  a principal,  and  I assume  that  there  is  some  such  statute  as 
that  here. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  As  to  that  I do  not  know.  I suppose  Brother 
Black  understands  about  that. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  later  furnish  the  names  of  the  men 
to  whom  this  money  was  paid,  and  whose  names  you  did  not  keep 
on  your  memoranda? 

Mr.  Sacket.  To  the  joint  committee  of  the  legislature;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  In  Exhibit  49  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  In  Exhibit  49. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Were  they  included  in  that  exhibit? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir;  all  of  them  that  I can  furnish. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Were  they  included  in  the  account  furnished 
by  you  to  Senator  Stephenson  for  filing  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  They  were  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Just  one  moment — there  may  be  a misappre- 
hension. My  recollection  is  that  he  did  not  furnish  any  detailed 
account  at  all  to  Senator  Stephenson.  I would  not  have  the  record 
appear  inconsistent  with  that.  What  is  the  fact  about  that  ? 


RODNEY  SAGKET. 


503 


Senator  Pomerene.  Possibly  I misunderstood.  I am  glad  you 
called  my  attention  to  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I am  not  certain  what  the  fact  is  about  that. 
We  had  better  have  the  facts  as  they  are. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Certainly. 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  statement  that  Senator  Stephenson  filed,  as  I 
remember  the  circumstances,  was  made  up  by  Mr.  Edmonds  with 
data  which  I gave  him;  and  the  statement  that  Mr.  Stephenson  filed 
is  the  only  statement  that  was  submitted  to  him  at  any  time. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Let  me  see  if  I understand  you  correctly. 
You  had  first  a system  of  cards  in  your  office  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  then  you  made  a transcript  of  what  those 
cards  contained,  as  your  account  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  is  that  the  one  that  you  gave  to  Mr. 
Edmonds  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir,  I gave  him  data  from  that  account.  I helped 
him  to  group  it  as  Senator  Stephenson  filed  it  with  the  secretary  of 
state. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Then  this  account,  Exhibit  49,  is  a more  de- 
tailed statement  of  the  account  known  as  Exhibit  47  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Can  you  furnish  us  with  a list  of  the  names 
of  the  persons  to  whom  this  money  was  paid  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  mean 

Senator  Pomerene.  I mean  the  15  or  20  persons  to  whom  you 
say  you  furnished  about  $10,000  of  money,  and  kept  no  memo- 
randum of  their  names.  As  I understand  you  to  say,  you  furnished 
such  a statement  to  the  legislative  committee. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I furnished  no  statement  to  the  legislative  committee 
except  what  appears  in  that  book,  the  printed  copy  of  the  testimony 
if  that  is  a correct  copy  of  my  statement.  I mean  the  printed  testi- 
mony before  the  joint  committee. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Are  those  names  in  Exhibit  49  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  most  of  them  are. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Can  you  glean  the  names  from  Exhibit  49  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  would  be  very  hard  for  me  to  select  from  memory 
the  15  or  20  names  that  I referred  to.  When  I say  15  or  20  persons 
objected  to  having  their  names  appear,  I am  estimating.  I might 
name  a few. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Furnish  us  with  such  names  as  you  can,  then. 
I notice  on  page  601  of  the  printed  proceedings  of  the  joint  com- 
mittee an  item,  seemingly  under  date  of  August  30,  “Expense  of 
ward  and  town  managers,  including  conveyances,  primary  day 
workers,  etc.,  $5, 833.”  Is  that  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  There  is  a statement  of  that  nature  on  that  page; 
yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  There  seems  to  be  a footnote  here  with  refer- 
ence to  that  item : 

This  sum  was  not  expended  in  one  day,  but  was  gradually  paid  out  to  the  various 
ward  managers  as  the  work  progressed. 


504 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Senator  Sutherland.  That  was  in  Milwaukee  ? 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  is  in  the  Knell  account. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Mr.  Sacket  would  not  understand  about  that. 
That  was  Mr.  Knell.  That  is  right;  is  it  not? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  If  these  items  are  in  this  account  known  as 
Exhibit  49,  how  did  you  insert  them?  Was  it  according  to  the  date 
of  the  expenditures  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Do  you  mean  how  did  I insert  the  names  ? 

Senator  Pomerene.  In  the  account. 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  names,  or  the  items  ? 

Senator  Pomerene.  Were  they  all  put  in  in  one  group?  In  other 
words,  were  they  put  in  chronologically  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Or  did  you  allocate  them  to  the  items  to  which 
they  belonged  ? That  is  what  the  Senator  means. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Yes. 

Mr.  Sacket.  You  would  like  to  know  how  I obtained  the  names  and 
put  them  in  here  ? 

Senator  Pomerene.  Yes;  I would  like  to  know  how  they  were  put 
in,  and  in  what  order  they  were  put  in. 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  account  in  Exhibit  47  was  all  that  I had  up  to 
the  time  when  the  legislative  committee  sent  for  me.  I was  informed 
that  tl  i 1 • • ' ‘ ring  names  in  every  instance  that 


Bank,  was  supoenaed  to  appear  before  the  committee  and  bring  the 
cashier’s  checks  from  his  account.  Mr.  Puelicher  and  I took  this 
account  and  those  cashier’s  checks,  and  went  over  them,  and  hooked 
up  the  checks  with  the  items  in  Exhibit  47  as  nearly  as  possible. 
That  supplied  the  names. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  May  I ask  a question  right  there,  please? 

Senator  Pomerene.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Are  we  to  understand  that  the  cashier’s  checks 
were  drawn  to  the  order  of  the  various  people  to  whom  the  money 
was  paid  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  and  had  their  indorsement. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  So  that  the  records  in  the  bank  showed  the 
distribution  of  the  money  to  the  various  men  who  received  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  confer  with  anyone  else  with  refer- 
ence to  the  matter  of  keeping  these  names  out  of  your  accounts? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I remember  no  special  instance  of  a conference. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Can  you  give  us  any  general  instance  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No;  I have  no  distinct  recollection  of  conferring  with 
anyone. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Would  you  take  upon  yourself  the  responsi- 
bility of  keeping  your  account  in  that  way  without  conferring  with 
the  general  manager,  Mr.  Edmonds  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  without  conferring  on  the  subject  with 
the  beneficiary,  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Notwithstanding  the  advice  of  Senator 
Stephenson  to  keep  strictly  within  the  law  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I tried  to  keep  within  the  law,  and  I think  I did. 


I was 


cashier  of  the  Marshall  & Ilsley 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


505 


Mr.  Littlefield.  I should  like  to  ask  the  Senator  if  he  will  ask 
the  witness  to  explain  fully — I do  not  know  what  the  facts  may  be — 
what  he  understands  the  law  to  be,  and  what  he  understood  the  law 
to  require  him  to  do.  Whether  he  has  an  adequate  conception  of  it 
or  not,  I do  not  know. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I think  we  have  gone  into  that  matter  pretty 
fully,  Mr.  Littlefield;  but  if  you  desire  to  go  into  it  further  you  shall 
have  the  opportunity. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Very  well. 

Senator  Pomerene.  In  preparing  this  account  which  you  furnished 
to  Mr.  Edmonds,  or  which  Mr.  Edmonds  later  prepared,  did  either 
of  you  take  counsel  with  any  attorneys  on  the  subject? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not.  The  account  that  Senator  Stephenson 
filed — is  that  the  account  you  mean  ? 

Senator  Pomerene.  No.  I am  referring  to  the  one  that  you  pre- 
pared and  gave  to  Mr.  Edmonds,  and  to  the  one  which  Mr.  Edmonds 
prepared  from  the  data  you  gave  him. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  believe  I understand  just  what  account  you 
mean.  Do  you  mean  Exhibit  47,  or  Exhibit  49  ? 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  testified  this  morning  that  you  made  a 
transcript  from  your  cards. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  In  the  form  of  an  account. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  that  you  gave  that  to  Mr.  Edmonds. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not  mean  to  testify  that  I gave  my  transcript  to 
Mr.  Edmonds;  no,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  was  the  fact,  then  ? That  is  the  way  I 
understood  you. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I kept  my  account.  I gave  Mr.  Edmonds  data  from 
that  account  with  which  to  make  the  account  that  Senator  Stephenson 
filed  with  the  Secretary  of  State. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  gave  to  him  certain  data? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Written  memoranda. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  we  were  together  and  made  notes.  I do  not 
know  whether  he  wrote  or  whether  I wrote. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Where  was  this  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  This  was  in  the  room  that  we  were  using  in  the 
offices  of  Cary,  Upham  & Black,  a law  firm,  in  the  Wells  Building. 

Senator  Pomerene.  They  are  the  counsel  who  in  part  represent 
the  Senator  here  at  the  trial  table,  are  they  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Was  anyone  present  during  the  time  that  you 
were  giving  this  data  to  Mr.  Edmonds  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  anyone  being  present  at 
that  time. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Were  any  of  the  attorneys  there  advising  with 
either  of  you  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Not  with  me;  no,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Were  either  of  you  inquiring  of  the  attorneys 
with  respect  to  how  this  should  be  done? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I was  not. 


506 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Senator  Pomerene.  Tell  us  more  particularly  what  this  memoran- 
dum was  which  you  gave  to  Mr.  Edmonds. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  If  the  Senator  please,  it  was  hardly  a memoran- 
dum; it  was  data.  That  is  what  I understood  him  to  say. 

Senator  Pomerene.  He  was  not  certain  as  to  what  it  was.  I will 
change  the  word.  That  is  right;  that  is  fair. 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  memorandum  that  was  made  by  Mr.  Edmonds 
and  me  at  that  time— or  by  Mr.  Edmonds  with  my  assistance, 
rather — was,  in  substance,  the  account  filed  with  the  secretary  of 
state  by  Senator  Stephenson,  which  appears  in  the  testimony. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Oh.  So  that  you  were  trying  to  group  these 
things  and  file  the  account  in  such  a way  that  it  would  not  show  the 
persons  to  whom  the  managers  had  given  money? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Would  you  like  to  have  me  tell  you  what  Mr. 
Edmonds  told  me — the  reasons  for  his  having 

Senator  Pomerene.  Yes;  let  us  have  it  all. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Mr.  Edmonds  went  to  Madison  and  examined  the 
account  filed  by  the  only  lawyer  who  was  a candidate  for  the  Senate 
at  that  time — a man  who  is  a good  lawyer  and  has  a good  reputation 
as  a lawyer 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  is  his  name  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Mr.  McGovern,  now  governor  of  the  State. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  present  governor  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  He  has  been  elected  since  that  time  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir.  Mr.  Edmonds  examined  that  account  with 
the  idea  of  having  Senator  Stephenson’s  account  as  nearly  like  that 
as  possible.  He  believed  that  Mr.  McGovern’s  account  would  be 
within  the  iaw  and  right. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Why,  Mr.  Sacket,  you  and  Mr.  Edmonds  were 
doing  this  work  in  the  office  of  one  of  the  ablest  law  firms  of  this  city. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  It  was  not  necessary  to  go  to  the  capitol  to 
find  someone’s  else  account;  was  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Mr.  Edmonds  seemed  to  think  so. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  either  of  you  suggest  to  the  other  that 
perhaps  you  ought  to  insert  in  this  account  the  names  of  all  of  the 
persons  who  received  the  money  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I made  no  such  suggestion,  and  I do  not  remember 
that  he  made  any  such  suggestion  to  me. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  not  that  dawn  upon  your  mind — that  it 
was  necessary  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir;  and  it  does  not  now. 

Senator  Pomerene.  So  this  statute  does  not  mean  what  it  seems 
to  say  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  it  means  just  what  it  says. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I thought  so.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  to  the  committee  your  understanding  of 
the  statute — what  it  required  you  to  do,  and  what  you  were  under  an 
obligation  to  do  in  order  to  comply  with  it.  Explain  as  fully  as  you 
can  just  exactly  what  you  understood  the  statute  to  require. 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  statute  required  the  candidate  to  file  an  account, 
describing  it  (the  nature  of  the  account)  with  the  secretary  of  state; 
that  is,  of  items  disbursed  by  him;  and  to  file  an  account  of  all  items 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


507 


disbursed  by  others  so  far  as  they  came  to  his  knowledge.  The  idea 
that  every  person  who  handled  any  of  that  money  should  comply  with 
that  law  seemed  absurd  to  me,  because  the  money  might  pass  through 
40  hands  before  it  ended.  It  seemed  to  me  that  the  law  said  “the 
candidate”  purposely  so  it  would  not  run  down  into  all  that  detail. 
If  every  person  through  whose  hands  the  money  passed  had  to  file  an 
itemized  account,  there  probably  would  not  be  room  in  the  secretary 
of  state’s  office  to  keep  the  papers ; and  I supposed  that  when  a candi- 
date (as  the  statute  said)  filed  an  account  of  moneys  expended  by  him 
and  as  reported  to  him,  the  law  was  fully  complied  with. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I notice  that  the  statute  expressly  requires  the 
attorney  general  to  prosecute  all  candidates  who  have  not  filed  any 
returns ; and  I also  remember  that  the  Wisconsin  Legislature  that  sub- 
mitted this  vast  record  to  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  in  turn  re- 
quired the  various  prosecuting  officers  to  prosecute  for  all  violations 
of  the  law.  Have  there  been  any  prosecutions  against  Senator 
Stephenson  or  anybody  connected  with  him  in  this  campaign  for  any 
failure  to  file  a proper  return  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Not  to  my  knowledge. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Have  there  been  any  prosecutions  of  any  other 
gentlemen  connected  with  that  campaign  for  any  failure  to  file 
returns  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Not  to  my  knowledge. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Have  there  been  any  prosecutions  by  any"  public 
officers  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin  for  any  alleged  offenses  committed  in 
connection  with  either  the  primary  campaign  or  the  senatorial  cam- 
paign in  which  Mr.  Stephenson  was  a candidate  in  the  primary,  and  in 
which  later  on  he  was  elected  to  the  United  States  Senate  by  a Legis- 
lature of  Wisconsin  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  None  to  my  knowledge. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Will  you  read  that  last  question  ? 

(The  reporter  read  as  directed.) 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  the  subcommittee  turn  the  witness  over  to 
me  for  cross-examination?  I broke  in,  perhaps,  a little  bit  pre- 
maturely ? 

The  Chairman.  I wanted  to  ask  the  witness  a question. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Excuse  me,  if  I started  too  early. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  not  very  material  as  to  that.  I wanted  to  ask 
it  as  a foundation  for  the  examination  of  the  witness  which  will  follow. 
Mr.  Stone,  the  State  game  warden,  before  the  joint  committee  of  the 
legislature,  being  interrogated  as  to  the  receipt  by  him  of  $2,500, 
testified,  at  page  1620,  that  you  paid  him  this  money  in  cash.  Was 
that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  is  my  recollection  of  it  now;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  He  says  that  you  went  out  after  the  money — not 
having  it  in  your  possession — procured  it,  brought  it  to  him,  and  paid 
it  to  him  in  cash. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I remember  distinctly  going  and  getting  money  in 
currency. 

The  Chairman.  Where  did  you  go  to  get  the  money  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  Marshall  & Ilsley  Bank. 

The  Chairman.  Why  did  you  get  it  in  currency  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Because  Mr.  Edmonds  asked  me  to. 


508 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


The  Chairman.  He  did  not  want  to  take  a check  or  certified 
cashier’s  certificate  or  anything  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  that  was  the  reason;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  demanded  that  the  money  be  paid  him  in 
cash  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  was  my  understanding. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  were  inquired  of  in  relation  to  a Mr.  Dart, 
who  it  seems  was  employed  by  Mr.  McMahon;  and  you  were  asked 
with  reference  to  whether  Mr.  Dart  had  any  communication  with  you 
in  connection  therewith  over  the  telephone;  and  a question  and 
answer  were  read  from  the  record  relating  to  that  subject  matter  and 
that  point  of  time.  In  order  that  the  original  record  may  appear 
with  its  full  significance  I will  read  the  question  and  answer  put  to 
you,  and  also  the  succeeding  testimony,  as  bearing  upon  the  question 
of  whether  or  not  you  had  any  conversation  with  him  over  the  tele- 
phone. The  question  and  answer  read  to  you,  page  3912,  were: 

Q.  Mr.  Dart  had? — A.  Yes;  advising  that  something  be  done.  I saw  Mr.  Dart  and 
talked  over  things;  spent  the  night  with  him,  and  figured  on  what  would  be  necessary 
to  put  into  Marquette  County.  As  I remember  it,  it  was  $500 — $500  or  $600. 

Then  comes  the  question  and  answer  that  I wish  to  call  your 
attention  to: 

Q.  And  it  was  arranged  that  he  should  receive  that,  was  it? — A.  Yes.  That  is,  I 
told  Mr.  Edmonds  over  the  telephone,  as  I did  in  most  cases,  the  things  I found  there — 
the  situation — and  told  what  would  be  necessary  t©  send  there. 

State  whether  or  not  that  agrees  with  your  recollection  of  that 
transaction,  as  to  the  conversation  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  transaction  was  not  with  me. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  witness  so  states.  I am  asking  you  whether 
or  not  that  agrees  with  your  recollection  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I had  no  dealing  with  Mr.  Dart  at  all. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I have  a memorandum  on  my  notes  to  read  an 
extract  from  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Stevens,  found  on  page  4581.  I 
am  not  quite  certain  just  exactly  how  much  of  the  context  was  in,  so 
I will  read  the  portion,  so  far  as  my  recollection  goes,  that  relates  to 
it,  as  tending  to  explain 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  is,  you  are  reading  from  the  legislative 
investigation  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  from  which  one  of  the  Senators  read  during 
the  course  of  the  examination  of  Mr.  Sacket. 

Q.  Did  you  use  any  of  this  money  to  influence  the  voters’  opinion  with  reference  to 
any  of  the  senatorial  candidates? — A.  No. 

Q.  Did  you  first  ascertain  whether  a voter  would  be  favorable  to  Senator  Stephenson 
before  giving  him  any  money  to  spend  in  his  behalf? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  that  in  all  cases,  did  you? — A.  Why,  if  a man  was  not  favorable  to  Stephen- 
son and  he  wouldn’t  talk  that  way  at  all,  I didn’t  bother  him  very  much. 

Q.  What  I want  to  know  is:  If  you  found  a person  who  was  not  favorable,  did  you 
tell  him  you  would  give  him  $20,  $25,  or  $30  if  he  would  talk  favorably  for  him  and 
do  some  work  for  him? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Didn’t  spend  any  of  the  money  that  way? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  first  ascertained  if  he  was  favorable  before  you  gave  him  money.  Is  that 
the  way  you  want  to  be  understood? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

That,  I think,  was  the  context  I had  in  mind. 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


509 


Referring  to  the  item  of  $250  paid  to  Mr.  Bancroft,  as  I understand 
you,  you  have  explained  fully  the  conversation  you  had  with  Mr. 
Puelicher  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  tried  to;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  whether  or  not,  in  your  conversation  with 
Mr.  Puelicher,  it  was  developed  as  to  how  this  money  was  to  be 
expended  by  Bancroft — that  is,  with  reference  to  Bancroft’s  interest 
or  Stephenson’s  interest. 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  substance  of  the  conversation  between  Mr.  Pue- 
licher and  me  was  that  Mr.  Bancroft  was  to  keep  the  money  entirely 
separate  from  his  own  money;  that  he  was  to  expend  the  money 
received  from  Stephenson  headquarters  for  Mr.  Stephenson  entirely, 
and  to  use  none  of  it  for  himself  in  any  way. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  know  whether  or  not,  about  that  time 
and  prior  to  that  time,  Mr.  Bancroft  had  been  a supporter  of  Senator 
Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  was  my  understanding  very  distinctly  that  he  was 
a very  strong  supporter  of  Senator  Stephenson  before  that  time. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  had  been  for  how  long  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Always. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  recollect  whether  you  knew  that  he 
voted  for  the  Senator  in  1907,  when  the  Senator  was  first  elected? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  he  did;  I am  quite  certain  he  did. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Upon  that  point  I wish  to  ask  you  in  relation  to 
Mr.  Wellensgard.  Mr.  Wellensgard  lives  in  your  town  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  you  have  known  him  how  long  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  All  my  life. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  know  whether,  prior  to  the  arrangement 
you  made  with  Mr.  Wellensgard  (who  was  then  a candidate,  or  about 
to  be  a candidate,  for  the  assembly),  Mr.  Wellensgard  was  or  was  not 
a friend  and  supporter  of  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I was  very  certain  that  he  was. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  long  had  he  been  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  voted  for  Mr.  Stephenson  in  his  first  election. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  In  1907? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  know  whether  or  not  he  continued  to  be 
a supporter  of  the  Senator’s  from  that  time  down  to  the  time  when 
you  made  the  arrangement  with  him  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I was  quite  certain  that  he  was  a very  ardent  sup- 
porter of  Senator  Stephenson  all  of  the  time. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  know  what  the  facts  are  with  reference 
to  Mr.  Reynolds,  as  to  his  being  a supporter  of  the  Senator’s  prior  to 
the  arrangement  made  with  him  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  knowledge  of  the  Reynolds  matter  at  all. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Mr.  Kempf,  to  whom  some  mone}^  was  paid,  was 
a billposter  by  trade,  was  he  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  His  billhead  would  indicate  that  he  was. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  the  business  in  which  he  was  engaged  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  the  money  that  was  paid  to  him  was  paid 
for  what  ? 


510 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Mr.  Sacket.  For  posting  bills,  in  his  regular  line  of  business. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  he  then  a candidate  for  the  legislature? 

Mr.  Sacket.  At  the  time  the  bill  was  paid  I knew  nothing  about 
it.  I learned  afterwards  that  he  was. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  In  any  event,  he  was  not  elected,  was  he  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know.  I do  not  remember. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  not  know  whether  he  was  or  not  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  think  he  Was. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  list  shows  that  he  was  not  elected. 

In  one  of  your  answers  in  relation  to  organizing  you  stated  that  you 
intended  it  to  be  “any  act  that  would  induce  men  to  vote.”  What 
do  you  mean  by  -that  general  term  ? Please  state  what  sorts  of  acts 
you  understood  to  be  included  in  it. 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  circulating  of  literature,  the  hiring  of  bands,  the 
engaging  and  renting  of  halls  for  meetings,  the  hanging  of  posters, 
and  all  such  things  as  that,  which  are  generally  done  in  a campaign 
to  bring  the  candidate  before  the  public  and  show  them  his  good 
qualities. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I suppose  that  an  act  that  would  induce  a man  to 
vote  might  be  the  purchase  of  his  vote  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not  mean  anything  of  that  kind. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  did  not  intend  to  be  understood  as  covering 
every  act  that  might  induce  a man  to  vote,  legitimate  or  otherwise  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Oh,  no 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  were  inquired  of  as  to  whether  or  not  the 
managers  for  Senator  Stephenson,  at  the  outset  of  his  campaign, 
made  any  canvass  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the  Republicans, 
and  also  the  Republicans  who  were  friendly  to  Senator  Stephenson; 
as  a basis  of  the  subsequent  campaign.  I understood  you  to  say  that 
they  did  not. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Not  to  my  knowledge. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  There  are  2,200  voting  precincts  in  the  State, 
are  there  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  As  I remember  it,  about  that  number. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Why  was  it,  if  it  was  intended  to  organize  an 
effective,  thorough,  and  efficient  campaign,  that  you  did  not  take  this 
fundamental  step  of  arranging  to  get  poll  lists  and  make  a canvass  in 
each  of  these  2,200  districts  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  My  understanding  of  the  reason  is  that  we  did  not 
expect  to  spend  money  enough  to  run  that  kind  of  a campaign. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  understand  whether  or  not  that  would  be 
a legitimate  thing  to  do  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  To  get  poll  lists  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  and  to  have  a personal  canvass  made  of 
the  2,200  precincts  and  the  250,000  or  300,000  or  400,000  Republican 
voters  in  tne  State  ? How  many  are  there  ? Something  like  400,000, 
are  there  not  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  A little  less  than  400,000,  I think. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  total  voting  population,  if  I remember  cor- 
rectly, is  something  like  700,000.  I do  not  know  that  you  know 
about  that. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  not  the  figures. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  is  that  ? 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


511 


Mr.  Littlefield.  It  was  stated  to  me  the  other  day  that  the  total 
voting  population  is  something  like  700,000. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Someone  made  the  statement  here  the  other 
day  that  there  were  about  400,000  votes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I think  that  must  include  the  Republicans. 

Senator  Pomerene.  It  is  not  very  important;  only  it  seems,  if  we 
are  using  figures,  that  we  ought  to  use  them  correctly. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Well,  roughly  speaking,  do  you  know  what  the 
fact  is  in  that  regard  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  there  are  nearly  400,000  Republican  voters  in 
the  State. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  do  you  understand  to  be  the  aggregate 
voting  population  ? Of  course  we  can  get  that,  but  I should  like  to 
take  it  as  we  go  along  here.  Something  like  700,000? 

Mr.  Sacket.  My  recollection  is  that  there  was  a little  less  than 
that  the  last  time  I had  occasion  to  look  it  up. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  So  far  as  your  knowledge  goes,  could  there  be 
any  accurate  information  in  the  possession  of  Senator  Stephenson’s 
managers  as  to  how  many  Republican  voters  there  were,  in  the  first 
place,  and,  in  the  next  place,  how  many  of  those  Republican  voters 
could  be  relied  upon  to  support  the  Senator  in  the  first  instance 
without  making  any  campaign,  without  having  an  accurate  canvass 
of  the  2,200  precincts  and  400,000  Republicans  by  men  employed  by 
Senator  Stephenson  for  that  purpose  ? Do  you  know  of  any  way  in 
which  that  could  be  done  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I know  of  no  other  way. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  As  I understand  you,  the  reason  why  you  did 
not  engage  in  that  fundamental  act  was  because  you  did  not  feel  that 
you  had  the  means  to  carry  on  a campaign  of  that  character  ? 

Mr.  Sacket  That  was  the  reason;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  have,  at  any  time  in  the  Senator’s  cam- 
paign, anything  like  an  accurate  poll  list  of  even  the  Republicans  of 
the  State  of  Wisconsin  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  make  efforts  to  get  that?  Of  course 
you  did  not  have  this  personal  canvass,  for  the  reasons  that  you  have 
given. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Not  in  a systematic  way.  In  places  where  we  could 
get  poll  lists  we  did  so._ 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  the  fact  that  you  did  not  want  to  engage  in  the 
campaign  on  that  expensive  scale  the  only  reason  why  you  did  not 
make  this  fundamental  canvass  to  ascertain  the  number  of  Republi- 
cans, and  the  portion  of  those  Republicans  who  would  support  the 
Senator  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I should  have  been  in  favor  of  starting  the  canvass 
and  continuing  it  on  those  lines  if  I had  felt  that  we  could  get  the 
money  and  do  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  In  the  absence  of  that,  you  relied  upon  such 
lists  of  names  of  voters  in  the  State  as  you  were  able  to  get,  did  you 
not  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  testify  about  the  Wisconsin  Agricul- 
turist lists  ? I have  forgotten. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did,  sir. 


512 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Senator  Pomerene.  Do  you  mean  that  newspaper  list  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes.  Did  you  have  what  would  be  called  a 
mailing  list  other  than  lists  that  you  were  able  to  get  from  two  news- 
papers, except  names  that  were  sent  in  to  you  by  your  various 
managers  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes.  We  made  a list  of  all  of  those  who  signed  the 
petition. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Nomination  papers  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Nomination  papers;  and  we  got  lists  in  every  possible 
way. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  find  in  the  record  before  the  Wisconsin 
Legislature  any  literature  that  was  used  by  you  in  the  campaign  or  by 
Senator  Stephenson’s  managers  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  what  you  did  find. 

Mr.  Sacket.  On  page  3653  of  the  hearings  before  the  joint  com- 
mittee, there  is  what  we  call  the  Hoard  letter;  and  on  page  3655  there 
is  the  letter,  if  I remember  correctly,  that  we  sent  out  with  the 
nomination  papers,  to  start  with. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Would  the  subcommittee  like  to  have  those 
read  into  the  record  ? I will  not  stop  to  read  them;  but  if  you  would 
like  to  have  them  I will  have  the  reporters  insert  them.  Those  are 
the  only  two  samples  we  have  been  able  to  find,  if  you  think  they 
would  be  of  any  use. 

The  Chairman.  On  what  pages  are  they  to  be  found  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Pages  3653  and  3655. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Were  these  two  circular  letters  which  you  used 
for  mailing  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  About  how  many  of  those  were  sent  out,  so  far 
as  you  can  recollect  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  letter  accompanying  the  nomination  papers? 
I think  we  sent  about  15,000  or  20,000  of  those. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  about  the  Hoard  letter  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  Hoard  letter  we  sent  later  in  the  campaign,  as  I 
remember  it,  to  everyone  on  all  of  our  lists;  and  I should  think  we 
sent  possibly  150,000  of  them. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Are  we  to  understand,  then,  that  of  the  whole 
400,000  or  more  Republicans  the  best  you  were  able  to  do,  with  the 
means  at  your  command,  was  to  get  a list  of  practically  150,000? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  is  about  the  number  that  we  had;  yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  So  that  there  were  something  like  250,000  Repub- 
licans in  the  State  of  Wisconsin  that,  with  the  organization  that  you 
were  able  to  create  during  that  short  period  of  six  weeks,  you  were  not 
able  to  get  the  names  ofy  so  as  to  circularize  them? 

Mr.  Sacket.  We  did  not  get  into  touch  with  them  at  all. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Have  you  made  any  estimate  of  what  it  would 
cost  to  have  created  an  organization  sufficient  to  have  furnished  you 
with  that  material  and  to  have  made  this  personal  canvass  to  which 
I have  just  called  your  attention? 

Mr.  Sacket.  My  personal  estimate  of  the  amount  would  be  from 
$150,000  to  $200,000. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is,  for  the  whole  campaign,  or  just  for  the 
purpose  of  laying  that  foundation  ? 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


513 


Mr.  Sacket.  For  carrying  the  campaign  through  on  that  basis. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Starting  in  on  a canvass  of  the  400,000  Repub- 
licans ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  then  a canvass  for  the  purpose  of  ascertain- 
ing how  many  were  in  favor  of  the  Senator  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  To  carry  the  campaign  through,  on  that  basis, 
your  estiihate  would  be  that  it  would  cost  how  much  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  $150,000  to  $200,000. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Do  you  base  that  on  former  experience  here  in 
the  State  as  to  the  expenses  of  campaigns  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  I stated  that  it  was  just  my  own  estimate, 
and  I think,  in  answer  to  Senator  Sutherland’s  question  Saturday, 
I made  a similar  statement — that  it  was  purely  in  my  own  mind. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I will  ask  you  whether  or  not  your  judgment  is 
predicated  upon  the  practical  experience  in  that  campaign  and  what 
it  cost  you  to  extend  your  organization  so  far  as  it  did  extend  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  estimate  that  I made,  in  my  own  mind,  was  made 
before  the  completion  of  this  campaign;  but  the  result  of  this  cam- 
paign practically  verified  the  correctness  of  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  So  that  you  think  a man  who  wanted  to  make 
a pretty  vigorous  campaign  for  the  United  States  Senate  in  the  State 
of  Wisconsin  ought  to  be  prepared  to  expend  from  $150,000  to 
$200,000? 

Mr.  Sacket.  If  he  wanted  to  make  a systematic  campaign  and  get 
the  best  possible  results,  I should  think  it  would  cost  him  that;  yes, 
sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  To  get  a salary  of  $7,500  a year? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  would  be  considerably  more  than  the 
salary. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  suppose  that  the  gentlemen  who  draw  those 
salaries  are  there  simply  for  the  purpose  of  drawing  their  salaries. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  many  cases  do  you  suppose  there  are  of 
men  sitting  now  in  the  various  legislative  bodies  to  which  you  might 
refer,  if  the  test  were  made,  where  the  expense  of  reaching  a seat  in 
the  body  was  more  than  the  salary?  If  that  test  were  made,  how 
many  do  you  suppose  would  remain  in  their  seats?  I am  afraid  it 
would  make  the  legislative  assemblies  pretty  thin,  in  some  instances. 

Senator  Sutherland.  The  members  of  the  British  Parliament 
serve  without  any  pay  at  all. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I know  they  do;  or  they  did  heretofore.  They 
have  now  just  adopted  a scheme  over  there,  I believe,  that  is  going 
to  furnish  the  patriots  with  compensation  to  a certain  extent. 

I want  to  get  a little  more  detailed  information  from  you  with 
reference  to  this  question  of  treating,  that  you  refer  to,  with  either 
liquors  or  cigars.  Will  you  be  kind  enough  to  state  whether  or  not 
you  consider  the  purchase  of  a man’s  vote  with  a glass  of  liquor  or  a 
meal  a legitimate  proceeding  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Or  a cigar? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  do  you  mean  by  the  treating  that  was 
done,  so  far  as  you  know,  by  people  representing  the  Senator  ? Are 

15235°— vol  1—11 33 


514 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


we  to  understand  that  in  any  instance  a treat  of  either  liquor  or 
cigars  was  furnished  by  anyone  representing  the  Senator  as  a con- 
sideration for  the  vote  of  the  gentleman  who  received  the  treat  ? 

Mr.  Sagket.  I am  quite  certain  that  no  one  furnished  anything  of 
that  kind  in  consideration  for  a vote. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  anyone,  to  your  knowledge? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No  one,  to  my  knowledge  or  belief. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  furnish  any  such  treats? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not. 

Mr.  LiTTLEFiELD.  I would  like  to  have  you  explain  to  the  com- 
mittee a little  bit  more  fully  the  circumstances  under  which  such 
treating  as  was  done,  so  far  as  you  know,  took  place. 

Mr.  Sacket.  A man  was  asked  to  participate  in  the  treat  in  the 
usual  course  of  events.  He  would  have  been  asked  had  there  been 
no  campaign  on,  as  far  as  I know,  if  I were  talking  to  him  and  the 
occasion  arose.  The  idea  of  asking  him  to  take  a drink  or  a cigar  or 
a meal  was  simply  incidental,  and  a matter  of  courtesy,  and  not  cal- 
culated in  any  instance  to  buy  his  vote.  It  was  not  a consideration  for 
anything.  It  was  simply  a mere  matter  of  politeness  and  courtesy. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  any  treating  that  was  done  in  this  campaign 
in  connection  with  Senator  Stephenson,  so  far  as  you  know,  go  any 
further  than  this  definition  that  you  have  now  given  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  did  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Or  the  circumstances  that  you  have  now  de- 
scribed ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  did  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  In  connection  with  that,  and  the  statement  of 
this  committee  of  the  Wisconsin  Legislature  that  $30,000  was  mis- 
appropriated and  spent  for  treating  with  liquor  and  cigars,  I would 
like  tc  have  you  state  to  the  committee  whether  or  not  you  have  gone 
over  all  the  accounts  that  appear  in  this  printed  record  before  the 
Wisconsin  Legislature,  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  what  they 
show  with  reference  to  treating  by  cigars,  or  with  reference  to  the 
purchase  of  cigars? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I went  over  all  of  them  that  I could  find,  and  I think 
I covered  them  all.  I might  have  skipped  one,  but  I do  not  think  so. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Have  you  a statement  that  gives  the  result  of 
your  investigation? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I believe  you  have  it  in  your  hand  now. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Will  you  be  kind  enough  to  state  the  items,  in 
detail,  and  then  give  your  summary? 

Senator  Pomerene.  I think  I missed  one  question.  What  is  this 
calling  for  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  It  is  a collection  of  items  of  these  accounts,  so 
far  as  they  are  published,  showing  what  was  expended  for  cigars 
during  the  whole  campaign. 

I will  ask  you  this,  Mr.  Sacket:  Whether  the  items  you  are  now 
about  to  read  are  the  result  of  your  examination  of  all  of  the  accounts 
that  are  to  be  comprehended  as  having  been  returned  to  you  by  the 
various  managers,  and  your  own  accounts  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Every  account  that  I could  find  in  the  books  of 
evidence. 

The  Chairman.  You  mean  ever3T  account  that  is  itemized  ? 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


515 


Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  That  does  not  include  the  general  account  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  No,  sir.  I am  going  right  through  this  in  a 
moment.  It  does  not  include  the  general  organizing. 

Senator  Pomerene.  It  simply  includes  those  items  which  specifi- 
cally state  they  are  for  cigars.  Is  that  it? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  There  are  items  there  that  are  not  specifically 
stated.  There  are  items  that  he  knows  were  for  cigars  that  do  not 
appear  specifically  so  stated  in  the  account.  I am  having  hi  n give 
them  all. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I see. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Headed: 

Items  showing  expenditures  for  cigars  and  liquors. 

Expended  from  headquarters: 

July  8,  cigars,  $10.75. 

August  19,  L.  M.  Lederer,  check  No.  33642,  page  606,  $12.55. 

I.  M.  Lederer — 

The  same  thing,  but  a misprint — 

Check  No.  33916,  page  607,  $7.50. 

Hotel  Pfister,  cigars,  No.  33922,  page  607,  $70.70. 

Pfister,  cigars,  page  610,  $4.40. 

August  24,  cigars,  page  610,  $4. 

Same  date,  cigars,  page  610,  $2. 

September  15,  Wright  Drug  Co.,  No.  30406,  page  610,  $5. 

Expended  from  Milwaukee  County  headquarters,  check  No.  10,  Knell,  Prengel 
& Steltz  Co.,  cigars,  page  596,  $29.50. 

Check  No.  37,  the  same  company,  cigars,  page  596,  $29.50. 

Check  No.  633,  the  same  firm,  cigars,  page  597,  $13. 

Expended  by  J.  C.  Miller,  account  page  2024,  July  6,  cigars,  $1. 

July  8,  cigars,  $4. 

August  19,  cigars,  $1. 

Expended  by  C.  H.  Russell,  page  2179,  cigars,  drinks,  hotel  bills,  and  livery — 

I do  not  know  how  nuch  of  that  was  for  cigars  and  drinks — 

Twelve  dollars. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  put  the  whole  item  down — $12? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is,  you  put  it  in  as  it  appears  in  the  ac- 
count— $12  for  the  three  items? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Montello,  cigars,  etc.,  $8. 

Expended  by  C.  C.  Wayland,  page  2749,  cigars,  $38.25;  $14,  $14,  $7,  70  cents,  25 
cents,  25  cents,  $20,  15  cents. 

Senator  Sutherland.  All  by  one  man  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  All  by  one  man,  yes,  sir;  on  one  page  in  the  report. 
Another  item : 

Headaches  (treats) 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  is  that  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Treats. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  a very  natural  conclusion. 


516 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Mr.  Sacket  (continuing).  $17.15.  This  is  carried  out  in  the 
account  printed  as  $95.95.  My  footing  shows  it  as  $111.75 — a 
slight  mistake  in  the  footing. 

Expended  by  C.  M.  Hambright,  July  25,  cigars,  $1.50. 

I have  made  a summary  here : 

State  headquarters,  $116.90;  Milwaukee  County,  $72;  J.  C.  Miller,  $6;  C.  H.  Russell, 
$20;  C.  C.  Wayland,  $111.75;  C.  M.  Hambright,  $i.50;  total,  $328.15. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  This  is  all  that  the  accounts,  so  far  as  they  are 
itemized,  show,  is  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  know  of  any  other  expenditures  for 
cigars  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I know  of  no  others;  no,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  only  information  you  have  is  what  you  get 
from  your  accounts  ? 

Senator  Sutherland.  Most  of  those  items  read  seem  to  have 
been  for  cigars  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes. 

Mr.  Sacket.  There  are  only  two  instances  where  anything  else 
is  brought  in. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I suppose  they  were  the  ordinary  brand  of 
campaign  cigars  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I bought  some  of  them  myself,  and  they  were  very 
good  cigars  that  I bough*.. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  They  are  what  is  known  as  “upper- vest-pocket  ” 
cigars,  which  the  candidate  himself  smokes,  so  I have  been  advised. 
I do  not  smoke,  myself. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I was  going  to  ask  whether  you  had  any 
personal  experience  in  the  matter. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I have  none.  But  I have  known  of  some  dis- 
tinguished gentlemen  who  carried  two  kinds  of  cigars — what  I 
would  call  “side-pocket’’  cigars  and  “upper-vest-pocket”  cigars — 
the  side-pocket  cigars  being  for  the  “peeps”  and  the  others  being 
for  the  candidate’s  own  use.  I may  say  that  when  the  details  were 
developed  they  did  not  aid  the  candidate  in  his  campaign. 

I notice,  Mr.  Sacket,  that  this  veracious  assembly  committee,  in 
the  paragraph  quoted  from  by  Senator  Sutherland  in  his  investiga- 
tion as  to  the  $30,000  misappropriated  and  spent  for  treating  to 
beer  and  liquors  and  cigars  in  saloons  and  elsewhere,  reached  this 
conclusion : 

Your  committee  found  it  specially  difficult  to  arrive  at  how  some  of  this  money 
was  spent,  because  more  than  $12,000  is  accounted  for  in  no  other  way,  either  by  state- 
ment being  filed  or  by  testimony  given,  except  as  “general  campaign  expense.” 

Exhibit  49  was  before  this  intelligent  committee  when  it  made 
this  report,  was  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes;  it  was. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  It  had  been  printed  about  two  years  before  the 
committee  made  its  report,  had  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know  about  that. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  As  far  as  you  know.  It  had  been  printed  about 
15  months  before  the  committee  made  its  report,  as  a matter  of  fact. 

Just  give  the  committee  the  number  of  items  that  appear  in  Ex- 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


517 


hibit  49,  which  was  before  this  committee  when  it  reached  the  con- 
clusion that  $12,000  was  only  accounted  for  as  “ general  campaign 
expense/’  Read  the  items  that  are  marked  “general  organizing,” 
“organizing,”  and  “general  expense,  organizing.”  Let  us  see  how 
much  that  committee  knows.  Read  the  itejns  and  give  the  aggre- 
gate. 

Mr.  Sacket.  “July  6,  general  expense,  organizing,  $100;  July  18, 
general  organizing,  Edmonds  check,  $150;  July  21,  general  organ- 
izing, $250;  July  23,  general  organizing,  E.  A.  E.,  $200.” 

Senator  Pomerene.  Let  me  see  if  1 understand.  You  are  using, 
now,  those  items — 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Exhibit  49. 

Senator  Pomerene  (continuing).  You  are  using,  now,  those  items 
that  are  designated  as  “general  organizing”  in  contradistinction  to 
“organizing.”  Is  that  it  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  No;  anything  that  is  general — “organizing”  or 
“general  expense,  organizing,”  or  “general  organizing.” 

Senator  Pomerene.  There  are  a number  of  different  designations 
here,  and  I wanted  to  see  that  I understood  your  question.  For  in- 
stance, there  is  the  item  in  the  account:  “E.  II.  Mahon,  organizing, 
$50.” 

Mr.  Littlefield.  We  are  not  using  that. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I am  trying  to  find  out  what  your  question 
comprehended.  Simply  where  the  terms  “ general,  organizing”  or 
“organizing”  or  “general  expense,  organizing”  are  used. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  and  that  alone,  so  as  to  make  a parallel 
with  the  finding  of  this  committee  under  the  head  of  general  cam- 
paign expense. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Where  the  expenditure  is  not  otherwise 
carried  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Precisely.  That  is  exactly  what  they  say. 

Mr.  Sacket  (continuing): 

August  8,  general,  $250;  August  8,  general,  $150;  August  10,  general,  $150; 
August  19,  general  (E.  A.  E.)  $200;  extended,  $300. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I notice  that  you  give  the  item  on  August 
14:  “General,  E.  A.  E.” 

Mr.  Sacket.  I believe  that  the  note  on  the  book  from  which  I took 
this  showed  that  it  had  been  explained. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  only  giving  those  that  you  think  have 
not  been  explained,  then? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  My  instructions  to  you  were  to  give  all  that 
were  marked  “general  expense.”  If  you  have  not  done  that,  I will 
suspend  here  and  let  you  complete  it  later. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Let  me  suggest  this,  in  that  connection: 
The  committee  seem  to  use  the  phrase  there  “general  campaigning.” 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  The  phrase  in  Exhibit  49  is  “general  organ- 
izing.” 

In  your  question  you  are  assuming,  I take  it,  that  the  two  phrases 
are  one  and  the  same  thing. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes.  That  is  an  advantage  to  the  committee, 
because 


518 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Senator  Pomerene.  Just  so  that  we  understand  your  purpose. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes.  Literally  speaking,  there  is  not  an  item 
in  the  account  that  would  sustain  the  finding  of  the  committee;  but 
I assume  they  intended  to  cover  general  organizing  and  general 
expense;  and  farther  down  they  have  got  “general  expense.” 

The  Chairman.  My  ‘interruption  was  to  test  the  witness  as  to 
whether  or  not  he  was  excepting  the  items  that  are  designated  “gen- 
eral” because  they  may  have  been  explained. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I want  to  give  the  full  benefit  of  the  whole  thing. 
I will  leave  this  here,  now,  and  have  him  go  over  it  further.  I want 
him  to  put  in  every  item  that  is  marked  “General,”  so  that  I can 
simply  test  the  finding.  If  he  has  left  out  some  of  those,  I will  re- 
sume later  on  that.  I want  to  be  sure  to  get  it  all  in.  You  misun- 
derstood my  suggestion  on  that,  Mr.  Sacket,  but  that  is  all  right.  I 
will  have  the  list  completed  later. 

While  I am  on  this,  I have  one  other  compilation  here  that  I would 
like  to  have  you  put  in,  and  that  is  this:  Have  you  examined  these 
various  accounts  for  the  purpose  of  getting  the  items  marked  “Sun- 
dries?” And  if  you  have,  just  state  what  the  result  of  that  is,  in 
detail. 

You  have  a list  here  marked  “Sundries?” 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Are  those  all  included  ? 

The  Chairman.  Let  that  be  identified. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I will  have  him  read  it  right  in,  Mr.  Chairman. 
Are  these  items  all  taken  from  the  account  filed  by  you  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Are  there  items  of  sundries  in  other  accounts  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  gone  through  Exhibit  49  and  selected  all  of  the 
items  charged  to  sundries. 

The  Chairman.  Including  the  Milwaukee  account  ? 

Mr.  Sacket..  Yes,  sir;  I do  not  find  any  in  that. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  find  any  in  any  account,  except  the 
accounts  submitted  by  you  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  there  are  in  some  of  the  expense  accounts 
submitted  by  the  men  who  traveled  around  the  State. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Are  those  items  included  in  this  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  can  give  here,  then,  the  items  of  sundries 
that  appear  in  your  account,  grouped  together,  and  then  give  the 
aggregate.  Just  read  those  right  off,  so  that  the  stenographer  can 
get  them. 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  is  headed  “Sundries.”. 

July  7,  sundries,  $1.50;  July  8,  sundries,  $4.30. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  will  find  that  under  the  heading  “Sun- 
dries, small,”  most  of  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes. 

Mr.  Sacket  (continuing) : 

July  8,  sundries,  $8.25;  July  8,  sundries,  $2.50;  July  8,  $1;  July  10,  $9.20;  July  20, 
$6.30;  July  24,  $4.30;  July  24,  $33;  July  25,  $7.01;  July  25,  $0.15;  August  1,  $11.45; 
August  1,  $18.95;  August  1,  $1.30;  August  5,  $4.20;  August  6,  $11.25;  August  18,  $8.40; 
August  18,  $1.50;  August  19,  $9.30;  August  24,  $12.25;  August  24,  $16;  September  5, 
$20;  September  5,  $12.70;  September  6,  $5.40;  September  8,  $8;  September  15,  $250. 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


519 


The  Chairman.  You  passed  over  August  30,  the  item  of  $5,833. 

Mi*.  Littlefield.  That  is  in  Milwaukee. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  the  reason  I asked  the  question — to  ascer- 
tain whether  he  was  going  to  include  Milwaukee. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  No. 

The  Chairman.  That  would  come  under  “Sundries”? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  not.  He  tells  there  what  it  was  for. 

The  Chairman.  He  says  it  was  “expenses  to  ward  and  town  man- 
agers, including  conveyances,  primary  day  workers,  etc.” 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I am  asking  him  to  give  the  items  marked 
“Sundries”  in  the  account. 

The  Chairman.  I merely  called  attention  to  this  in  passing. 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  was  not  marked  “sundries.”  That  is  why  I 
did  not  read  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  My  instructions  to  him  were  to  take  the  items 
marked  “sundries.”  That,  of  course,  gives  us  a key  to  this  table 
that  lie  is  giving  now,  or  this  compilation. 

Mr.  Sacket  (continuing): 

October  16,  $203.27;  total,  $671.48. 

Mr.  Littlefield  While  I think  you  have,  to  a certain  extent, 
explained  these  items,  I would  like  to  have  you  explain  right  here — 
because  these  all  app*ear  in  your  account 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield  (continuing).  I would  like  to  have  you  state  to 
the  committee,  concisely,  in  this  connection,  just  exactly  what  these 
sundry  items  were  made  up  of,  so  far  as  you  can  remember.  In  the 
first  place,  state  how  you  kept  them  from  day  to  day. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Mr.  Lambecfc,  who  was  assisting  us  in  the  office,  paid 
out  money  from  time  to  time  for  hire  of  express  wagons,  for  meals 
for  himself,  personal  expenses  for  himself,  and  for  meals  for  clerks. 
I made  similar  expenditures.  My  own  personal  expenditures  were 
included  in  “sundries.” 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  say  “your  own  personal  expenses.”  What 
do  you  mean  by  that — your  board  at  the  hotel  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  My  board  and  meals  and  incidental  expenses. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Whatever  you  spent  from  time  to  time  as  you 
went  along? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes;  that  was  charged  as  sundries,  as  incidentals. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  were  those  items  kept  account  of  upon 

these  cards  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  They  were  written  down  on  the  cards. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  taken  off  on  to  the  sheet  of  paper  later  ? 

The  Chairman.  I would  make  this  suggestion  both  to  counsel  and 
to  the  witness:  There  may,  at  some  stage  of  this  proceeding,  here- 
after, be  raised  the  question  as  to  whether  or  not  this  witness,  having 
made  a memorandum  at  the  time,  and  having  destroyed  it,  may 
testify  from  his  recollection  as  to  the  items,  and  as  to  how  closely 
he  must  remember.  I merely  suggest  that  here,  as  the  rule  is  doubt- 
less apparent  to  counsel. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  appreciate  our  embarrassment,  Mr. 
Chairman  ? 

The  Chairman.  It  does  not  arise  here. 


520 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Mr.  Littlefield.  I understand;  but  that  is  one  reason  I want  to 
go  into  this  right  here  now.  I want  to  have  the  witness  explain,  as 
far  as  he  can,  just  exactly  what  was  done,  and  then  the  succeeding 
events. 

I will  ask  the  reporter  to  read  the  last  question  and  answer. 

(The  reporter  read  as  follows:) 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  were  those  items  kept  account  of  upon  these  cards? 

Mr.  Sacket.  They  were  written  down  on  the  cards. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  taken  off  on  to  the  sheet  of  paper  later? 

The  Chairman.  Then  the  question,  of  course,  may  arise  as  to 
whether  or  not  he  may  be  permitted  to  explain,  having  destroyed  the 
memorandum. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Oh,  surely.  The  only  thing  I can  do  is  to  lay 
the  best  possible  foundation,  and  give  the  committee  the  benefit  of  all 
possible  information.  How  were  these  items  kept  account  of  on 
these  cards  ? Were  they  written  down  on  the  cards  and  taken  off  on 
a sheet  of  paper  later  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  mean  by  that,  that  each  individual  item 
would  be  taken  off  on  the  sheet  of  paper,  or  that  the  aggregate  of  the 
items  that  were  thus  entered  on  the  cards  would  be  taken  off  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  They  were  copied  on  to  the  sheets  of  paper  as  fully  in 
the  way  of  explanation  as  they  appeared  on  the  cards,  in  all  instances. 
Probably  a number  of  small  items  of  a few  cents  were  grouped  into 
one  item,  provided  all  the  explanations  were  “ sundries”  or  u inci- 
dentals,’’  which  would  be  the  same  thing. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  about  these  large  items  of  $250  and 
$203.27  ? Give  the  committee  the  best  explanation  you  can  of  the 
items  aggregating  $250,  for  instance.  Take  that  item,  and,  so  far  as 
you  have  any  recollection,  give  the  committee  the  best  information 
you  can  as  to  what  constituted  that  item,  and  as  to  how  the  items 
constituting  it  were  kept. 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  was  the  aggregate  of  smaller  items  on  the  card 
for  which  the  explanation  was  “ sundries  ” or  “ incidentals/’  in  every 
instance.  There  was  nothing  put  into  that  item  of  $250  for  sundries 
that  had  any  fuller  explanation  on  the  cards. 

The  Chairman.  You  said  it  was  made  up  of  items  of  ‘‘sundries”  or 
“incidentals.” 

Mr.  Sacket.  I would  consider  sundries  as  incidentals,  and  inci- 
dentals as  sundries. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  have  any  recollection  now  as  to  the 
character  of  the  items  which  in  the  aggregate  made  up  the  item  of 
$250  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I could  not  say  as  to  that  particular  item.  I can  say 
generally. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  As  to  that  particular  item  and  as  to  the  item  of 
$203.27 — what  about  that? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  $203.27  item  was  at  the  final  settlement.  That 
includes  small  amounts  and  bills  paid  on  or  before  October  16,  which 
I hadn’t  kept  track  of  in  detail. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Of  course,  the  committee  will  perceive  that  my 
examination  is  somewhat  leading,  but  I want  to  make  as  much 
progress  as  I can.  If  the  committee  feels  that  it  is  too  much  so,  I 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


521 


shall  be  glad  to  have  any  member  of  the  committee  suggest  that  I 
change  it. 

Mr.  Sacket,  do  I understand  the  course  of  proceeding  to  have  been 
this:  that  you  had  this  card  index,  upon  which  you  kept  a notation 
of  expenditures  of  all  kinds  from  time  to  time,  on  the  various  cards  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you,  in  connection  with  that  card  index, 
have  a card  upon  which  original  entries  were  made  of  the  items  which 
were  afterwards  aggregated  under  the  head  of  “ sundries”  ? Did  you 
have  cards  of  that  sort  from  time  to  time  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No  item  was  taken  to  this  account  as  “ sundries”  that 
did  not  appear  on  the  card  as  “ sundries’’  or  “ incidentals.”  Does 
that  answer  the  question  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  mean  by  that,  that  the  only  thing  that 
was  on  the  card  you  speak  of  in  relation  to  the  $250  item  was  simply 
“ sundries,  $250,”  or  were  there  .various  items  on  that  card  which, 
added  up,  made  $250  ? Do  I make  myself  clear  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  There  were  a large  number  of  items,  but  all  of  the 
items  were  “sundries”  or  “incidentals,”  and  the  total  was  $250. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  So,  if  I understand  correctly,  upon  this  par- 
ticular card,  your  recollection  is  that  there  were  a number  of  entries 
which  would  be  indicated  as  sundries,  incidentals,  etc.  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  that  the  aggregate  of  those  items  thus  men- 
tioned as  “sundries”  or  “incidentals”  on  the  cards  amounted  to 
$250,  which  was  carried  on  to  your  transcript  as  “sundries?” 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  that  the  original  card,  if  you  had  it  here, 
would  only  show  the  various  items  marked  “sundries”  or  “inci- 
dentals.” Is  that  right? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  I would  like  to  have  the  witness’s  understanding 
of  each  of  those  two  terms.  They  are  not  synonymous  at  all.  Do 
you  use  the  terms  “sundries”  and  “incidentals”  indiscriminately  as 
to  the  same  class  of  items,  or  did  you  discriminate  and  put  those  that 
were  properly  incidentals  under  that  head  and  those  that  were  prop- 
erly sundries  under  that  head  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I used  them  with  the  understanding — possibly  a 
wrong  understanding — that  they  were  synonymous  and  meant  the 
same  thing. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Take,  for  instance,  one  of  the  items  of  “sun- 
dries” which,  with  the  other  items,  made  the  aggregate  of  $250.  (I 
use  this  for  illustration.)  Do  I understand  that  an  item  of  1 1 sundries  ” 
was  entered  upon  this  card,  which  item  of  itself  included  small  expend- 
itures, which  in  the  aggregate  amounted  to  the. sum. marked  “sun- 
dries” under  that  item?  Do  I make  myself  clear?  For  instance,  if 
a man  expended  five  or  six  dollars  in  sums  of  ten,  fifteen,  twenty 
cents,  two  or  three  dollars,  as  the  case  may  be,  when  it  was  put  on 
your  card  was  it  put  down  “Five  dollars,  sundries,”  or  did  you  put 
down  the  various  items  and  add  them  up  and  call  the  items 
“sundries?” 

Mr.  Sacket.  When  Mr.  Lambeck  would  report  to  me  that  he  had 
spent  five  or  fifteen  dollars,  I would  give  him  the  money  and  enter 
“sundries,”  five  or  fifteen  dollars,  as  the  case  might  be. 


522 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Mr.  Littlefield.  How  about  yourself  in  the  case  of  disbursements  ? 
Did  you  put  down  each  individual  disbursement  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Or  would  you  add  your  disbursements  and  make 
an  item  of  “sundries,”  so  much? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I would.  That  would  be  the  idea. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  See  if  I am  correct  about  this.  We  will  take 
the  card  representing  $250.  Do  I understand  that  the  $250  was  the 
aggregate  of  these  various  items  of  “sundries”  that  had  been  put 
down  on  your  card  from  time  to  time  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  the  aggregate  made,  and  then  carried 
forward  on  to  your  account  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Exactly;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  In  the  case  of  a card  like  that,  do  you  mean  to 
be  understood  that  the  account  which  you  transcribed  from  the  cards 
is  a duplicate  of  everything  that  appeared  on  the  card  ? Those  items 
do  not  appear,  do  they,  in  that  aggregate  of  $250  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  As  far  as  the  purpose  of  the  expenditure  and  account- 
ing for  it  is  concerned,  the  one  item  of  “sundries”  accounts  for  it 
just  as  well  as  several  items  would  if  they  all  appeared. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I understand;  but  it  can  not  be  true  that  the 
transcript  you  made  of  the  card  under  those  conditions  contains  all 
the  details  that  appeared  on  the  card.  That  is,  if  you  took  off  that 
item  of  $250  as  an  aggregate  and  did  not  take  off  anything  else,  of 
course  you  left  out  the  details  of  the  sundries  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I left  out  the  details  as  far  as  the  component  parts 
of  that  $250  were  concerned. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  With  that  exception,  was  that  true  of  all  of 
your  items  of  “sundries?” 

Mr.  Sacket.  Generally  true ; yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  With  the  exception  of  the  item  of  “sundries,” 
do  I understand  that  when  you  made  this  transcript  it  was  a copy 
of  the  cards  as  they  appeared,  showing  these  various  items  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  I think  the  witness  misunderstands  the  question. 
He  has  made  up  an  item  of  $250,  which  is  an  aggregate  of  a great 
many  cards. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  No;  not  a great  many  cards,  but  the  aggregate 
of  quite  a number  of  items  on  one  card. 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  is  more  than  one  card.  I would  not  be  certain 
that  the  $250  was  all  on  one  card.  That  amount  may  have  appeared 
on  more  than  one  card. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I see;  but  in  any  event  in  a case  like  that  all 
you  have  is  the  aggregate  “sundries”  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  As  to  the  items  making  up  the  aggregate,  you 
say  they  were  “sundry”  items  also? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  With  the  exception  of  the  item  marked  “ sun- 
dries,” are  you  certain  that  the  transcript  in  other  respects  is  a copy 
of  the  cards  that  were  destroyed,  as  you  have  explained  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  is  my  recollection — that  I copied  those  cards  on- 
to the  sheets  of  paper  exactly. 


RODNEY  SACKET.  523 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  would  except  the  names  of  these  men  who 
did  not  want  their  names  attached  to  disbursements? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Their  names  did  not  appear  on  the  card.  I will  say 
that  in  some  instances  in  copying  the  cards,  which  I did  from  time 
fco  time,  I put  on  the  account  more  than  appeared  on  the  card,  because 
f remembered  the  item  at  that  time.  The  account,  if  there  is  a dif- 
ference, explains  better  and  more  fully  than  the  cards  would  if  they 
were  here  now. 

The  Chairman.  Are  we  to  understand  that  if  a card  called  for  an 
expenditure  of,  say,  $7,  and  you  remembered  that  $3  more  had  been 
expended,  you  would  put  it  on  that  card,  or  add  it  to  that  amount? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No. 

The  Chairman.  And  that  you  trusted  your  memory  for  part  of  it 
and  a card  for  part  of  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I would  supply  the  information  as  to  the  purpose  of 
the  expenditure  if  I happened  to  remember  it,  if  I had  not  put  it  on 
the  card.  I think  I remember,  in  one  or  two  instances,  looking  at  a 
charge  and  remembering  just  what  was  done  with  that  money  when 
it  did  not  state  fully  on  the  card;  and  when  I transferred  the  data 
from  that  card  to  the  sheet  of  paper  I supplied  the  various  items 
whenever  I remembered  them. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  supplied  what  might  be  lacking  on  the 
card  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is,  by  stating  the  purpose,  but  not 
changing  the  amount? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Oh,  no;  I did  not  change  the  amount  at  all.  The 
cards  were  correct. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Please  state  right  in  that  connection  the  pur- 
pose you  had  in  doing  your  business  in  this  way.  You  have  been 
over  the  occasion  for  the  destruction  of  the  cards;  but  I would  like 
to  have  it  stated  right  in  this  connection. 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  cards  were  cumbersome.  I wanted  a record  that 
was  as  clear  and  convenient  in  every  way  as  possible.  I considered 
a copy  of  the  cards  on  sheets  of  paper  to  be  more  convenient.  I 
could  produce  it  at  any  time  it  might  be  called  for  and  get  at  it  better 
than  I could  the  cards.  The  cards  were  more  convenient  for  enter- 
ing, but  not  as  convenient  for  reference  as  the  sheets  would  be. 

The  Chairman.  How  many  cards  were  there  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I would  have  to  estimate  that.  I should  think  the 
box  in  which  I kept  them  was  12  inches  long.  I should  think  there 
would  be  about  2 inches  to  the  hundred  cards.  I think  there  were 
600  cards  in  that  box. 

The  Chairman.  And  how  many  boxes  were  there  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  I had  only  one  box  at  a time. 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  what  you  talk  about  as  being  “cumber- 
some”— one  box? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I had  one  box  at  a time. 

The  Chairman.  How  many  times  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I cleaned  out  that  box  from  time  to  time,  and  trans- 
ferred the  record  to  each  paper.  Possibly,  if  I had  kept  , he  entire 
account  on  cards  I would  have  had  five  or  six  boxes. 


524 


RODNEY  SAGKET. 


Mr.  Littlefield.  So  that  the  destruction  of  the  cards  was  made 
from  time  to  time  as  you  renewed  the  box  and  transferred  the  con- 
tents of  the  cards  to  your  memoranda  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  did  not  wait  until  the  campaign  was  all 
over? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Oh,  no,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  many  different  periods  were  there  during 
which  you  destroyed  the  cards  ? Could  you  say,  roughly  speaking  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Roughly  speaking,  I should  say  in  the  two  months, 
probably,  six  times. 

The  Chairman.  At  what  time  did  the  last  destruction  of  the  cards 
take  place  with  reference  to  the  close  of  the  primary  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  I could  give  the  date  better  by  looking  at  the 
last  date  in  the  account.  I should  think  the  last  batch  of  cards  was 
destroyed  about  September  15. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  At  the  time  you  destroyed  the  first  batch,  were 
there  any  charges  of  corruption  or  fraud  or  crime  in  connection  with 
this  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  None  that  I know  of;  no,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  there  any  brought  to  your  notice  during 
any  period  of  the  primary  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Nothing  that  I paid  attention  to;  no,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  the  fact  that  such  charges  or  intimations 
were  made  in  any  way  induce  the  destruction  of  the  cards  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Not  in  the  least. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  there  any  purpose  of  any  kind  to  conceal 
anything  by  their  destruction  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  There  was  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  If  the  transcripts  that  you  have  furnished  are 
copies,  substantially,  of  the  cards,  how  could  the  presence  of  the 
originals  be  of  any  use  or  service  in  aiding  you  in  defending  against 
any  charge,  or  in  throwing  any  light  upon  the  transactions  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  would  be  of  no  use  at  all  in  throwing  any  more  light 
on  the  transactions. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  any  money  disbursed,  in  currency,  to  any 
persons  during  the  campaign  as  managers,  for  use  in  the  campaign, 
outside  of  Mr.  Stone,  whose  names  were  not  entered  upon  the  cards 
or  did  not  afterwards  appear  upon  your  account  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  any  other  instance. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Then,  would  all  the  other  disbursements  for  use 
in  the  campaign  appear  on  these  cashier’s  checks,  according  to  your 
recollection  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  They  should  if  they  were  not  paid  in  cash.  I did 
not  state  positively  that  they  would,  but  I recollect  no  other  instance, 
and  I would  if  it  were  a large  amount,  probably. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  have  stated  that  your  cards  did  not  con- 
tain the  names  of  some  of  the  men  to  whom  money  was  paid  for 
use  in  the  campaign. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  whether  or  not  the  names  of  those  men 
appear  in  Exhibit  49. 

Mr.  Sacket.  As  far  as  I was  able  to  remember  or  find  them, 
they  do. 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


525 


Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  put  into  Exhibit  49,  at  the  time  you 
prepared  it,  back  in  the  early  part  of  1909,  the  names  of  all  of  the 
men  to  whom  you  had  thus  disbursed  money  that  you  could  then 
remember  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  To.  the  best  of  my  ability  I did. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Are  you  able  now  to  remember  the  names  of 
any  men  to  whom  you  disbursed  money  whose  names  do  not  appear 
in  Exhibit  49  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I remember  none;  no,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I am  coming  a little  later  to  Exhibit  49.  Ex- 
hibit 49  was  made  by  you  in  response  to  a request  from  the  Wis- 
consin investigating  committee  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  it  or  not  made  after  you  had  submitted 
Exhibit  47  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  After  I had  submitted  Exhibit  47. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  An  inspection  of  Exhibit  47  shows  that  it  did 
not  give  the  names  of  practically  any  of  the  men  to  whom  the  money 
had  been  paid.  That  is  correct,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  Sacket.  There  were  a large  number  of  names  omitted  from 
Exhibit  47. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  the  committee  desired  a statement  of  the 
men  to  whom  the  money  had  been  paid  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  take  Exhibit  47  and  the  cashier’s 
checks  and  make  a thorough  investigation  for  the  purpose  of  being 
able  to  state  the  names  of  the  men  to  whom  the  money  was  paid  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did.  Let  me  explain  one  thing.  You  asked  me 
if  the  statement  in  Exhibit  49  had  been  made  before  or  after  Exhibit 
47  was  presented. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Presented  to  whom  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Presented  to  the  joint  committee,  I presume.  I had 
Exhibit  49  in  my  possession  at  the  time  I presented  Exhibit  47,  but 
I did  not  present  it  until  afterwards  and  did  not  intend  to  present  it 
unless  they  demanded  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Right  there  let  me  ask  where  you  got  these 
names  ? You  have  said  that  you  got  some  of  them  from  cashier’s 
checks.  Did  you  get  them  all  from  cashier’s  checks  or  not  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Practically  all  of  them.  It  is  possible  that  I remem- 
bered one  or  two;  but,  generally  speaking,  I got  them  from  the 
cashier’s  checks. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  say  “It  is  possible.”  Do  you  remember 
now  that  you  did  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  of  one  now — one  item  where  I remembered 
the  name;  but  I think  I afterwards  found  the  cashier’s  check. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I want  to  ask  you  a question  in  relation  to  the 
items  marked  “general” ; and  then  I am  going  to  begin  on  the  items 
in  the  account  that  you  have  not  already  explained,  and  ask  you  to 
go  through  them. 

On  page  36  of  volume  5,  in  relation  to  an  item  marked  “General 
expense,  July  6,  $100,”  you  were  asked:  “Did  you  pay  it  to  some 
one?”  Your  answer  was:  “I  could  not  say.” 


526 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Senator  Sutherland.  What  was  the  date  of  the  item? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  item  is:  “July  6,  $100.”  On  page  35  of 
volume  5 you  will  find  the  following: 

The  Chairman.  Whom  did  you  pay  that  money  to? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  knowledge.  I do  not  know. 

Of  course  I will  not  stop  to  read  the  whole  examination. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  pay  it  to  some  one? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I could  not  say. 

What  I want  to  know,  Mr.  Sacket,  is  whether  or  not  that  $100, 
and  all  of  the  other  items  marked  “General,”  were  or  were  not  paid 
out  to  some  one  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  They  were  in  every  instance  paid  out  to  some  one. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  did  you  mean  by  this  answer,  then  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  question  asked  whether  I paid  it  out?  I could 
not  be  positive  whether  I did  or  whether  I turned  it  over  to  Mr. 
Edmonds  to  be  paid  out. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Oh!  You  understood  it  was  an  inquiry  as  to 
whether  you  made  the  specific  payment  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I want  to  ask  you,  now,  this  general  question 
as  to  the  items  marked  “General”  or  “General  organizing”  which 
are  not  attributed  to  any  particular  individual.  What  do  you  say 
is  the  fact  in  relation  to  those  items?  Were  they  or  were  they  not 
actually  disbursed  by  you  in  connection  with  the  campaign? 

Mr.  Sacket.  They  were  actually  disbursed  by  me  or  by  Mr. 
Edmonds  during  the  campaign;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  are  not  able  to  state  the  persons  to  whom 
they  were  disbursed  where  they  have  no  distinguishing  marks  indi- 
cating the  persons  to  whom  they  were  paid? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I am  not;  no,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Are  you  able  to  state  the  purposes  for  which 
such  disbursements  were  made  other  than  the  general  description 
that  is  found  in  the  account— “ Organizing ” or  “General  organizing”  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Nothing  about  the  purpose,  except  that  the  word 
“general”  means  more  than  one  county.  It  covers  more  than  one 
county. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  prepared  the  account? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  whether  or  not  it  was  intended  by  you  to 
indicate  that  it  was  money  disbursed  for  organization  purposes. 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  was  the  intent;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  where  it  was  described  as  “general,”  it 
simply  applied  to  more  counties  than  one? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Was  that  your  purpose  in  using  the  word 
“general”  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  To  indicate  a larger  territory  than  one  county;  yes, 
sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Why  did  you  use  the  word  “general,”  rather 
than  “State,”  or  something  of  that  character? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  word  “State”  would  have  meant  the  entire 
State,  and  I did  not  mean  that  in  all  cases.  I simply  used  the  word 


RODNEY  SACKET.  527 

“general”  to  distinguish  between  the  payments  for  larger  terri- 
tories than  a county  and  those  for  a county. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I want  to  call  your  attention  to  one  item  which 
we  have  on  our  notes.  Do  you  remember  Mr.  Stephenson  testifying 
about  the  trip  that  he  made"  with  Mr.  Puelicher  through  some  six  or 
seven  counties  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Senator  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  know  who  paid  the  Senator’s  personal 
expenses  on  that  trip  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  My  recollection  of  the  matter  is  that  Mr.  Puelicher 
paid  them,  and  that  I afterwards  gave  him  a receipt  for  them. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  In  the  adjustment  of  the  account  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  To  refresh  my  memory,  let  me  ask  whether 
the  Senator  did  not  say  that  when  he  went  out  he  paid  his  own 
expenses  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I understood  the  Senator  to  so  state;  yes. 

Mr.  Black.  He  so  testified;  yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  He  did  so  testify;  but  when  we  came  to  examine 
the  matter,  we  found  that  the  fact  was  that  Mr.  Puelicher  had  them 
in  his  account. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I just  wondered  whether  my  memory  was  the 
same  as  yours  or  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  It  is.  Your  memory  is  correct.  You  stated, 
Mr.  Sacket,  that  you  presumed  Senator  Stephenson  authorized  Mr. 
Knell  to  make  the  disbursements  in  Milwaukee  County.  Do  you 
know  whether  or  not  the  Senator  had  any  arrangement  or  conversa- 
tion at  all  with  Mr.  Knell  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  knowledge  of  any  conversation. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  know  nothing  about  that,  then? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Nothing  except  that  Senator  Stephenson  gave  me  to 
understand  that  Knell  was  to  have  charge  of  Milwaukee  County. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Calling  your  attention  now  to  Exhibit  49,  I 
wish  to  go  over  the  items  that  my  notes  show  have  not  been  explained. 
Of  course,  I may  be  in  error,  but  I want  to  be  as  sure  as  I can  that  I 
have  everything  cleaned  up.  Look  at  the  item  under  date  of  July  18, 
i“Dane  County,  organizing,  $200,”  and  state  to  the  Committee  what, 
if  anything,  you  know  about  that? 

Mr.  Sacket.  My  recollection  of  that  item  is  that  it  was  paid  to 
Mr.  Ames — A.  K.  Ames,  I think  his  name  is. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Under  what  circumstances  and  for  what  pur- 
pose ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  For  the  purpose  of  organizing  in  Dane  County,  for 
the  purpose  of  promoting  Senator  Stephenson’s  campaign  there. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  the  number  of  that  exhibit? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Exhibit  49,  page  588,  under  date  of  July  18. 
I am  beginning  at  the  beginning  of  the  account  and  going  through 
and  picking  out  the  items  that  my  notes  show  have  not  been  explained. 
Who  paid  that  to  him — you  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  According  to  my  recollection  I did ; yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  recollect  whether  or  not  that  was  a 
check  ? 


528 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Mr.  Sacket.  From  the  fact  that  no  check  number  appears  after  it. 
I believe  it  was  in  cash. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  is  to  say,  you  have  no  memory  about  it; 
you  are  simply  reasoning  about  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  a recollection  of  paying  Mr.  Ames  $200. 
I have  not  any  recollection  of  the  fact  of  the  payment  in  cash  or 
check.  I do  • reason  that  the  check  number  not  appearing  there, 
it  was  in  cash. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  make  the  arrangement  with  Mr.  Ames  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  what  the  arrangement  was,  and  what 
Mr.  Ames  was  to  do.  Just  state  it  in  substance.  Of  course,  I do  not 
expect  you  to  give  the  specific  language. 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  was  to  conduct  Senator  Stephenson’s  campaign  in 
Dane  County,  doing  all  of  the  things  that  we  have  enumerated  as  the 
component  parts  of  organizing.  He  was  to  keep  within  the  law, 
and  render  an  account  of  his  expenses. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  he  render  such  an  account  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  he  did,  once  or  twice. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  has  become  of  that  account  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  My  recollection  is  that  it  was  left  with  the  joint 
committee  at  Madison. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Is  it  contained  in  the  printed  reports  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I was  unable  to  find  it  as  an  exhibit. 

The  Chairman.  How  would  it  appear,  umler  what  name  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  A.  R.  Ames. 

The  Chairman.  The  only  exhibit  in  the  records  from  Ames  is 
Ames’s  list  of  receipts  from  poll  workers,  Exhibit  No.  110,  at  page 
2092  of  the  record.  Is  that  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not  file  that  with  the  committee,  to  the  best  of 
my  recollection. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Of  course  in  many  of  these  instances,  if  the  com- 
mittee please,  we  do  not  know  whether  the  papers  filed  were  marked 
as  exhibits  or  not.  The  witness  is  doing  the  best  he  can  to  give  his 
recollection. 

The  Chairman.  I have  a list  of  the  things  Mr.  Sacket  filed  here 
now,  also.  I have  just  completed  this  index. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Before  inquiring  specifically  from  this  witness 
about  those  exhibits,  would  it  not  expedite  matters  somewhat  if  the 
exhibits  were  examined  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I should  think  so;  yes.  Of  course  we  have  not 
them.  Have  they  been  sent  down  ? 

Senator  Pomerene.  It  must  be  quite  apparent  that  there  is  a great 
deal  of  dependence  here  upon  vague  memories,  etc. ; and  if  we  can 
avoid  anything  of  that  kina,  I should  like  the  exact  facts. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Of  course  it  is  too  obvious  for  discussion  that  the 
witness  can  not  undertake  to  remember  all  those  details  with  accu- 
racy. What  I should  like  to  do  is  this,  then:  If  the  papers  have 
arrived  or  will  arrive,  I will  not  go  into  that  branch  of  the  examina- 
tion of  Mr.  Sacket  yet.  I will  let  him  look  over  the  exhibits  and  take 
up  the  matter  with  him  later. 

The  Chairman.  The  State  officer  who  is  the  custodian  of  the  papers 
is  subpoenaed  to  be  here  on  Wednesday  with  the  papers. 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


529 


Mr.  Littlefield.  Then  I will  not  follow  the  question  of  returns 
and  exhibits  with  Mr.  Sacket,  with  the  understanding  that  I can  have 
him  look  them  over  and  take  them  up  later,  and  see  what  he  can  do. 
That  is,  I will  simply  omit  that  phase  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  The  hour  of  recess  has  arrived,  and  the  committee 
will  be  in  recess  until  2 o’clock. 

(At  12  o’clock  and  30  minutes  p.  m.  the  subcommittee  took  a recess 
until  2 o’clock  p.  m.) 

after  recess. 

The  recess  having  expired,  the  subcommittee  reassembled. 

TESTIMONY  OF  RODNEY  SACKET— Continued. 

The  Chairman.  I would  suggest  to  counsel  that  Mr.  Sacket  was 
instructed  to  bring  in  copies  of  newspapers  in  which  advertisements 
were  run. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Counsel  may  just  as  well  ask  him  about  that  now. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  V ery  well. 

Mr.  Sacket,  have  you  any  newspapers  that  you  can  present  to  the 
committee  showing  sample  advertising  that  was  done  during  the  cam- 
paign ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  a number  of  copies  of  the  same  paper.  I -was 
only  able  to  get  one. 

Mi*.  Littlefield.  Is  this  the  only  copy  that  you  have,  the  Milwau- 
kee Free  Press,  Tuesday  morning,  September  1,  1908? 

Air.  Sacket.  That  is  all  that  I was  able  to  get.  There  are  several 
days’  papers  there,  and  that  appears  in  several  of  the  papers. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  This  is  about  half  a page  ad.  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  want  that  to  go  into  the  record,  Mr. 
Chairman  ? 

The  Chairman.  I would  like  to  ask  a question  or  two  about  it. 

Is  this  advertisement  similar  as  to  space  and  substance  to  the 
advertisement  that  was  run  in  other  daily  papers  in  Milwaukee  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  My  recollection  is  that  all  of  the  large  daily  papers 
in  Milwaukee  ran  that  ad  at  the  same  time  that  it  was  run  m this 
paper. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  mean,  the  same  copy? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes;  the  same  ad;  the  same  copy;  the  same  thing. 

The  Chairman.  How  long  was  it  run  in  the  paper  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  there  were  three  insertions,  on  the  three  days 
preceding  the  election  day. 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  the  service  for  which  the  total  sum  paid 
to  these  papers  was  paid? 

Mr.  Sacket.  There  was  other  advertising  in  the  same  papers,  at 
other  times. 

The  Chairman.  Those  bills  will  appear,  I suppose,  when  we  get 
the  originals  from  Madison  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  I remember  distinctly  of  a bill  for  that  adver- 
tising being  found  among  those  left  at  Madison. 

15235°— VOL  1—11 34 


530 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


The  Chairman.  Do  the  newspaper  bills  generally  state  on  their 
face  the  character  of  service  rendered  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  large  amounts  to  the  Koch  Advertising  Agency 
and  to  Usher  are  printed  in  the  testimony  before  the  joint  com- 
mittee. I presume  they  are  exact  copies  of  the  bills  themselves. 
There  may  be  other  bills  which  are  not  printed. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  If  the  committee  desire,  we  will,  of  course,  do 
our  best  to  get  all  these  printing  bills. 

The  Chairman.  You  need  not  go  to  that  trouble  until  after  the 
time  expires  in  which  they  are  to  be  produced. 

Before  proceeding  further  with  this  witness,  I will  ask  that  J.  J. 
Blaine,  George  W.  Dart,  and  Edward  McMahon  be  called  as  witnesses. 

(The  marshal  called  the  names  just  mentioned  by  the  chairman. 
Mr.  Dart  and  Mr.  McMahon  responded  and  the  oath  was  administered 
to  them  by  the  chairman.  The  marshal  reported  that  Mr.  Blaine 
had  not  yet  arrived.) 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  you  wish  to  have  that  particular  adver- 
tisement read,  Mr.  Chairman? 

The  Chairman.  It  is  rather  difficult  to  consider  it  in  that  way. 
I suppose  it  might  be  read.  I think  perhaps  it  would  be  well  to  read 
the  text  of  that  advertisement. 

Senator  Sutherland.  It  might  be  well  to  state  in  the  record  what 
its  character  is;  that  it  is  what  is  called  a display  advertisement. 
That  is  so,  is  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  If  it  is  a matter  of  sufficient  consequence  so 
that  the  committee  desires  it,  why  not  take  it  right  out  and  put  it 
in  the  record  ? 

The  Chairman.  And  then  every  time  this  record  is  printed  it  will 
be  necessary  to  lithograph  that  picture. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Whatever  your  honors  wish  about  that. 

The  Chairman.  It  may  be  inserted  in  the  record,  too. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Put  in  one  or  two  samples. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  this  from  a file,  Mr.  Sacket  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  belongs  to  the  Free  Press,  and  I promised  to 
return  it. 

Mr-  Littlefield.  Would  you  like  to  have  the  witness  read  it  ? 

Senator  Sutherland.  Let  him  state,  generally,  the  character  of  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Just  describe  it,  Mr.  Sacket,  or  may  I describe  it 
for  the  witness  ? 

Senator  Pomerene.  Counsel  has  great  descriptive  powers. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Thank  you. 

This  is  an  ad  that  occupies  about  one-half  of  a page  of  the  Milwau- 
kee Free  Press,  and  is  inserted  upon  the  upper  half  of  the  page. 

The  words  “At  the  primary  election  to-day”  and  “vote  for”  and 
“Wisconsin’s  Grand  Old  Man”  are  in  black-face  display  type.  The 
balance  of  the  advertisement  is  in  large  type,  and  in  the  center  of  it 
is  the  picture  of  Senator  Stephenson;  and  the  last  line  of  the  adver- 
tisement is  in  large  display  type,  reading  as  follows:  “Vote  for  Uncle 
Ike.”  The  balance  of  the  advertisement  reads  as  follows. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I suppose  that  last  line  would  appeal  to  the 
emotions  of  the  voters  ? 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


531 


Mr.  Littlefield.  The  advertisement  is  preceded  by  the  words 
“ Political  advertisements/ ’ repeated  six  times,  at  the  head  of  the 
page,  in  a ruled  space. 

The  balance  of  the  advertisement  reads  as  follows. 

Mr.  Sacket  (reading) : 

At  the  primary  election  to-day  vote  for  Wisconsin’s  Grand  Old  Man.  United  States 
Senator  Isaac  Stephenson  is  a candidate  to  succeed  himself  in  the  Senate.  Every 
Wisconsin  Republican  should  recognize  the  usefulness  and  great  value  of  a man  of 
Senator  Stephenson’s  great  experience  in  public  life  and  his  large  stake  in  the  State  of 
Wisconsin,  which  has  been  his  home  for  more  than  60  years. 

Senator  Stephenson  is  a life-long  Republican,  always  faithful  to  the  party,  and  always 
in  sympathy  with  its  progressive  spirit.  All  his  votes  in  the  Senate  were  in  line  with 
the  Roosevelt  idea.  The  Roosevelt  policies  must  be  carried  to  a final  success  by  the 
election  of  Mr.  Taft.  As  Governor  Hoard  put  it,  “Never  swap  horses  in  the  middle  of 
a stream.  ” We  are  in  the  middle  of  the  stream.  The  Republicans  of  Wisconsin  must 
do  their  share,  and  they  can  best  serve  their  interests,  and  those  of  their  party,  by  send- 
ing back  to  the  Senate  Isaac  Stephenson,  of  Marinette. 

Vote  for  Uncle  Ike. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Is  that  similar  to  other  advertisements 
inserted  in  other  papers  throughout  the  State  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir.  This  advertisement  w'as  inserted  in  several 
of  them. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Blaine  has  arrived,  and  we  will  desist  long 
enough  to  swear  him. 

(The  marshal  called  the  name  of  Mr.  J.  J.  Blaine  as  a witness.  He 
responded,  and  was  duly  sworn  by  the  chairman.) 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  I understand  that  this  is  the  advertisement, 
substantially,  that  appeared  in  the  daily  papers,  or  do  you  mean  that 
that  is  the  advertisement  that  appeared  in  the  various  weekly  papers, 
large  numbers  of  which  are  mentioned  in  the  account  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  We  did  run  this  advertisement  in  several  papers  besides 
the  daily  papers,  and  we  ran  similar  advertisements  in  other  papers. 
This  particular  one,  according  to  my  recollection,  was  run  for  the  last 
three  issues  preceding  the  primary  election,  by  all  of  the  large  daily 
papers  in  Milwaukee. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  about  the  daily  papers  outside  of  Milwaukee? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I could  not  say  positively  as  to  when  it  was  run  in 
them.  I think  that  it  was  run  in  some  of  them  at  some  time. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  that  all  your  honors  want  for  the  present  on 
that  ? 

The  Chairman.  I think  that  is  sufficient  for  the  purpose. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Just  notify  me  about  the  matter  of  the  bills,  if 
you  think  they  are  needed.  I would  not  want  to  be  in  the  position  of 
failing  to  furnish  them  if  any  member  of  the  committee  feels  that  they 
should  be  furnished. 

The  Chairman.  It  will  not  be  necessary  to  take  any  steps  to  procure 
evidence  that  we  already  have.  When  the  exhibits  that  were  left 
with  the  committee  come  before  us  we  shall  be  able  then  to  see  what 
is  missing. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  We  do  not  wish  to  encumber  the  record  with 
things  that  the  committee  may  feel  are  unnecessary. 

Now,  Mr.  Sacket,  had  you  finished  such  explanation  as  you 
desired  to  make  about  the  item  of  July  18,  Dane  County,  organizing, 
$200? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember  just  exactly  where  I stopped. 


532 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Senator  Sutherland.  The  last  thing  you  stated  about  it  was  that 
you  thought  it  was  paid  in  cash  and  not  by  a check,  as  I remember. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes;  in  answer  to  Senator  Pomerene’s  question. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Paid  to  A.  R.  Ames. 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  amount,  to  the  best  of  my  recollection,  was  paid 
to  Mr.  Ames;  but  I did  not  state  positively  whether  it  was  by  cash  or 
check.  The  account  would  indicate,  however,  that  it  was  paid  in 
cash. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Take  the  next  item  under  that,  “General  organ- 
izing, Edmonds,  check,  $150,”  and  state  whether  or  not  you  can 
make  any  explanation  of  that  item;  and  if  so,  what? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I know  nothing  of  that  item.  I recollect  nothing 
of  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  whether  or  not  sums  were  advanced,  from 
time  to  time,  to  Mr.  Edmonds  on  account  of  his  expenses  and  dis- 
bursements that  were  made  by  him. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  give  several  receipts  to  cover  money  paid  to  Mr. 
Edmonds,  to  be  used  in  his  own  expenses,  and  possibly  otherwise. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  In  what  manner  are  such  advancements  indi- 
cated in  Exhibit  49  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  words  “Edmonds”  or  “Edmonds  check,”  or 
“E.  A.  E.”  would  indicate  that  the  money  was  given  to  Mr.  Edmonds 
for  some  purpose. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  know  for  what  purpose  Mr.  Edmonds 
used  the  sums  thus  advanced  to  him  from  time  to  time,  or  paid  to 
him,  as  the  case  may  be  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Only  from  what  he  has  said. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  know  at  the  time  for  what  purpose  he 
was  using  the  sums  thus  either  advanced  or  paid  to  him  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  At  the  time  I made  this  entry? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  No.  I mean,  now,  at  the  time  when  the  advance- 
ments were  made  or  when  the  repayments  were  made.  Were  they 
in  all  cases  advancements,  or  were  they  part  of  the  time  advance- 
ments and  the  balance  of  the  time  repayments? 

Mr.  Sacket.  My  recollection  is  that  they  were  paid  to  him  in 
both  ways — sometimes  one  way  and  sometimes  the  other. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  My  question  is  whether  or  not  you  knew,  at  the 
time  the  advancements  or  repayments  were  being  made,  the  pur- 
poses for  which  Mr.  Edmonds  was  using  the  money  thus  advanced 
or  thus  repaid  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  My  recollection  is  that  Mr.  Edmonds  indicated  to  me 
the  fact  of  its  being  for  general  organizing,  or  for  a certain  county 
or  certain  district  or  certain  person,  in  which  case  I noted  it  on  the 
card  and  copied  it  into  this  record. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  were  Mr.  Edmonds’s  personal  expenses 
paid  during  this  period,  if  you  know? 

Mr.  Sacket.  My  understanding  is  that  they  were  paid  out  of  the 
money  that  Senator  Stephenson  gave  him,  $5,000,  I think,  most 
of  them. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  his  personal  expenses  were  paid  out  of 
the  $5,000  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  be  paid  most  of  them  out  of  that ; and  I have 
a recollection  of  giving  receipts  for  amounts  of  money,  I think, 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


533 


before  he  got  this  $5,000,  that  were  advanced  to  him  for  his  per- 
sonal expenses — either  advanced,  or  he  was  reimbursed. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  have  any  knowledge  as  to  whether  or 
not  Mr.  Edmonds  was  receiving  any  compensation  for  his  services 
as  manager  of  this  campaign  for  Senator  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  knowledge  except  his  word. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  At  the  time  did  you  have  any  knowledge  as  to 
whether  or  not  he  was  receiving  compensation  for  his  services,  as 
distinguished  from  his  expenses  and  disbursements? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  think  anything  was  said  to  me  about  that 
at  the  time,  one  way  or  the  other. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  have  already  testified,  I believe,  that  you 
received  no  compensation  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  know  whether  or  not  Mr.  Puelicher 
received  any  compensation  for  his  services  ? Of  course,  I am  calling 
now  for  your  personal  knowledge. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  personal  knowledge. 

•Senator  Sutherland.  What  does  the  witness  mean  by  saying  he 
gave  receipts  for  this  money  paid  to  Edmonds? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Just  expialn  to  the  Senator  the  course  of  busi- 
ness— the  circumstances  under  which  you  passed  a receipt  to  Mr. 
Puelicher,  and  why  you  passed  to  him  a receipt  such  as  you  have 
described.  That  covers  your  ground;  does  it  not,  Senator? 

Senator  Sutherland.  Yes. 

Mr.  Sacket.  In  several  instances  Mr.  Puelicher  gave  Mr.  Edmonds 
money,  and  I think  he  opened  an  account  with  Mr.  Edmonds  in  the 
Marshall  & Ilsley  Bank  at  one  time,  and  told  me  that  he  had  done  so 
in  order  that  Mr.  Edmonds  might  pay  his  personal  expenses  by  per- 
sonal check.  He  told  me  the  amount,  and  in  order  to  balance  our 
books  I gave  him  a receipt  for  that  amount. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  mean  a receipt  signed  by  you? 

Mr.  Sacket.  A receipt  signed  by  me;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Why  not  a receipt  signed  by  Edmonds  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Mr.  Puelicher  asked  me  for  it,  and  I gave  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Edmonds  had  no  custody  of  the  fund  ? 

Senator  Sutherland.  Money  was  turned  over  to  him  finally  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know  why  it  was  not  signed  by  Mr.  Edmonds, 
except  that  Mr.  Puelicher  asked  me. 

The  Chairman.  Where  did  the  money  come  from  that  opened  that 
account  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  came  out  of  the  money  that  Senator  Stephen- 
son— 

The  Chairman.  Out  of  the  campaign  fund? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Then  part  of  the  campaign  fund  which  Stephenson 
had  placed  in  the  hands  of  Puelicher  was  transferred  to  private  credit 
in  an  account  opened  for  Edmonds  at  the  Marshall  & Ilsley  Bank, 
was  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  is  my  recollection. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  the  amount  of  that  deposit  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I could  not  give  the  figures;  but  my  recollection  is 
that  it  was  comparatively  small. 

The  Chairman.  Comparative  figures  vary  according  to  times. 


534 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Mr.  Sacket.  I should  estimate  it  at  about  S500. 

The  Chairman.  How  was  that  used  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  How  was  that  fund  drawn  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  By  check  signed  Edmonds. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  reported  to  you  as  part  of  the  account- 
ing for  this  fund,  was  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Was  Edmonds  charged  with  receiving  $500  when 
that  money  was  taken  from  the  general  fund  and  placed  to  his  credit 
in  a special  account  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  money  was  charged  in  this  account  in  some  place. 
I have  no  recollection  of  exactly  where. 

The  Chairman.  Charged  how  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  money  was  charged  in  this  account  in  Exhibit  49 
in  some  place.  I do  not  recollect  just  where. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  not  pick  out  that  item  in  the  account  that 
you  made  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  My  recollection  of  it  is  that  it  was  not  in  one  item;  it 
was  in  several  items.  In  going  over  the  account  I have  found  items 
that  I believe  Mr.  Edmonds  said  he  knew  nothing  about  and  I cer- 
tainly knew  nothing  about.  For  instance,  on  July  18,  “General, 
organizing,  Edmonds’s  check,”  $150.  That  might  have  been  part  of 
that  account. 

The  Chairman.  That  is,  that  might  have  been  a check  drawn  to 
Mr.  Edmonds’s  order  and  deposited  to  his  credit  in  this  private 
account  in  the  Marshall  & Ilsley  Bank  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  is  possible  that  I meant,  by  “Edmonds’s  check,” 
Edmonds’s  check  account.  Possibly  I did  not  write  it  fully.* 

The  Chairman.  That  is,  the  account  subject  to  Edmonds’s  check? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  give  us  the  total  of  that  deposit  during 
the  campaign? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Only  by  estimate. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  not  pick  out  the  figures,  or,  rather,  the 
items  in  the  account  that  make  it  up  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I could  not  be  positive  as  to  the  items;  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Who  could  do  that  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I beg  pardon  ? 

The  Chairman.  The  Marshall  & Ilsley  Bank  would  have  that  ac- 
count; would  it  not? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  would;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Was  that  ever  accounted  for  to  you — the  expendi- 
ture of  the  money  placed  to  Edmonds’s  credit  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  think  the  expenditure  by  Edmonds  was  ever 
accounted  for. 

The  Chairman.  Edmonds  never  filed  any  itemized  account  of  his 
expenses,  did  he? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Nothing  to  me  that  I ever  remember;  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Then  you  think  Edmonds  received  that  sum, 
whatever  it  was — $500,  or  more  or  less — out  of  the  general  fund  for 
his  own  personal  expenditure,  without  accounting  to  the  fund?  Is 
that  true  ? 


RODNEY  SACKET.  535 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  think  it  was  put  in  his  account  for  the  pur- 
pose of  evading  his  accounting  for  it.  As  I understood  it 

The  Chairman.  I was  rather  endeavoring  to  get  the  facts. 

Mr.  Sacket.  May  I state  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  question  is  whether  the  $500  is  in  the  item 
in  Exhibit  49.  I take  it  that  is  it;  is  it  not  ? 

The  Chairman.  It  would  be  more  than  that. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Whatever  it  is,  then. 

The  Chairman.  I want  the  fact  from  the  witness’s  recollection.  It 
passed  through  his  hands.  I want  the  fact.  We  can  draw  deductions 
from  it  at  another  time. 

Mr.  Sagket.  All  of  the  amounts  taken  out  of  the  fund  in  the  Mar- 
shall & Ilsley  Bank  do  appear  in  Exhibit  49. 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  but  you  can  not  identify  them. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I can  not  identify  those  particular  items;  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Was  Edmonds  ever  charged  back  with  those  sums 
that  were  placed  to  his  credit,  which  he  had  drawn  on  his  own  check  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  just  exactly  understand  that. 

The  Chairman.  If  you  advance  a man  $500  out  of  a general  fund 
of  which  you  are  the  custodian,  or  of  which  you  have  the  accounting, 
and  he  pays  it  back,  you  credit  it.  If  he  does  not  pay  it  back,  you 
charge  him  with  it.  How  does  that  account  stand  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Mr.  Edmonds  expended  the  money  in  one  way  or 
another,  I am  informed;  and  he  certainly  never  put  it  back  into  the 
general  fund. 

The  Chairman.  Your  statement  that  he  expended  it  is  based  upon 
your  general  impression,  is  it  not  ? You  say  you  can  not  identify  the 
items  in  the  account  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  is  based  upon  information  received  from  Mr. 
Edmonds  and  Mr.  Puelicher. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  the  information  ? When  was  it  given  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  information  was  that  this  money  was  to  be  placed 
to  the  credit  of  Mr.  Edmonds;  and  Mr.  Edmonds  did  use  it  for  his 
personal 

The  Chairman.  How  do  you  know  that  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  My  knowledge  is  based  on  information  received  from 
him. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  he  tell  you  that  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  At  some  time  during  the  campaign. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  he  say  he  had  expended  it  for  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  In  part  for  his  personal  expenses,  and 

The  Chairman.  What  item  of  personal  expenses  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  His  board  at  the  hotel. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  tell  you  that  he  had  paid  his  board  at  the 
hotel  out  of  this  sum  of  money  placed  to  his  credit  in  Marshall  & Ilsley’s 
Bank  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  is  my  recollection  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  He  told  you  that;  did  he? 

Mr.  Sacket.  t do  not  mean  all  of  his  board,  but  some  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  How  did  he  come  to  tell  you  that  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  In  talking  over  the  accounts.  I think  the  occasion 
was  that  at  one  time  his  account  in  the  bank  was  very  low;  and  I 
deposited  some  cashier’s  checks  to  the  credit  of  that  account  in  the 
Marshall  & Ilsley  Bank. 


536 


RODNEY  SACKET, 


The  Chairman.  That  personal  account  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir;  Mr.  Edmonds’s  personal  account. 

The  Chairman.  Where  did  you  draw  that  money  from  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  money  was  drawn  from  the  general  fund. 

The  Chairman.  By  whom  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  By  me. 

The  Chairman.  How  did  you  draw  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  By  receipt. 

The  Chairman.  To  whom  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  To  Mr.  Puelicher,  or  whoever  was  in  charge  of  it  at  the 
bank. 

The  Chairman.  Did  it  amount  to  more  than  a transfer  of  accounts  ? 
Was  the  money  actually  drawn  and  handed  over? 

Mr.  Sacket.  In  the  case  of  the  cashier’s  checks  that  I deposited,  the 
money  was  actually  drawn  out  in  the  form  of  cashier’s  checks  and  put 
back  in  Mr.  Edmonds’s  account. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  “ drawn  out  in  the  form  of  cashier’s 
checks”  ? Unless  the  cashier’s  checks  were  deposited  it  would  not  be 
drawing  the  money;  it  would  be  merely  transferring  the  credit. 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  cashier’s  checks  were  deposited  to  Mr.  Edmonds’s 
credit. 

The  Chairman.  Then  the  money  was  not  drawn  on  them.  The 
depositing  of  a cashier’s  check  would  not  be  the  drawing  of  money  on 
it.  It  would  be  the  transfer  of  credits.  Did  you  draw  the  money  or 
did  you  just  transfer  the  credits? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I transferred  the  credit. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  did  not  draw  any  money  out  of  the  bank 
on  those  cashier’s  checks  at  all  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No. 

The  Chairman.  They  were  drawn  to  whose  order? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  in  several  cases  they  were  drawn  to  the  orders 
of  people  that  Mr.  Edmonds  had  employed  about  the  State. 

The  Chairman.  I am  speaking  now  of  money  that  was  deposited 
to  his  private  account. 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  is  the  thing  that  I am  speaking  about.  The 
checks  were  drawn  out  of  the  bank  by  me  on  receipts,  and  is  was 
found  that  we  did  not  need  to  send  that  money  out  at  that  time;  and 
in  order  to  get  it  back  into  the  bank  Mr.  Edmonds  asked  me  to  take 
those  checks  over  to  the  bank  and  have  them  credited  to  his  personal 
account,  which  I did. 

The  Chairman.  Let  us  see  about  that.  You  went  to  the  bank  and 
purchased  cashier’s  checks  or  certificates  of  deposit — whatever  form 
they  may  have  been  in — to  the  order  of  someone  out  in  the  State  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  instead  of  sending  them  to  the  persons  in 
whose  names  or  for  whose  use  you  had  bought  them,  you  handed  them 
over  to  Mr.  Edmonds;  did  you? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  Mr.  Edmonds  handed  them  back  to  you  and 
told  you  to  deposit  them  to  his  credit.  Was  that  the  transaction? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  At  what  period  were  they  indorsed  by  the  payee? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Never. 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


537 


The  Chairman.  To  whose  order  was  the  cashier’s  check  drawn? 

Mr.  Sacket.  To  the  person  for  whom  it  was  purchased. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  just  what  I asked  you.  It  was  drawn  to 
the  order  of  the  person  for  whom  it  was  purchased  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  they  go  back  into  the  bank  without  being 
indorsed  by  that  person  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Mr.  Edmonds  indorsed  them. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Edmonds  indorsed  the  name  of  the  person  to 
whose  credit  they  were  drawn? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  forgotten  the  exact  manner  of  his  indorse- 
ment; but  he  put  his  name  on  the  back  of  it,  with  some  explanation, 
and  I carried  it  to  the  bank,  and  they  did  transfer  the  credit. 

The  Chairman.  Then  you  mean  to  say  that  they  never  were  in- 
dorsed by  the  party  to  whose  order  they  were  drawn,  but  that  instead 
of  having  them  so  indorsed  they  were  indorsed  by  Mr.  Edmonds, 
and  the  bank  accepted  that  in  lieu  of  the  indorsement  of  the  party  to 
whose  order  they  were  drawn  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  bank  did  that? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  Marshall  & Ilsley  Bank. 

The  Chairman.  Those  cashier’s  checks  were  brought  away  from 
the  bank,  were  they  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Or  was  the  transaction  all  in  the  bank  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  They  were  brought  over  to  our  office. 

The  Chairman.  They  were  taken  across  the  street  to  your  office? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  They  were  payable  to  the  order  of  some  one  out  in 
the  body  of  the  State  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  never  sent  to  such  party  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Never. 

The  Chairman.  They  were  retained  by  you,  Mr.  Edmonds’s  name 
was  written  on  them,  and  the  bank  upon  that  kind  of  indorsement 
placed  them  to  the  credit  of  this  private  account  of  Mr.  Edmonds  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  amount  were  those  checks  drawn  ? Just 
select  some  one  in  your  mind,  and  name  the  amount. 

Mr.  Sacket.  One  check  I remember  distinctly  was  to  C.  C.  Wellens- 
gard  for  $250. 

The  Chairman.  That  you  did  not  send  to  him  at  all  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Who  is  this  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  C.  C.  Wellensgard. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  It  never  was  delivered  to  him  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  check  was  not;  no,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  It  was  never  delivered  to  Wellensgard  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Was  the  cash  given  to  him? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Another  check  was  given  to  Mr.  Wellensgard  later. 
The  first  check  that  I remember  was  not. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  was  the  object  of  that  ? 


538 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Mr.  Sacket.  We  had  the  checks  on  hand;  it  was  not  necessary  to 
send  them  out  to  the  people  in  whose  favor  they  were  drawn ; Mr 
Edmonds  thought  he  needed  more  money  in  his  personal  account. 

Senator  Pomerene.  As  1 understand  you,  this  check  was  originally 
drawn  to  Wellensgard  as  payee? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Then  that  was  indorsed  by  somebody  in  your 
office? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  another  check  for  that  amount  given  by 
Mr.  Edmonds  on  his  individual  account  to  Mr.  Wellensgard  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Possibly  I misunderstood  you. 

The  Chairman.  It  never  reached  Wellensgard,  as  I understand  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  identical  check  never  did  reach  Wellensgard.  I 
think  you  will  find  them  mentioned  in  his  testimony. 

The  Chairman.  Whose  name  did  Mr.  Edmonds  write  on  that  check  ? 
Did  he  write  Wellensgard’ s name  on  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  My  recollection  of  it  is  that  he  wrote  the  name  of  the 
payee,  “By  E.  A.  Edmonds.” 

The  Chairman.  And  the  bank  accepted  that  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  date  was  that  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember. 

The  Chairman.  Fix  it  by  association,  or  in  some  way. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I should  think  it  was  in  the  latter  part  of  August. 

The  Chairman.  Was  it  not  just  after  the  primary? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  sure  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I am  quite  certain  that  I did  not  have  any  deal  of 
that  kind  after  the  primaries. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you,  or  to  your  knowledge  did  Mr.  Edmonds, 
introduce  that  check  before  the  joint  committee  when  this  matter 
was  being  inquired  into  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I heard  some  testimony  before  the  joint  committee  in 
regard  to  this  particular  deal,  and  I think  Mr.  Puelicher  explained 
why  the  bank  accepted  those  checks. 

The  Chairman.  Then  you  gave  Mr.  Wellensgard  a check  on  Sep- 
tember 5 for  $250.  Did  he  ever  get  that  check  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Does  it  bear  his  own  indorsement  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  does. 

The  Chairman.  In  what  other  case  did  you  proceed  in  the  same 
manner — by  having  a cashier’s  check  made  to  the  credit  of  some 
person  as  payee  and  not  sending  it  to  him  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I can  not  give  any  other  instance  from  memory. 

The  Chairman.  There  were  others;  were  there  not? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir.  There  were  several  at  that  time,  but  I do 
not  remember  any  of  them  now. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  remember  the  amounts? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not;  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  One  of  them  was  for  $500,  was  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember. 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


539 


The  Chairman.  I will  leave  that  transaction  for  counsel  later  to 
take  up. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Let  me  ask  you  why  were  you  doing  the 
business  in  that  way  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  part  I took  in  that  transaction  was  by  direction 
of  Mr.  Edmonds. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  you  know  why  it  was  so  done  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  only  knowledge  I have  is  what  he  told  me  and 
what  I have  heard  him  tell  about  afterwards. 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  was  it  ? Let  us  find  out  about  it. 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  idea  was  that  he  wanted  to  get  a large  amount  of 
money  into  his  private  account,  so  that  he  would  be  sure  to  be  able 
to  settle  with  the  men  that  he  had  made  arrangements  with. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Not  the  men  to  whom  the  checks  were 
drawn,  but  others  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  account  was  getting  low  at  that  time,  as  I remem- 
ber it,  and  we  had  these  checks  on  hand  for  the  purpose  of  sending 
them  out.  Mr.  Edmonds  asked  me  to  get  them  originally  for  the  pur- 
pose of  sending  them  to  the  men  named  in  them  as  payees. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  the  last  week  in  August  ? 

Mr.  Sagket.  It  was  m the  latter  part  of  August. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  say  he  got  the  checks  originally  for  the 
purpose  of  sending  them  to  the  payees  of  the  checks  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  was  my  understanding;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Then  afterwards  he  concluded  to  deposit 
them  to  his  own  account  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  It  was  not,  then,  the  original  idea  to  have 
these  checks  made  out  to  other  persons  and  indorsed  by  Edmonds? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  was  not  my  idea;  no,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Was  that  his,  so  far  as  you  know  ? 

• Mr.  Sacket.  Not  as  far  as  I know. 

Mr.  Black.  If  the  subcommittee  desire  a reference  to  the  testimony 
on  that  subject — I do  not  know  that  you  do — at  pages  799-800  you 
will  find  the  list  of  those  checks. 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  we  have  the  list  of  them. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Does  the  testimony  state  why  the  business 
was  conducted  in  that  way  ? 

Mr.  Black.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  was  the  purpose  of  it  ? 

Mr.  Black.  As  I understand  it,  and  as  Mr.  Edmonds  there  testified, 
these  checks  had  been  made  out  in  the  name  of  a certain  person.  He, 
as  the  purchaser  of  those  checks,  before  ever  sending  them  out, 
returned  them  to  the  bank,  the  same  as  any  purchaser  of  a check  can 
do,  and  then  tlrny  were  placed  to  the  credit  of  Edmonds’s  account.  At 
the  top  of  page  800  you  will  find  a list  of  those  checks,  amounting  to 
$4,900.  Trie  date  of  the  Wellensgard  check,  which  was  asked  a 
moment  ago,  was  August  27 ; but  it  does  not  appear  here.  The  dates 
of  the  others  can  be  ascertained  from  the  checks  themselves,  which 
can  be  produced  here. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is,  the  checks  were  not  purchased 
originally  with  the  view  of  passing  them  back  to  Mr.  Edmonds’s 
credit  ? 

Mr.  Black.  I did  not  understand  that  they  were. 


540 


EODNEY  SACKET. 


Senator  Sutherland.  I was  asking  about  the  testimony. 

Mr.  Black.  I do  not  think  the  testimony  shows.  But  that  was  the 
fact  as  to  the  way  the  checks  got  out  of  the  bank  and  got  back  in  and 
were  placed  to  the  credit  of  Edmonds’s  account. 

The  Chairman.  There  is  just  a little  missing  link  there.  I under- 
stood that  these  checks  were  procured  by  Mr.  Sacket  from  Mr.  Pue- 
licher, and  that  Mr.  Edmonds  was  not  a party  to  the  procuring  of  the 
checks,  and  that  there  was  nothing  on  them  or  about  them  or  about 
entries  made  in  connection  with  them  that  connects  Mr.  Edmonds 
with  the  transaction.  The  question  in  my  mind  is,  Can  a bank,  pro- 
ceeding regularly,  credit  those  checks  to  any  other  account  than  that 
of  the  person  who  purchased  them  and  paid  for  them  ? Must  not  the 
transaction  go  back  to  its  source  ? Can  a bank  place  them  to  the  credit 
of  a new  account,  in  the  name  of  a person  who  has  not  been  a party  to 
the  transaction  ? 

Mr.  Black.  If  you  go  to  a bank  and  buy  a cashier’s  check  payable 
to  my  order,  but  before  delivering  it  to  me  you  take  it  back  to  the 
bank  and  ask  that  it  be  placed  to  the  credit  of  another  account,  you 
can  do  so. 

The  Chairman.  Yes,  you  can;  but  can  another  person? 

Mr.  Black.  I say,  you  can.  You  are  the  one  who  buys  the  check; 
and  if  before  delivering  it  to  me,  to  whose  order  it  is  made,  you  take 
it  back,  you  may  have  it  placed  to  the  credit  of  your  account  in  the 
bank. 

The  Chairman.  There  is  no  doubt  about  that;  it  is  a familiar 
transaction.  But  there  is  still  one  link  missing.  Mr.  Sacket  pur- 
chased these  drafts  of  Mr.  Puelicher,  I understand.  Is  that  right? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Sacket  could  return  them  to  Puelicher  and 
receive  either  the  cash  or  its  equivalent  and  have  them  placed  to  his 
credit.  But  how  did  Mr.  Edmonds  get  authority  to  place  them  to 
the  credit  of  a new  account  ? That  is  loose  banking. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I think  we  all  agree  about  that.  Senator  Suther- 
land wanted  to  know  what  explanation  we  made  at  the  time.  I will 
read  a couple  of  answers  here,  which  are  as  full  as  anything  I find 
here.  It  is,  I think,  the  examination  of  Mr.  Edmonds: 

A.  As  I explained,  Senator,  the  last  few  days  of  the  campaign  Mr.  Puelicher  was 
away  and  these  checks  were  deposited  because  certain  other  sums  had  to  be  paid  at 
that  time — I felt  that  they  had  to,  at  least — and  I didn’t  have  to  my  credit  a sufficient 
amount  to  pay  them,  and  so  deposited  these,  making  the  explanation  to  Puelicher 
when  he  returned. 

Q.  Well,  why  did  you  indorse  some  of  these,  like  the  Wellensgard  ones,  and  not 
others,  like  the  C.  M.  Johnson  one? — A.  Well,  possibly  if  that  is  one  of  these  of  which 
Mr.  Sacket  made  a notation,  he  took  it  back. 

Q.  From  whom? — A.  From  me. 

Q.  From  you? — A.  Oh,  yes;  they  never  left  the  office,  any  of  these  checks,  I 
understand. 

Q.  They  were  left  in  your  office? — A.  No;  except  to  go  to  the  bank.  They  were 
never  sent  out  to  the  persons  to  whom  they  were  made  payable.  I think,  Senator,  as 
a banking  proposition  that  may  be — is  irregular.  I took  the  position,  however,  that 
since  I had  asked  for  drafts  or  cashier’s  checks  on  the  bank,  that  it  was  all  right,  and 
they  never  had  been  used,  that  it  was  all  right  for  me  to  indorse  them  and  put  them 
into  the  fund  again;  and  I consulted  Mr.  Puelicher  at  the  time  or  a little  later,  and 
while  there  seemed  to  be  a little  question  about  its  being  exactly  regular,  my  authority 
for  signing  anyone  else’s  name  by  myself,  he  thought  that  was  a proper  explanation — 
at  least  I did — or  a sufficient  explanation. 


RODNEY  SACKET.  541 

Q.  When  you  turned  these  back  to  the  bank  how  did  you  get  credit  for  them  at 
the  bank? — A.  I put  them  in  my  personal  account. 

Q.  And  did  you  have  a book  in  which  the  credit  was  entered — a bank  book? — A. 
No,  sir.  The  only  way  it  would  appear  would  be  on  the  stub  of  a check  book  or  on 
the  back  of  the  stub  showing  the  deposit.  I think  you  will  see  on  the  back  of  the  stub 
where  that  was  deposited. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I do  not  think  it  is  necessary  to  read  further. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  No;  I think  that  covers  about  every  thing  there  is. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I think  I understand  the  situation  now  in 
reference  to  that. 

The  Chairman.  I would  like  to  have  the  next  paragraph  read  in 
connection  with  that. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  I will  read  right  along,  if  the  chairman 
wishes,  the  next  question  and  answer: 

Q.  During  all  this  transaction  in  which  you  paid  out  personally 

The  Chairman.  No  ; I would  like  counsel  to  just  complete  reading. 
The  counsel  had  not  finished. 

Mr.  Littlefield  (reading) : 

I see  $1,300  at  one  time  and  $900  at  another. 

Now,  shall  I read  right  on? 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  the  next  paragraph. 

Mr.  Littlefield  (reading) : 

During  all  this  transaction  in  which  you  paid  out  personally,  aside  from  this  cam- 
paign fund,  something  over  $10,000 — something  over  $11,000 — you  didn’t  have  any 
bank  book  at  all? — A.  No,  sir;  I didn’t  have  a bank  book. 

Q.  And  only  kept  track  of  it  by  what  you  entered  on  the  stubs  of  your  checks? — A. 
Yes.  That  was  reasonable  in  that  instance,  too,  because  in  the  National  Exchange 
Bank  I had  but  the  one  deposit.  They  asked  me  if  I wanted  a book.  I told  them 
that  would  be  the  only  deposit,  and  didn’t  take  any.  In  the  case  of  the  Marshall  & 
Ilsley  Bank,  it  wasn’t  supposed,  either  by  me  or  anyone  else,  that  I would  have  to 
exceed  a thousand  dollars,  and  that  would  be  two  deposits,  and  only,  as  I explained 
to  you,  did  it  happen  that  there  was  more  than  that  deposited. 

Q.  These  vouchers  that  I have  just  been  asking  you  about,  which  you  say  were  not 
used,  were  deposited  in  Marshall  & Ilsley’s  Bank  to  your  credit? 

The  Chairman.  Unless  counsel  desires  to  read  further,  it  will  not  be 
necessary. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I will  just  read  that  answer  if  the  chairman 
please : 

A.  Yes,  sir,  either  to  my  credit,  or  possibly  those  that  Mr.  Sacket  signed,  possibly 
they  went  back  to  the  general  fund;  I am  not  sure. 

The  Chairman.  It  appears  on  page  803  that  there  was  a balance  of 
$11,000  in  the  Marshall  & Ilsley  Bank.  That  was  to  this  unexpected 
account,  too ; was  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  To  the 

The  Chairman.  You  expected  to  have  only  $1,000  there — that  is, 
not  to  exceed  $1,000 — but  it  ran  up  to  $11,000;  did  it  not? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I had  no  expectation  of  having  $1,000.  That  was 
not  my  testimony. 

The  Chairman.  According  to  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Edmonds,  on 
page  803. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  question  is : 

And  the  balance  of  the  $11,000  was  in  the  Marshall  & Ilsley  Bank? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  I don’t  remember  your  explanation,  etc. 


542 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


The  Chairman.  I understand  that  that  was  no  part  of  what  may 
be  known  as  the  campaign  fund  which  was  to  the  credit  of  Mr. 
Puelicher;  that  Mr.  Puelicher  did  not  carry  it  as  a bank  account,  but 
carried  it  as  a personal  banker  would  carry  it. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I understand  that  the  Edmonds  account  was  carried 
as  a regular  bank  account,  and  checks  drawn  against  it. 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  it  seems  to  have  gone  up  as  high  as  $11,000. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  dispute  the  testimony.  I did  not  recollect 
it  that  way,  though. 

The  Chairman.  I just  called  attention  to  the  fact. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  We  will  examine  into  that  and  find  out  what  the 
fact  is. 

The  Chairman.  I see  it  is  a fact,  nevertheless,  that  that  account, 
instead  of  keeping  within  the  expected  $1,000  margin,  ran  up  to 
$11,000.  The  reasons  were  given;  but  then  the  fact  is  the  point  I 
was  referring  to. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes.  Just  exactly  what  the  detailed  facts  are 
about  that,  I do  not  know.  As  a matter  of  fact,  this  is  the  first  time 
my  attention  has  been  called  to  it. 

Mr.  Black.  My  recollection  is  that  the  $11,000  included  the  $5,000 
that  he  had  at  the  National  Exchange.  From  reading  this  testimony 
right  here  I do  not  recall  distinctly  in  regard  to  that;  but  my  recol- 
lection is  that  the  $4,900  of  checks  represented  the  greatest  amount 
that  was  in  Edmonds’s  personal  account. 

The  Chairman.  He  says  the  $5,000  referred  to  was  in  the  National 
Exchange  Bank. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  We  can  get  that  bank  account,  I suppose,  with- 
out any  trouble.  Of  course  that  will  absolutely  demonstrate  it. 

The  Chairman.  Yes.  It  only  goes  to  the  question  of  the  manner 
of  doing  business. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Certainly. 

The  Chairman.  The  question  as  to  the  recovery  of  the  money  is 
not  being  initialed.  We  are  only  interested  in  it  as  showing  the 
manner  in  which  these  accounts  were  kept — as  to  whether  they  were 
kept  openly  and  candidly,  or  whether  or  not  surreptitious  accounts 
were  kept.  I say  that  without  any  suggestion  of  personal  belief  in 
the  matter. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  We  will  give  the  subcommittee  all  the  informa- 
tion that  is  at  our  disposal  upon  that  branch  of  the  case;  and  I will 
have  that  account  looked  up,  and  see  just  what  there  is  to  it.  In  a 
matter  like  that  I suppose  all  you  care  about  is,  for  instance,  a tran- 
script of  the  account?  You  would  not  want  me  to  bring  the  books 
of  the  bank  in  here.  What  I will  do  is  this:  In  matters  like  that  I 
will  submit  the  transcript,  and  if  you  think  you  want  to  look  at  the 
original  it  can  be  produced. 

The  Chairman.  I think  the  committee,  in  the  ordinary  course  of 
this  investigation,  will  reach  a part  where  it  will  cause  testimony  on 
this  subject  to  be  produced. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  will  be  agreeable  to  us.  Is  that  all  for 
the  present,  gentlemen  of  the  committee  ? 

Senator  Pomerene.  I have  a little  matter  that  is  not  quite  clear 
in  my  own  mind.  I should  like  to  pursue  it  a little  further. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Certainly. 


RODNEY  SACKET.  543 

Senator  Pomerene.  As  I understand  you,  these  checks  were 
drawn,  for  instance,  to  Mr.  Wellensgard  as  payee  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  then  indorsed  by  Mr.  Edmonds  and  then 
the  check  was  deposited  to  Mr.  Edmonds’s  credit  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  By  me;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  By  you  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  In  his  individual  account? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Then  another  check  would  be  drawn  on  his 
individual  account  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  was  at  liberty  to  draw  a check  on  his  individual 
account  and  from  his  report  he  did. 

The  Chairman.  Were  checks  drawn  by  him  upon  his  individual 
account  for  the  same  amounts  and  to  the  same  payees  named  in  the 
checks  or  receipts  which  you  drew  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  In  the  only  instance  that  I have  a distinct  recol- 
lection of  there  were  not. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  is,  they  were  drawn  to  a different  payee  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  If  you  will  permit  me  to  state  as  to  the  Wellensgard 
item  I remember  distinctly  buying  that  check  for  Mr.  Edmonds  and 
I remember  its  being  deposited  in  the  bank  and  credited  to  Mr. 
Edmonds’s  account.  Then  I remember  distinctly  later  getting 
another  cashier’s  check  out  of  the  general  fund  and  sending  it  to 
Mr.  Wellensgard.  So  that  I am  positively  certain  that  Mr.  Edmonds 
did  not  in  all  instances  draw  his  personal  checks  for  the  same  items 
that  were  covered  by  the  cashier’s  checks  that  were  deposited  to  his 
credit. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Then  what  was  the  object  in  drawing  that 
check  to  Wellensgard  as  payee  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  original  object,  as  I understand  it,  was  that  Mr. 
Edmonds  thought  that  Mr.  Wellensgard ’s  account  against  us  would 
be  about  $250  and  he  got  the  check  ready  to  send  to  him. 

Senator  Pomerene.  In  other  words,  he  got  $250  for  Wellensgard? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Which  $250  was  deposited  to  his  own  indi- 
vidual account  and  was  not  sent  to  Wellensgard  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Was  not  sent  to  Wellensgard. 

Senator  Pomerene.  But  it  was  used  for  some  other  purpose? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

• Mr.  Littlefield.  Why  was  the  check  not  sent  to  Wellensgard, 
but  deposited  in  Mr.  Edmonds’s  account,  if  you  know?  That  is 
what  the  Senator  wants  to  know. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Because  Mr.  Wellensgard  was  not  clamoring  for  the 
money.  Mr.  Wellensgard  could  wait  until  we  got  more  money  just 
as  well  as  not,  and  the  check  was  sent  back  and  put  where  the  money 
could  be  drawn  and  sent  to  some  one  who  needed  it  immediately. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  was  pressing  at  that  time  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  A lot  of  matters;  a lot  of  people. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  is  indefinite.  Name  some  things  that 
were  pressing. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  any  specific  thing. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  is  that  date? 


544 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Mr.  Sacket.  I think  the  testimony  said  August  27. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Do  you  know  whether  he  had  a balance  to  his 
credit  in  his  individual  account  at  that  time? 

Mr.  Sacket.  My  understanding  of  it  was  that  it  was  very  small, 
if  any. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Why  was  not  that  drawn  payable  to  him 
individually  as  payee,  and  deposited  in  his  own  account? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I ordered  it  drawn  to  Mr.  Wellensgard,  because  I was 
informed  by  Mr.  Edmonds  that  he  wanted  it  for  the  purpose  of 
sending  it  to  Wellensgard. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Why  did  you  not  tear  that  up,  and  draw 
another  one  to  Mr.  Edmonds  personally? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  would  not  do,  because  the  bank  had  a 
record  of  the  check. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I would  have  lost  $250  if  I had  torn  it  up. 

Senator  Pomerene.  It  was  not  presented  yet. 

Mr.  Sacket.  But  I had  given  a receipt  for  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  was  a cashier’s  check.  The  bank  had  a 
record  of  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I did  not  understand  that. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  No;  they  had  to  account  for  it  at  the  bank. 
They  would  have  been  shy  $250. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Certainly,  if  that  were  true. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Mr.  Sacket,  I call  your  attention  to  the  item  of 
July  20,  “T.  J.  Sexton,  organizing,  C.  D.  No.  93677,  $50.”  I will 
ask  you  to  state  to  the  committee  what,  if  anything,  you  know  about 
that  item  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  My  recollection  of  that  is  that  it  was  money  advanced 
to  T.  J.  Sexton  to  cover  his  expenses  in  traveling  over  the  State  in  the 
interest  of  Senator  Stephenson’s  campaign. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Who  employed  Mr.  Sexton  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I made  the  arrangement  with  him,  partially,  at  least. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  As  a result  of  the  arrangement  made  by  you 
with  Sexton,  what  was  the  character  of  the  services  to  be  rendered 
by  him  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  was  to  travel  in  different  parts  of  the  State,  report 
conditions,  talk  favorably  of  Senator  Stephenson,  and  interest  people 
in  his  campaign  to  the  best  of  his  ability. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  compensation  was  he  to  receive  for  it? 
and  state  whether  or  not  he  was  to  receive  payments  for  his  expenses* 
while  engaged  in  performing  the  service?  State  in  the  first  place, 
if  you  remember,  what  compensation  he  was  to  receive. 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  was  to  receive  some  compensation.  I have 
forgotten  the  amount.  I think  it  was  about  $150  a month. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What,  if  anything,  was  he  to  receive  on  account 
of  his  expenses  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  All  of  his  expenses. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  For  what  purpose  was  this  $50  paid  him?  Was 
it  on  account  of  the  contract  made  between  him  and  yourself  in 
relation  to  his  services  and  expenses? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


545 


Mr.  Littlefield.  As  I understand,  you  have  no  specific  knowledge 
of  the  item  “General  organizing,  July  21  ” ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  None  whatever. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Are  you  prepared  to  state  to  the  committee 
whether  or  not  that  sum  was  actually  disbursed  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  But  you  are  not  able  to  state  as  to  whom  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  that  one  of  the  items  where  you  did  not  care 
to  disclose  the  name  of  the  party  receiving  it,  or  is  it  a disbursement 
made  generally  that  you  can  not  remember  the  details  about  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  that  was  an  item  given  to  some  person  whose 
name  I did  not  want  to  put  on  the  card. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  When  you  made  up  this  account,  did  you  do 
your  best  to  refresh  your  recollection  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining 
the  name  of  the  party  to  whom  it  was  paid  ? 

Mr.  Sapket.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Were  you  able  to  do  so? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I was  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  have  you  been  able  to  do  so  since? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Now,  take  the  item  of  July  22,  “J.  W.  Wyps- 
zinski,  organizing,  $50.”  State  to  the  committee  what,  if  anything, 
you  know  about  that  item. 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  was  $50  advanced  to  him  to  cover  his  expenses. 
He  was  authorized  to  travel  through  the  State  in  the  interest  of 
Senator  Stephenson’s  campaign. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Who  employed  him? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I made  the  arrangement — at  least,  partially. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  whether  or  not  that  was  to  cover  services 
or  expenses,  or  both. 

Mr.  Sacket.  My  recollection  of  it  is  that  it  was  to  cover  expenses. 
I would  not  be  positive  that  that  identical  item  might  not  include 
something  else. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  whether  or  not  the  arrangement  with  him 
involved  payment  to  him  for  services  and  expenses,  or  both. 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  arrangement  involved  the  payment  of  a salary 
and  expenses. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  We  also  have  down,  under  the  date  of  July  24, 
“J.  Wypszinski,  organizing,  $25.”  State  whether  or  not  that  item 
is  of  the  same  character. 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  is;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Paid  for  the  same  purpose  and  under  the  same 
arrangement  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  We  have  down  here,  under  date  of  July  28, 
“ T . J.  Sexton,  organizing,  C.  D.  No.  93750,  $50.”  Be  kind  enough 
to  state  to  the  committee  whether  or  not  that  was  contracted  for  and 
paid  under  the  same  circumstances  and  for  the  same  purposes  as  the 
previous  item  that  you  have  described  in  relation  to  Mr.  Sexton. 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  was. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Under  date  of  July  30,  “Ozaukee  County,  organ- 
izing, No.  33356,  C.  O.  Larson,  $25.”  Be  kind  enough  to  state  to  the 
committee  what,  if  anything,  you  know  about  that  item. 

15235°— vol  1—11 35 


546 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Mr.  Sacket.  Mr  Larson  was  the  manager  in  Ozaukee  County;  and 
if  I remember  correctly  that  $25  item  was  advanced  to  him  for  expense 
money. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  “July  31,  J.  R.  Keyes,  No.  33373,  $25.30.” 

The  Chairman.  Are  these  the  minor  items  concerning  which  the 
witness  was  not  inquired  of  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  According  to  my  check.  Of  course  I may  be 
wrong,  but  I want  to  be  quite  sure  to  get  them  all  in.  Is  that  the 
same  J.  R.  Keyes  who  is  mentioned  under  date  of  July  21 — 
“organizing,  $50?” 

The  Chairman.  I will  say  to  counsel  that  the  J.  R.  Keyes  account 
was  fully  gone  into  with  this  witness  as  to  each  item. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I checked  them  up.  Of  course  I may  have 
failed  to  check  this.  I do  not  want  to  take  any  chances. 

The  Chairman.  It  was  done  as  to  both  Keyes  and  Sexton. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  According  to  my  checking,  the  first  item  of 
Keyes  was  gone  into  and  the  second  item  was  not  gone  into.  I do 
not  want  to  take  any  chances  about  it. 

Senator  Sutherland.  The  chairman,  after  he  had  taken  up  one 
of  those  items  with  reference  to  Mr.  Keyes,  followed  on  through  the 
account  and  took  up  all  other  items  with  Keyes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  1 thought  he  did. 

The  Chairman.  I took  each  one  of  those  names  and  followed  it 
down  through  the  items  in  the  account,  running  them  over. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I have  all  the  others  checked,  but  I did  not  have 
this  checked.  I do  not  want  to  take  any  chances  on  an  omission. 
It  will  take  only  a moment.  I want  to  see  that  they  are  all  in.  Is 
that  governed  by  the  same  considerations  as  the  previous  item  of 
J.  R.  Keyes,  under  date  of  July  21  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I have  T.  J.  Sexton  down  here  under  date  of 
August  4. 

The  Chairman.  Sexton's  account  is  on  page  2 of  this  typewritten 
memorandum,  and  the  witness  was  inquired  of  regarding  each  item 
in  Sexton’s  account. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I did  not  succeed  in  getting  it  checked.  It  will 
take  only  a moment.  I do  not  suppose  the  committee  have  any 
objection  to  my  being  sure  about  this,  have  they  ? 

The  Chairman.  No  ; if  there  is  some  reason. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  This  is  the  only  reason:  I do  not  undertake  to  be 
infallible  about  it,  but  I do  not  want  to  take  any  chances  about  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Would  a comparison  of  your  memorandum 
with  the  list  we  have  here  shorten  the  inquiry  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  It  will  not  take  me  five  minutes  to  go  right  along 
through  with  it.  These  items  have  been  referred  to,  and  I hope  the 
committee  appreciate  the  significance  of  this.  I have  the  responsi- 
bility of  looking  out  for  these  items;  and  I do  not  want  to  have  it  said 
later  on  that  they  were  not  all  covered. 

The  Chairman.  There  is  no  disposition  on  the  part  of  the  com- 
mittee to  cut  it  off  at  all.  I simply  called  attention  to  what  I said, 
as  a matter  of  fact. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  “T.  J.  Sexton,”  under  date  of  August  4,  “C.  D. 
No.  93824,  $50.”  Was  that  paid  out  under  the  same  circumstances 


RODNEY  SACKET.  547 

and  governed  by  the  same  considerations  as  the  previous  T.  J. 
Sexton  item  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  “August  8,  Dane  County,  No.  33486,  A.  R. 
Ames,  $350.”  You  have  already  explained  about  an  item  for  Dane 
County  under  date  of  July  18.  Will  you  be  kind  enough  to  state 
whether  the  same  explanation  applies  to  this  item  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  To  the  best  of  my  recollection  it  does. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  “August  10.  Columbia  & Adams  Co.,  No. 
33506,  C.  H.  Russell,  $200” — partially  explained  by  Mr.  Edmonds. 
Will  you  be  kind  enough  to  state  to  the  committee  what  you  know 
about  that  item  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Mr.  Russell  was  an  old  acquaintance  of  mine.  He 
came  into  our  office,  and  I asked  him  to  help  us  in  the  Stephenson 
campaign,  and  I agreed  to  furnish  him  money  to  cover  his  expenses 
in  giving  us  that  help.  Mr.  Russell  was  to  receive  no  salary,  as  I 
remember  it.  I may  be  wrong  about  that.  He  was  to  cover  the 
counties  mentioned  here,  and  I think  one  or  two  other  counties,  and 
he  was  at  different  times  paid  different  sums  of  money,  according  to 
that  agreement. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Under  date  of  August  12  we  have  another  item; 
“T.  J.  Sexton,  No.  33513,  $50.”  Is  that  governed  by  the  same  con- 
siderations as  the  other  Sexton  items  ?” 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  same  considerations. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  August  14,  Dane  Co.,  No.  33554,  A.  R.  Ames, 
$50.  State  whether  or  not  that  is  of  the  same  character  as  the  origi- 
nal Dane  County  item,  and  the  services  rendered  by  Mr.  Ames  in 
connection  therewith. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Were  the  disbursements  made  for  the  same 
purposes  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  On  August  14  is  another  T.  J.  Sexton  item  which 
I did  not  ha'  e checked.  That  is  the  same  as  the  other  Sexton  items; 
is  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Under  the  same  date,  “Ozaukee  Co.,  No.  33601, 
C.  O.  Larsen,  $50,”  partially  explained  by  Mr.  Edmonds.  Will  you 
be  kind  enough  to  state  what  you  know  about  that  item  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I made  arrangements  with  Mr.  Larsen  to  look  after 
Ozaukee  County,  in  part  at  least;  and  that  $50  was  to  cover  his 
expenses,  and  possibly  his  salary.  He  received  a salary. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  “August  19,  Columbia,  Marquette  & Adams  Cos., 
No.  33638,  C.  H.  Russell,  $550.”  Is  that  the  same  gentleman  about 
whom  you  have  testified  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  was  the  money  disbursed  under  the  same 
circumstances  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Under  date  of  August  20,  “Advertising,  No. 
33720,  F.  W.  Dangers,  $50.”  State  to  the  committee  what  you 
know  about  that  item. 


548 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Mr.  Sacket.  My  recollection  of  Mr.  Dangers  was  that  he  had  a 
moving-picture  snow,  and  was  to  put  in  slides  advertising  Senator 
Stephenson’s  candidacy,  for  which  he  received  that  $50. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  “August  21,  advertising,  No.  33696,  W.  C. 
Bratz,  $21.66.”  Is  that  the  same  gentleman  of  whom  you  have 
heretofore  spoken? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  would  be  the  same  explanation. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  “August  27,  Green  Lake,  Dunn  & Fond  du  Lac, 
No.  33805,  L.  W.  Thayer,  $600.” 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not  make  that  arrangement;  but  I talked  to 
Mr.  Thayer,  and  I think  I understand  the  arrangement  that  was 
made. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I find  it  on  your  memorandum  here,  but  I do 
not  find  it  on  the  printed  page  under  date  of  August  27. 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  is  the  fourth  item  above  the  footing,  on  page  593 
of  the  printed  record  of  the  joint  committee. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  “August  28,  Dane  Co.,  E.  A.  E.,  A.  B.  Ames, 
$50.”  State  whether  or  not  that  is  the  same  Ames  about  whom  you 
have  already  testified,  and  whether  or  not  the  same  explanation 
applies  to  that  item. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir;  and  the  same  explanation  does  apply. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Under  date  of  August  28,  “Ozaukee  Co.,  No. 
33825,  C.  O.  Larson,  $50,”  partly  explained  by  Mr.  Edmonds.  Will 
you  be  kind  enough  to  state  to  the  committee  what  you  know  about 
that  item  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  same  explanation  that  I gave  of  the  preceding 
Larson  item. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Relating  to  Larson  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  We  have  an  item  here  under  September  5, 
“General,  No.  33955,  W.  E.  Powell,  $44,”  partially  explained  by 
Mr.  Edmonds.  Will  you  be  kind  enough  to  state  what  you  know 
about  that? 

Mr.  Sacket.  My  recollection  of  that  item  is  that  Mr.  Powell — a 
man  whom  I have  known  for  some  time — came  into  the  office  after 
the  primary  and  stated  that  he  had  expended  that  money  in  the 
interest  of  Senator  Stephenson,  and  I gave  him  a check  for  $44. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  next  item  is  “Ozaukee,  No.  33969,  C.  O. 
Larson,  $254.80,”  partially  explained  by  Mr.  Edmonds.  Will  you 
be  kind  enough  to  state  what  you  know  about  Mr.  Larson;  or  have 
you  already  explained  it  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  that  item  was  the  final  settlement  with  Mr. 
Larson,  paying  all  his  salary  and  expenses  in  the  campaign. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  There  is  an  item  under  date  or  September  5, 
reading  as  follows:  “General,  No.  33953,  E.  A.  Hamalrath,  $13.75.” 
Please  state  to  the  committee  what  you  know  about  that. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Mr.  Hamalrath  lived,  I think,  in  Antigo.  He  came 
into  the  Milwaukee  office  and  introduced  himself.  It  seemed  that 
we  had  a number  of  mutual  friends;  and  he  sent  me  a bill  for  money 
that  he  had  expended  in  the  interest  of  Senator  Stephenson,  and 
received  a check  of  that  number  to  reimburse  him. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  September  15,  on  page  596,  “Advertising,  No. 
33047,  Sup.  Tidende,  $150,”  which  was  partially  gone  into  by  Mr. 


RODNEY  SACKET.  549 

Edmonds.  Will  you  be  kind  enough  to  state  to  the  committee  what 
you  know  about  that  item  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  particular  recollection  of  that  special  item, 
but  I remember  that  we  did  run  advertisements  in  the  Superior 
Tidende,  and  they  were  sent  a cashier’s  check;  and  I think  I remem- 
ber that  we  had  their  itemized  bill  for  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  It  was  a newspaper? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Published  in  English  or  in  the  Norwegian 
tongue  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  In  the  Scandinavian. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  At  the  end  of  the  list  aggregating  $46,052.29 
there  is  an  item  of  “A.  M.  Jones,  $150.”  State  what,  if  anything,  you 
know  about  that  item. 

Mr.  Sacket.  There  was  a Mr.  Jones  in  Waukesha  County  who  had 
something  to  do  with  the  campaign.  I did  not  make  the  arrange- 
ment with  him,  but  I remember  that  there  was  a Mr.  Jones  in  that 
vicinity  who  helped  us  and  probably  spent  some  money. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  see  him  during  the  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir.  If  this  is  the  Mr.  Jones,  I saw  him  and 
know  him.  I do  not  know  him  by  his  initials,  though. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  sort  of  services  did  he  render  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  If  this  is  the  Mr.  Jones — and  I think  it  is — it  was  to 
reimburse  him  for  money  to  be  expended  for  Mr.  Stephenson;  not  for 
services  to  him. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  have  any  other  manager  in  that  county  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  there  were  several  who  were  doing  work  in 
that  county. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  have  any  other  manager  in  Waukesha? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  there  were  several  in  Waukesha  and  in 
Waukesha  County. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Now  turn  over  to  page  602,  following  the  items 
showing  the  expenses  in  Milwaukee  County.  I want  to  call  your 
attention  to  the  items  beginning  with  the  date  August  5,  “Pay  of 
help  and  office  expense  from  July  1,  $1,101.91.”  Under  date  of 
September  5 is  an  item,  “Office,  $130.35.”  There  are  other  items, 
and  they  aggregate  $4,074.38.  You  were  inquired  of  as  to  some  of 
those  items.  Will  you  be  kind  enough  to  state  generally  what  those 
items  are  all  for,  and  whether  or  not  they  were  disbursed  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  money  was  all  paid  out.  The  items  were  for  the 
expense  of  running  and  maintaining  the  office,  the  pay  of  help,  and 
expenses  of  the  office. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I notice  you  have  here  “Pay  roll”  represented 
at  intervals  about  a week  apart.  Are  we  to  infer  from  that  that  that 
was  for  sums  paid  for  services  during  the  week  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes;  that  was  at  those  dates. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  do  you  include  in  that  item  “office”? 
For  instance,  August  10,  “Office,  $132;”  August  14,  “Office,  $161.15.” 
Please  explain,  as  well  as  you  are  able  to,  the  character  of  the  expenses 
or  items  included  in  that  charge. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  in  a great  many  cases  the  word  “ office”  would 
include  the  pay  of  employees.  Employees  were  hired  from  time  to 
time,  and  when  the  necessity  for  any  of  them  ceased  they  were  paid 


550 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


off  and  discharged;  and  the  word  “pay  roll”  there,  according  to  my 
recollection,  was  the  regular  weekly  pay  roll.  The  word  “office” 
would  include,  probably,  pay  of  employees  and  any  other  expense. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Just  explain  as  well  as  you  can  recollect  what- 
ever expense  would  be  included  in  that  term  “office.” 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  renting  of  furniture,  the  renting  of  typewriters, 
office  supplies,  the  bill  for  water — and  I will  say  that  is  all  we  had 
to  drink  in  the  office. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  have  explained  about  the  telephone  and 
telegraph  expenses.  I want  to  call  your  attention  now  to  the  item 
headed  “Postage  stamps,”  aggregating  $9,819.  I will  ask  you 
whether  or  not  the  Government  furnishes  any  bill  for  sums  paid 
under  those  circumstances,  or  whether  it  is  a cash  transaction,  involv- 
ing the  delivery  of  the  money  and  the  receipt  of  the  stamps,  or  the 
receipt  of  the  money  and  the  delivery  of  the  stamps  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  In  those  cases  it  was  a cash  transaction  in  every 
instance. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Were  any  bills  ever  rendered  by  the  postal 
authorities  for  these  payments  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  None. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Either  at  the  time  of  the  payment  or  after- 
wards ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  So  that  there  never  were  any  bills  for  these 
payments  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  took  the  actual  cash  to  the  office? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  you  never  took  a check  or  an  order  upon 
a bank  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Always  cash. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  took  the  cash  and  went  out  and  brought 
back  the  stamps  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Were  those  items  you  have  spoken  of  here 
entered  upon  these  cards  of  which  you  have  spoken  or  any  other 
memoranda  in  the  office  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes.  The  first  item,  from  July  1 to  August  4,  con- 
sists of  a number  of  entries  of  smaller  amounts.  The  items  fol- 
lowing that,  according  to  my  best  recollection,  are  exactly  as  they 
appear  on  the  cards. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  shows  the  condition  of  the  mail  work  of 
the  headquarters  from  the  time  when  you  began  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Beginning  with  nothing  prepared  of  any  kind  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Starting  entirely  new  all  the  way  around  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  were  obliged  to  accumulate  all  the  infor- 
mation you  had  occasion  to  use  and  start  with  an  entirely  fresh 
campaign  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  We  had  nothing  whatever  to  start  with. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Were  there  lists  or  any  information? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No  lists;  nothing. 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


551 


Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  I understand  that  everything  you  had  along 
that  line  to  which  it  became  necessary  for  you  to  refer  during  the 
campaign  by  way  of  addresses  had  to  be  accumulated  after  that 
time  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  After  the  1st  of  July. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  explained  a number  of  items  under  the 
head  of  “ newspaper  advertising.”  So  that  there  can  not  be  any 
question  about  it,  I wish  you  would  take  each  one  of  those  items 
that  you  have  not  already  explained  and  explain  it.  Have  you 
them  checked  here  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  They  are  checked  on  the  book  that  you  have,  but  not 
on  this  one  that  I have. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Just  make  a brief  explanation,  so  that  the 
record  will  show  what  the  expenditure  was  for.  August  7,  “Neills- 
ville  Times,  No.  33461,  $50,”  was  for  what? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  was  for  advertising  in  the  Neillsville  Times,  for 
which  a regular  itemized  bill  was  rendered,  according  to  my  recollec- 
tion. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  August  13,  “Rustone,  No.  33548,  $25.”  What 
was  that  for  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  As  I remember  Mr.  Rustone,  he  ran  a Scandinavian 
newspaper  in  Milwaukee,  and  printed  advertisements  for  us  from 
time  to  time.  In  fact,  we  had  space  in  the  paper  for  a stated  time. 
I believe  he  received  several  payments. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  August  15,  “ Ranger,  No.  33580,  $50.” 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  Ranger;  but  the  check 
number  there  will  show. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  do  not  know  what  that  was  for? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  about  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  know  who  would  know? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  cashier’s  check  would  show  the  indorsement  of 
the  person. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  but  do  you  know  of  anyone  who  could 
give  you  any  information  as  to  the  character  of  the  advertisement? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  think  anyone  would  recollect  that. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  August  15,  “Smith,  Oconto  Falls,  No.  33581, 
$100.” 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  specific  recollection  of  that. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  know  whether  it  was  a Mr.  Smith  who 
was  the  proprietor  of  a newspaper? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember  Mr.  Smith  at  all. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  “Bailey,”  August  18,  “$200.” 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  that  either. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  “Wisconsin  Agriculturist,”  August  19,  “$63.” 

Mr.  Sacket.  We  ran  some  advertisements  in  the  Wisconsin 
Agriculturist,  and  received  itemized  bills  which  I think  have  been 
filed  with  the  joint  committee. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  “Superior  Tidende.”  Is  that  the  same  paper 
that  you  have  already  referred  to  under  the  items  aggregating 
$46,000  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  this  a duplicate  of  that  item  or  an  additional 
item  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  is  an  additional  item. 


552 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Mr.  Littlefield.  Explain  what  you  know  about  it. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I know  we  had  run  advertisements  in  the  Superior 
Tidende.  I could  not  tell  which  advertisement  was  run  under  this 
particular  item.  My  recollection  is  that  an  itemized  bill  was  fur- 
nished. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  “ Minneapolis  Tidende.’'  What  about  that? 
That  is  for  $1,000  and  is  on  August  19. 

Mr.  Sacket.  We  had  an  arrangement  with  them  for  a certain 
amount  of  space  that  was  used  for  advertising  purposes  for  some  time 
during  the  campaign. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Wdiat  was  that  thousand  dollars  paid  for  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Advertising. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  This  Koch  Advertising  Agency  is  the  same  as  the 
other  items  which  appear  on  this  account  opposite  the  name  of  that 
agency,  is  it? 

Mr.  Sackett.  There  are  two  items. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  was  for  advertising  in  sundry  papers,  as  I 
recollect. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  There  are  two  bills  here,  I think,  of  that  adver- 
tising firm. 

Mr.  Sacket.  One  of  them  is  spelled  C-o-c-h  and  the  other  is  spelled 
K-o-c-h.  It  is  the  same  firm. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  August  31,  “Narden  Tribune,  $20.” 

Mr.  Sacket.  I could  not  place  that  paper. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Take  the  “Daily  Jewish  Courier,  $150.” 

Mr.  Sacket.  I remember  an  arrangement  made  with  that  paper. 
It  is  a Chicago  paper,  and  has  a large  circulation  among  the  Jewish 
people  of  Wisconsin.  There  was  an  advertisement  running  in  that 
paper,  and  that  $150  was  to  pay  for  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  September  5,  “The Kuryer Publishing  Co.,  $250.  ” 

Mr.  Sacket.  As  I remember  that,  that  was  a Milwaukee  paper  of 
some  prominence. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  WRat  was  that  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  was  money  paid  them  for  advertising  space. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  “Wisconsin  Agriculturist”  comes  next,  and 
you  have  already  referred  to  it.  Then  there  is  the  “Minneapolis 
Tidende,  $24.”  Is  that  the  same  item? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  “Richland  Rustic”  is  the  next  item. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  particular  recollection  of  that  paper. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  know  whether  there  is  such  a paper  pub- 
lished ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I could  not  be  positive  about  that;  no,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  Marshfield  Times  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  that  item,  either. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  know  whether  there  is  such  a paper 
published  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I could  not  be  positive. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Then  there  is  the  “River  Falls  Times,”  Sep- 
tember 5,  “$14.70.” 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember  that,  either. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  “Minneapolis  Journal,”  September  14,  “$100.” 


EODNEY  SACKET.  553 

Mr.  Sacket.  I remember  the  arrangement  we  had  with  the  Minne- 
apolis Journal  for  advertising  space. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  did  it  happen  that  you  were  advertising  in 
the  Minneapolis  Journal  about  a campaign  that  was  being  conducted 
for  Senator  Stephenson  in  Wisconsin?  Is  that  paper  circulated  in 
Wisconsin  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes;  throughout  the  northwestern  part  of  the  State 
of  Wisconsin  the  people  take  the  Minneapolis  papers  instead  of  the 
Milwaukee  papers,  because  they  get  them  earlier  in  the  morning. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  So,  in  order  to  reach  the  people  up  there,  you 
were  obliged  to  advertise  in  them  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  “ Minneapolis  Tidende,  $540.”  That  is  of  the 
same  character  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Then  we  have  an  item  for  “ Sundry  advertising, 
Usher/’  There  are  three  items  of  that  character — $5,  $100,  and  $4. 
What  about  those  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I know  that  Usher  did  present  bills  for  sundry  adver- 
tising on  several  occasions.  The  bills,  as  I remember  them,  were 
itemized;  and  in  two  of  these  instances  he  received  a check,  and  in 
another  instance,  as  I remember  it,  he  received  cash,  and  gave  a 
receipt  for  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  September  14.  “Sundry  advertising,  $156.40/’ 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection,  but  the  check  will  show. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  say  the  check  will  show  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  check  will  show  some  indorsement  that  will 
throw  some  light  on  the  matter,  or  should. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  next  item  is,  “Sundry  newspapers,  $270.” 
What  is  that  item  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember  what  items  are  included  in  that 
item. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  remember  whether  that  is  advertising 
or  subscriptions  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Advertising. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Are  you  able  to  state  that  it  is  for  advertising? 
If  you  have  no  recollection,  say  so. 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  is  put  under  the  head  of  advertising. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  When  you  made  out  the  account  you  put  it 
under  the  head  of  advertising.  Do  you  remember  now  what  infor- 
mation you  had  upon  the  basis  of  which  you  included  the  item  under 
the  head  of  advertising  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  would  have  been  under  the  heading  of  advertising 
in  the  cards  if  it  went  into  this  item  under  the  head  of  advertising. 
Of  course,  it  is  possible  that  I made  mistakes,  but  that  is  my  recol- 
lection. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  have  no  recollection  as  to  the  character  of 
that  disbursement  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  have  no  recollection  as  to  whether  it  was 
for  advertising  or  subscriptions  or  extra  copies  of  the  paper  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  that  particular  item. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  purchase  extra  copies  of  papers  during 
the  campaign  ? 


554 


BODNEY  SACKET. 


Mr.  Sacket.  We  did. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  To  circulate. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  do  so  to  any  extent  ? If  so,  state  about 
it  in  a general  way. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  we  paid  one  of  the  Minneapolis  papers  for 
sending  out  extra  copies  in  large  numbers.  I think  in  the  case  of  the 
Wisconsin  Agriculturist  we  paid  for  sending  out  large  numbers  of 
extra  papers;  and  my  recollection  is  that  in  a number  of  other 
instances  we  paid  money  for  that  same  purpose. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  By  whom  were  the  papers  sent  out  under  such 
circumstances  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  By  the  newspaper  offices. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  On  the  basis  of  lists  furnished  by  you  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir;  from  their  own  lists. 

M*r.  Littlefield.  Did  they  mail  a copy  of  the  paper  to  a subscriber, 
and  then  an  extra  copy  of  the  same  paper  to  the  same  subscriber  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No;  to  people  who  were  not  subscribers. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  did  they  get  the  list  when  they  were  not 
subscribers  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  was  their  affair.  I do  not  know  how  they  got 
the  list. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  left  it  to  them  to  make  the  selection  of  the 
individuals  to  whom  they  would  be  sent — individuals  who  were  not 
on  their  regular  subscription  lists  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  have  “Sundry  bills”  here.  I should  like 
to  have  you  take  that  list  and  go  right  straight  through  and  explain, 
so  far  as  you  can,  what  those  bills  are  for.  The  Wisconsin  Agricul- 
turist item  you  have  been  already  over. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Just  take  each  item  and  make  as  concise  an 
explanation  as  you  can. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Evening  Wisconsin,  No.  33255,  $419.50.  My  recol- 
lection of  that  is  that  it  was  for  stationery,  printed  by  the  Evening 
Wisconsin  Co.  They  run  a job  office  in  connection  with  their  paper,  or 
did  at  that  time.  Kreul  Co.,  No.  33256,  $140.49.  We  rented  ourfurni- 
ture,  typewriters,  and  bought  a great  many  office  supplies  of  the  Kreul  Co. 
A bill  covering  that  item  is,  I think,  on  file.  Underwood  Typewriter 
Co.,  No.  33257,  $4,  was  for  rent  of  typewriter.  C.  C.  Patterson,  No. 
33258,  $46.50,  was  for  circular  letters  and  imitation  typewriting. 
I am  giving  my  recollection  of  these  matters,  and  I may  make  a 
mistake. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  the  best  you  can. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Fowler  Manufacturing  Co.,  No.  33259,  $6,  is  the  next 
item.  As  I remember  that,  it  was  for  a supply  of  towels  and  soap  to 
the  office. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Toilet  articles. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes.  Saxe  Sign  Co.,  $1.50,  I do  not  remember. 
Capital  Reliance  S.  & S.  Co.,  No.  33261,  $3.85,  was  the  Capital 
Reliance  Stamp  & Seal  Co.  I have  no  recollection  of  that  item. 
Wells  Power  Co.,  No.  33262,  88  cents,  I think  was  for  electric  lights. 
Wells  Building  Co.,  33263,  $90.88,  was  for  rent. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  They  were  the  owners  of  the  building  ? 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


555 


Mr.  Sacket.  Yes.  Telephone  company,  33264,  $35,  was  for  tele- 
phone service.  Standard  Paper  Co.,  No.  33265,  $93.75,  was  for 
stationery.  Sickert  & Baum,  33266,  $5.40,  I do  not  remember. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  know  what  business  they  are  in  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember.  That  would  be  a matter  of 
general  knowledge  here.  West  Co.,  No.  33267,  $4.50,  I do  not  remem- 
ber. Austin,  $6.85, 1 have  no  recollection  of.  Whitehead  & Hoag 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  have  already  been  over  that. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes.  C.  C.  Patterson,  33399,  $31.25,  was  for  imita- 
tion typewritten  letters. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  have  been  over  that. 

Mr.  Sacket.  A.  A.  Brown,  No.  33398,  $3.75,  was  for  typewriting 
and  multigraph  work.  Telephone  company,  No.  33397,  $1,  was  for 
telephone  service.  Hammersmith,  No.  33396,  $5.75,  I have  no 
recollection  of. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  do  not  remember  what  Hammersmith’s 
business  is  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  seems  to  me  that  he  is  an  engraver. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  what  he  is. 

Mr.  Sacket.  If  he  is,  it  was  for  some  plates  for  advertising.  Sulli- 
van Printing  Co.,  No.  33395,  $4,  was  for  printing.  Smith  Premier 
Co.,  No.  33394,  $6.40,  was  for  rent  of  typewriters  and  typewriter 
supplies.  Standard  Paper  Co.,  No.  33393,  $16.85,  was  for  stationery. 
Van  de  Kamp  & Lorberter,  No.  33392,  $290,  my  recollection  is 
was  for  printing.  My  recollection  is  they  are  a printing  concern, 
and  they  did  a lot  of  printing  for  our  headquarters  and  they  fur- 
nished us  with  an  itemized  bill.  Kreul  Co.,  No.  33391,  $27.30,  is 
for  the  same  as  was  previously  explained.  Siekert  & Baum,  No. 
33390,  $20,  I do  not  remember. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  They  are  stationers  here  in  Milwaukee ; are 
they  not  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  was  for  stationery,  if  they  are,  and  they  gave  us 
an  itemized  bill  in  every  instance.  Wisconsin  Agriculturist  has  been 
explained  before.  T.  H.  Goldner,  33494,  $14,  I have  no  recollection 
of  at  all. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  do  not  remember  what  business  he  is  en- 
gaged in? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir.  If  I were  to  see  the  itemized  bills  it  would 
refresh  my  memoiy. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  are  doing  the  best  you  can. 

Mr.  Sacket.  August  15,  Johnson,  $24.50,  I have  no  way  of  telling 
what  that  was  for  at  this  time.  August  18,  E.  F.  Smith,  No.  33621,  $28; 
I have  no  recollection  of  that.  August  19,  H.  M.  Allen,  No.  33641, 
$12.55,  I do  not  remember.  L.  M.  Lederer,  No.  33642,  $42.  Mr. 
Lederer  was  in  the  cigar  business,  and  I think  that  was  for  cigars. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  put  it  down  as  such  in  your  itemized 
statement  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  I did.  L.  Breithaupt,  No.  33643,  $660,  I 
have  already  explained.  Nee  Ska  Ra,  $7.25,  was  for  water.  Yahr 
& Lange,  No.  33647,  $4.75,  I do  not  remember.  H.  J.  Paas,  No. 
33648,  $10.  We  had  a Harry  Paas  employed  in  the  office,  and  I 
think  that  $10  was  paid  to  him  for  his  services.  L.  A.  Meyer,  No. 
33649,  $9,  I do  not  remember  that.  Milwaukee  Drug  Co.,  No. 
33650,  $3.83,  I do  not  remember.  A.  A.  Brown,  No.  33651,  $28,  was 


556 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


for  typewriting  or  multigraph  work.  H.  H.  West  Co.,  No.  33652, 
$20.80,  1 do  not  remember. 

Mr.  Black.  They  are  stationers  here  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  I should  like  to  ask  a question:  Are  you  giving 
the  number  of  the  bank  cashier’s  checks  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  give  the  bank  upon  which  to  procure 
the  cashier’s  check  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  A receipt  for  the  check  and  a list  of  the  names  and 
amounts  to  whom  the  checks  were  issued,  as  I remember  it. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  fill  out  a blank,  as  is  customary  when  you 
want  a cashier’s  check,  stating  the  amount  and  the  date  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not  fill  a formal  blank.  In  a great  many 
instances  I did  not.  When  I wanted  a large  number  of  checks,  I 
wrote  the  name  of  the  payee  and  the  amount. 

The  Chairman.  You  made  a list  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes;  and  then  gave  a receipt  on  a separate  piece  of 
paper. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  there  is  no  stub  upon  which  there  is  any- 
thing to  indicate  the  purpose  for  which  that  was  paid  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  nature  of  the  goods  purchased  would  indicate  the 
purpose,  I should  think. 

The  Chairman.  Where  does  the  nature  of  the  goods  purchased 
appear,  except  in  your  testimony  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  would  appear  in  the  evidence  as  to  the  business  of 
the  person  to  whom  the  money  was  given. 

The  Chairman.  Where  is  that  evidence? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  itemized  bills,  some  of  which  I am  sure  are  on 
file,  would  show. 

The  Chairman.  Is  this  particular  itemized  bill  on  file  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I could  not  say.  It  was  my  intention  to  save  all 
those  bills.  I may  have  carelessly  lost  this  particular  one,  but  those 
I did  save  I produced  at  Madison. 

The  Chairman.  Then  why  not  produce  the  bills,  instead  of  having 
the  witness’s  imperfect  recollection,  Mr.  Littlefield  ? 

Mr.  Littlefild.  If  the  committee  desires  it,  we  will  do  the  best  we 
can  to  get  duplicate  bills.  I do  not  know  where  the  originals  are. 

The  Chairman.  The  reason  I interpose  at  this  lime  is  that  I notice 
in  the  majority  of  the  cases  under  this  class  the  witness  says  that  he 
knows  nothing  about  them.  That  is  merely  taking  up  time.  If  he 
could  indicate  the  ones  that  he  does  know  about,  we  could  get  righ, 
to  those  items.  There  are  several  pages  of  these  items  yet  to  be  gone 
over.  I make  the  suggestion  only  to  facilitate  things. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  agreeable.  Run  right  along  through,  and 
leave  out  the  items  you  do  not  know  anything  about,  Mr.  Sacket. 

The  Chairman.  He  can  just  say  that  he  does  not  know  anything 
about  the  items,  and  name  them,  and  then  go  to  the  items  that  he 
does  know  about. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Very  well. 

The  Chairman.  Let  him  make  an  affirmative  statement  that  he 
does  not  know  anything  about  the  item,  and  go  right  along. 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


557 


Mr.  Littlefield.  Adopt  the  suggestion  made  by  the  chairman, 
Mr.  Sacket,  and  cut  it  just  as  short  as  you  can.  Just  give  us  the 
items. 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  last  item  I read  was  “H.  H.  West  Co.,  $20.80.”  I 
will  make  this  statement.  The  following  items  I have  no  recollection 
of  and  simply  mention  them.  Will  that  do  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  there  is  no  need  of  entering  into  a conversa- 
tion about  those  you  do  not  remember  anything  about. 

Mr.  Sacket.  John  V.  Deum,  No.  33653,  $5. 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  one  about  which  you  do  not  know  any- 
thing l 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  I think  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  take  up  the  time 
of  the  committee  in  reading  the  figures  of  the  cashier’s  check  numbers. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  leave  out  the  number. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Bowron  & Murray  Co.,  $22.40.  That  is  next  to  the 
last  item. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  that  the  next  one  you  do  not  know  anything 
about  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No.  I thought  I would  take  up  one  class  and 
finish  it. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  need  to  do  that. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  When  you  strike  items  about  which  you  do  not 
know  anything,  just  state  that  you  do  not  recollect;  and  as  to  those 
you  do  recollect,  make  an  explanation. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Fowler  Manufacturing  Co.,  towel  supplies,  $1.50. 
Free  Press,  45  cents;  that  was  for  subscription.  C.  C.  Patterson, 
$14.75,  imitation  typewritten  letters.  Keystone  Printing  Co.,  $53, 
printing  and  stationery.  Mandel  Engraving  Co.,  $278.35,  lithographs 
of  Senator  Stephenson.  Standard  Paper  Co.,  $3.55,  stationery. 
Meyers  News  Bureau,  $49.40,  newspaper  clippings.  Wells  Building 
Co.,  $105,  rent.  Underwood  Typewriter  Co.,  $4,  typewriter  rent. 
Gimbel  Bros.,  45  cents,  material  for  curtains  at  the  office  windows. 
G.  Y.  Bush,  $12,  photographs  of  Senator  Stephenson  from  which  we 
made  engravings  or  woodcuts.  Van  de  Kamp  & Larberter,  print- 
ing, $775.50.  Kreul  Co.,  $118.25,  office  furniture,  supplies,  and 
stationery. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  have  no  recollection  of  the  Bowron  & 
Murray  Co.  item  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  of  them.  Whitehead  & Hoag, 
$110.10,  campaign  buttons.  Siekert  & Baum,  $35.32,  stationery. 
L.  S.  Jackson,  $1;  no  recollection.  Anderson  Printing  Co.,  $147, 
printing.  Stauffacher,  $9.50;  no  recollection.  Courier  Printing  Co., 
$30,  printing  circulars  and  the  like.  Herald  Printing  Co.,  $17.50,  the 
same.  N.  Jeray,  $11;  no  recollection.  H.  M.  Allen,  $11.75;  no 
recollection.  A.  A.  Brown,*  $44.50,  typewriting  and  multigraph 
work.  Cream  City  Bill  Posting  Co.,  $351,  posting  large  posters  of 
Senator  Stephenson  all  over  the  State.  Dever  Bros.,  $95.73,  envel- 
opes. Fowler  Manufacturing  Co.,  75  cents,  toilet  supplies.  T.  J.  A. 
Griffiths,  $60;  no  recollection.  A.  A.  Hume,  $11.10;  no  recollec- 
tion. C.  B.  Henschel,  $200.  I think  that  was  for  printing  or  litho- 
graphing, or  something  of  that  kind.  Keystone  Printing  Co.,  $278, 
printing.  Kreul  Co.,  $7.50,  office  fixtures  and  supplies.  I.  N. 


558 


RODNEY  SAOKET. 


Lederer,  $18.75,  cigars.  Whitehead  & Hoag,  $356.97,  campaign 
buttons.  L.  A.  Meyer  Co.,  75  cents;  I do  not  remember.  Mandel 
Engraving  Co.,  $65.70,  lithographs.  Meyers  News  Service  Co.,  $6.60, 
newspaper  clippings.  Nee  Ska  Ra,  $8,  water.  Parsons  Printing  Co., 
$42.50,  printing.  Hotel  Pfister,  cigars,  $70.70.  Siekert  & Baum, 
$14.55,  printing  and  stationery.  S.  E.  Tate  Printing  Co.,  $43.25, 
printing.  Underwood  Typewriter  Co.,  $4,  rent  of  typewriter. 
Union  R.  & C.  Co.,  $3;  no  recollection.  Van  de  Kamp  & Larberter, 
$641.15 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  have  already  been  over  that. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Wells  Building  Co.,  $12.80,  rent.  Wells  Power  Co., 
$16.34,  light.  West  Side  Printing  Co.,  $3.50,  printing.  C.  A.  East- 
man, $7.50;  no  recollection.  S.  E.  Tate  Printing  Co.,  $6.50,  print- 
ing. Kewaunee  Printing  Co.,  $15,  printing.  Fond  du  Lac  County 
names,  H.  T.  Sackett,  $60,  a list  of  names  of  the  voters  in  Fond  du 
Lac  County.  Sundry  advertising— 

The  Chairman.  To  whom  was  that  item  paid  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  was  paid  to  a man  by  the  name  of  H.  T.  Sackett, 
In  Fond  du  Lac,  not  related  to  me  in  any  way. 

The  Chairman.  I did  not  ask  it  merely  as  a matter  of  mirth. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did  not  mean  anything  except  to  give  information. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Go  right  along  with  the  next  item. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Sundry  advertising,  cash,  $16.75;  no  recollection. 
P.  B.  Haver  Printing  Co.,  $72,  printing.  Smith  Premier  Co.,  $6.50, 
rent  of  typewriter  and  typewriter  supplies.  Sundries,  $210.62. 
Three  dollars  and  twenty-six  cents  of  that  was  paid  to  the  Wells  Co. 
for  electric  light,  I think.  The  rest  of  it  I have  no  recollection  of. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  do  you  say  about  these  items  you  have 
just  gone  over  here,  as  to  which  you  have  no  recollection,  with  refer- 
ence to  whether  or  not  the  money  was  disbursed?  What  are  you 
prepared  to  say  about  that? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  was  disbursed  in  every  instance. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  While  you  are  not  able  to  remember  the  details, 
you  are  prepared  to  testify  that  the  money  was  actually  paid  out? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I will  ask  you,  inasmuch  as  the  purpose  is  not 
indicated,  whether  you  are  able  to  say  that  expenditures  of  that  sort 
were  or  were  not  for  legitimate  purposes  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  In  every  instance  they  were. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  is  asking  for  a conclusion. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  To  your  knowledge,  were  any  of  these  sums  paid 
for  improper  purposes  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Not  to  my  knowledge;  no,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Or  for  unlawful  purposes? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Nor  for  unlawful  purposes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Or  were  any  of  them  paid  for  the  purpose  of 
bribing  or  corruptly  influencing  voters  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  None  of  them. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Now  take  the  items  headed  “ Sundries,  small,” 
and  go  through  those  rapidly,  and  explain,  so  far  as  you  can,  what 
those  items  were  for,  beginning  on  page  609. 

Mr.  Sacket.  July  7,  traveling  expenses,  $22.63.  It  was  the  cus- 
tom in  our  office  when  we  asked  a man  or  a number  of  men  to  come 


KODNEY  SACKET.  559 

into  the  city  and  see  us  to  pay  their  expenses.  I think  that  in  most 
cases  these  items  cover  an  expense  of  that  kind. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Then  do  I understand  that  it  is  your  recollec- 
tion that  the  items  included  under  this  heading  of  “ Sundries,  small/’ 
as  traveling  expenses,  were  sums  paid  by  you  to  men  who  came  in  on 
your  invitation  to  consult  with  you  in  connection  with  the  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Does  that  characterize  all  of  the  items  marked 
“ traveling  expenses,”  in  your  judgment,  so  far  as  you  can  recollect? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  distinct  recollection  of  each  particular  item. 
I know  that  we  did  pay  that,  and  I think  that  these  items  do  cover 
them.  But  these  items  would  also  cover  traveling  expenses  paid  to 
any  of  our  employees  if  they  should  happen  to  get  into  this  schedule. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Whom  do  you  mean  by  your  employees  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Men  who  were  traveling  around  the  State  in  the  inter- 
est of  Senator  Stephenson. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Would  that  be  in  addition  to  the  sums  that  are 
indicated  in  the  total  of  $46,000  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  If  any  of  the  money  was  expended  in  that  way,  it 
would. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  is  your  recollection  about  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  recollect  any  instance  where  I put  traveling 
expenses  of  that  nature  into  this  schedule.  I am  simply  saying  that 
because  of  the  fact  that  I might  have  gotten  the  account  into  the 
wrong  schedule. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I do  not  wish  to  go  over  those  items  in  detail; 
but  I notice  that  they  vary  considerably  in  amount.  We  start  in 
here  with  $22.63,  and  over  on  page  610  we  have  an  item  of  $50  for 
traveling  expenses,  another  item  of  $42.45,  and  another  of  $31.40. 
Without  goin^  further,  how  does  it  happen  that  they  vary  in  amount  ? 
Explain  the  situation  and  the  circumstances. 

Mr.  Sacket.  In  some  cases  one  man  would  come  in  from  a short 
distance;  his  traveling  expenses  would  be  small.  In  other  instances, 
three  or  four  men  would  come  in  from  a long  distance ; their  traveling 
expenses  would  be  large. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That,  you  say,  accounts  for  the  variation  in  the 
items  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Go  right  along,  now.  I think  you  have  already 
explained  this,  but  just  make  an  explanation  right  here.  There  are 
quite  a number  of  items  of  “sundries”  ; and  I should  like  to  have  you, 
if  you  can,  make  an  explanation  as  to  “sundries”  that  will  cover  all 
these  items  of  “sundries.” 

Mr.  Sacket.  “Sundries  ” were  any  incidental  expenses,  such  as 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  this  the  same  schedule  from  which  you  took 
the  item  of  “sundries”  this  morning? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I believe  it  is. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Then  we  have  been  all  over  that. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  think  I have  “sundries”  in  any  other 
schedule. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Then,  leaving  out  “traveling  expenses”  and 
“sundries,”  take  the  other  items  as  they  appear,  in  their  order,  and 
stete  what  you  know  about  them — leaving  out  also  “cigars.”  I see 
there  are  one  or  two  items  of  “cigars”;  but  leave  out  “traveling 


560 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


expenses,”  1 ‘sundries, ” and  “cigars,”  and  take  the  other  items  in 
their  order,  and  tell  the  committee  all  you  know  about  them. 

Mr.  Sacket.  July  7,  Miller,  $6.75;  I do  not  know  about  that. 
July  8,  Rowe,  $3.50;  as  I remember  that,  that  was  his  railroad  fare 
to  Milwaukee  and  back  to  Waupaca. 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  is  the  meaning  of  the  fraction,  “J,” 
there. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  think  I put  that  in  there.  I think  that  is  a 
misprint.  I do  not  know  what  that  is  there  for.  July  10,  Kenosha, 
$9.50;  I have  no  recollection  of  that.  July  21,  Beach,  $6.15;  I have 
no  recollection  of  that.  July  23,  Johnson,  $12.50;  no  recollection. 
July  24,  Reilly,  $15;  no  recollection.  July  25,  Madison,  $26.76;  I 
have  no  recollection  of  that  item.  August  6,  Ashland,  $27.75;  I 
have  no  distinct  recollection  of  that  item.  August  10,  Meyer,  $3; 
I have  no  recollection  of  that.  August  13,  Eklund,  $1 ; I do  not  re- 
member that.  August  14,  Coblentz,  $10;  no  recollection. 

The  Chairman.  When  you  say  that,  you  mean  that  you  do  not 
know  what  the  money  was  paid  for  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir;  I have  no  recollection  of  that  item.  August 
17,  F.  R.  Huth,  $5;  no  recollection.  Howe,  $2;  no  recollection. 
August  18,  livery,  $2;  I have  no  particular  recollection  of  that. 
Northup,  $25;  no  recollection.  August  20,  Langemark,  $5;  no  recol- 
lection. Bradley,  $5;  no  recollection.  O’Brien,  $15;  no  recollection. 
McDonald,  $2.50;  none.  Hotel  Meyer,  Janesville;  my  recollection  of 
that  item  is  that  it  was  the  money  that  Mr.  Puelicher  paid  for  hotel 
expenses  in  Janesville  when  he  and  Senator  Stephenson  and  others 
took  their  trip  around  through  that  part  of  the  State.  The  railway 
fare  following  it  was  in  the  same  item.  Thompson,  $7 ; no  recollection. 
Johnson,  $1.25;  none.  September  5,  Berlin  A.  & I.  Association,  $150. 
That  was  paid  for  stock  in  the  Agricultural  and  Industrial  Associa- 
tion— a sort  of  a donation,  but  actual  stock  was  received  for  the  $150. 

The  Chairman.  Was  it  a good  investment? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Not  very.  Malone,  $3 ; no  knowledge. 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  sort  of  an  association  was  that? 

Mr.  Sacket.  A county  fair. 

The  Chairman.  Who  made  that  deal?  Did  you  make  that? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I ratified  it.  It  was  made  by  some  one  from  Oshkosh — 
a man  by  the  name  of  Edwards,  I believe. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ratify  it  at  the  time  it  was  made  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  After  he  had  agreed  to  pay  the  $150,  I sent  them 
a check. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  it  was  a county  fair? 

Mr.  Sacket.  A county  fair;  yes,  sir.  Waters,  $2 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  do  you  say  about  Malone  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Nothing.  I have  no  recollection  of  the  $3  paid  to 
Malone. 

The  Chairman.  By  the  way,  was  any  public  announcement  made 
of  the  fact  that  Senator  Stephenson  had  invested  that  $150  in  the 
stock  of  the  fair  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  was  very  well  known  in  and  around  the  locality 
where  that  fair  was  held. 

The  Chairman.  A good  bit  of  publicity  was  given  to  it;  was  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


561 


The  Chairman.  It  made  him  quite  a popular  character  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  was  not  a good  stock  investment,  but  I think  not  a 
bad  advertising  investment. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  invested  for  the  sake  of  the  publicity 
rather  than  for  the  dividends  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  would  not  have  made  the  investment  except 
for  the  existing  candidacy  of  Senator  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir.,  I would  have  had  no  authority  to  do  so 
otherwise. 

Senator Pomerene.  It  was  a political  investment? 

Mr.  Sacket.  A political  investment. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  It  was  not  considered  an  evidence  of  the  Sena- 
tor’s business  capacity? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  It  showed  a very  commendable  spirit. 

Mr.  Sacket.  If  it  had  been  a business  investment,  I should  not 
have  entered  it  here.  Waters,  $2;  no  knowledge.  11:11,  $25;  none. 
O’Neill,  $22.50;  none.  Wright  Drug  Co.,JD5,  cigars. 

That  is  all  of  that  schedule. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  was  that  schedule  made  up  originally,  and 
when  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  was  made  up  from  time  to  time  from  data  on 
the  cards  that  I kept. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  wdsh  to  be  understood  by  the  committee 
as  testifying  that  this  memorandum  is  a duplicate  of  the  memorandum 
that  you  took  from  the  cards  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  that  this  account  that  you  have  been 
going  over  is  a transcript  of  entries  made  upon  these  cards  that  were 
destroyed  from  time  to  time,  as  you  have  explained  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  is. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  are  you  prepared  to  say  as  to  wdiether  or 
not  the  items  that  appear  in  this  schedule  were  or  were  not  actually 
disbursed  by  you  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  They  wrere  actually  disbursed,  all  of  them. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  In  connection  with  the  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  In  connection  with  the  campaign;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Are  you  prepared  to  state  wdiether  or  not  any  of 
these  items  were  disbursed  for  improper  purposes  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  None  of  them,  to  my  knowledge,  were  so  disbursed. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  disbursed  them;  did  you  not? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Can  you  state  whether  or  not  they  were  dis- 
bursed for  any  improper  purposes  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I made  no  such  disbursements.  They  wrere  not; 
no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  That  is,  they  were  not  so  disbursed  by  you  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  By  me. 

The  Chairman.  But  you  do  not  know  what  the  man  to  whom  you 
paid  them  did  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  knowledge  of  that.  There  was  not  enough 
in  any  one  amount  to  do  much  damage. 

15235°— vol  1—11 36 


562 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  these  include  any  sums  that  were  paid  to 
people  who  were  expected  to  in  turn  disburse  the  sums  thus  paid  to 
them  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I think  not  in  any  instance. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  These  were  not  sums  paid  to  workers  or  man- 
agers ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Whose  traveling  expenses  are  included  in  that 
last  item  of  “traveling  expenses”  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  might  have  been  a number  of  items  put  together; 
it  probably  was. 

The  Chairman.  It  amounts  to  $113.14. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  that  is  the  largest  item. 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  was  not  for  any  one  trip. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Your  recollection  is  that  the  items  for  traveling 
expenses  were  for  the  expenses  of  people  who  came  into  the  office 
and  whom  you  reimbursed  for  the  sums  that  they  had  paid  out  in 
making  their  trips  to  the  office  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir;  except  in  the  instance  that  I have  explained 
here,  under  the  date  of  the  24th — railway  fare,  $11.20.  That  was 
for  Senator  Stephenson  and  the  party. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  does  not  appear  under  the  head  of  “travel- 
ing expenses.” 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes;  that  is  right. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Now  take  the  items  beginning  under  date  of 
October  16,  on  page  611,  and  ending  with  the  item  of  “sundries, 
$203.27,”  included  in  the  aggregate  of  $3,188.65.  Omit  the  check 
numbers,  and  go  through  those  as  rapidly  as  you  can,  and  explain 
what  they  were  for,  so  far  as  you  know. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Hotel  bills,  $10.70;  I do  not  know.  J.  B.  Beach, 
$150;  a claim  by  him  that  we  owed  him  that  much  money  as  a final 
settlement  of  his  account. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  was  he  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  was,  as  I remember,  one  of  our  men  who  worked 
in  a county  or  locality  in  the  State. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Where  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  In  some  county  or  locality  in  the  State. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Doing  what  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Organizing. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Why  was  not  he  put  in  the  other  list? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Because  his  bill  did  not  come  in  until  after  we  had 
made  up  the  other  list.  This  list  was  made  later  than  any  of  the 
others. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Oh,  I see.  This  list  includes  sums  that  were 
disbursed  on  October  16,  or  about  that  time? 

Mr.  Sacket.  About  that  time.  Republican  Farmer,  $10.25,  a 
newspaper  claim  for  advertising. 

The  Chairman.  I should  like  to  ask  a question  there  as  a basis  of 
consideration  of  these  items.  This  was  during  the  general  campaign, 
between  the  nomination  and  the  election.  Is  it  not  a fact  that  Mr. 
Beach  worked  for  the  election  of  members  of  the  legislature  in  the 
interest  of  Senator  Stephenson,  and  that  that  is  what  this  sum  was 
paid  for? 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


563 


Mr.  Sacket.  This  money  was  not  paid  him  for  that  purpose.  I 
have  a distinct  recollection  of  all  of  this  whole  bunch  of  items.  They 
were  all  claims  for  services  rendered  during  the  primary  campaign. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  that  no  part  of  this  $3,188.65  was  for  the 
activity  of  those  to  whom  it  was  paid  during  the  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Not  a cent  of  it.  I paid  all  of  these. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  chairman  means  in  the  succeeding  general 
campaign. 

The  Chairman.  I mean  in  the  real  campaign — after  nomination 
and  before  election. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I paid  all  of  these  bills  myself;  and  if  there  had  been 
anything  of  that  nature  I certainly  should  have  remembered  it. 
There  was  nothing  of  that  nature. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  This  was,  in  a sense,  cleaning  up  the  aftermath 
of  the  primary  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  bills  that  came  in  later. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Now,  go  right  along  with  the  items,  and  explain 
them  so  far  as  you  remember  about  them. 

Mr.  Sacket.  Republican  Farmer,  $10.25,  advertising.  L.  E. 
Evans,  $79.75;  no  recollection.  Platteville  Journal,  $1.50,  adver- 
tising. Republican  Observer,  $3.25,  advertising.  Remington  Co., 
$4,  rent  of  typewriter.  Wells  Power  Co.,  35  cents,  electric  light. 
Sentinel  Co.,  $1.05,  subscription  to  the  paper.  Wisconsin  Telephone 
Co.,  $105.39,  telephone  services.  J.  R.  Grey,  $52.75;  I do  not  know. 
E.  H.  Hamelrath,  $13;  that  is  the  same  Hamelrath  to  whom  I paid 
some  money  earlier  in  the  account,  and  he  sent  in  a statement  that  we 
owed  him  $13  more,  and  it  was  paid.  W.  Wilson,  $70 ; no  recollection. 
Evening  Wisconsin,  50  cents,  subscription.  E.  J.  Rogers,  $131.79; 

E.  J.  Rogers  had  charge  of  a county  in  the  southwestern  part  of  the 
State. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  have  already  explained  about  him. 

Mr.  Sacket.  This  was  the  final  settlement  with  him.  E.  J.  Kempf, 
$42.75;  that  was  for  bill  posting.  W.  E.  Powell,  $50;  I explained 
about  Mr.  Powell  earlier  in  the  account,  and  this  was  a final  settlement 
with  him.  T.  J.  Sexton,  $171.10;  the  same  explanation.  Register 
and  Friend,  $2.80,  advertising.  J.  B.  Marshall,  $65;  no  recollection. 
Marion  Advertiser,  $25,  advertising.  Randolph  Advance,  $2.38, 
advertising.  R.  Rowe,  $48.34,  in  full  settlement.  Explanation  has 
been  previously  made  as  to  the  arrangement  with  him.  Sun  Republic, 
$20,  advertising.  J.  Smith,  $112.50;  no  recollection.  A Hudson, 
$6.50;  no  recollection.  M.  Northup,  $20;  no  recollection.  Tate 
Printing  Co.,  $6.50;  that  was  for  printing  or  stationery  that  we  failed 
to  pay  for  earlier.  F.  R.  Huth,  $60;  no  recollection.  G.  Arnett,  $30; 
no  recollection.  Kewaunee  Printing  Co.,  $76.20;  that  was  for  adver- 
tising. Wisconsin  Agriculturist,  $420.21;  that  was  the  final  settle- 
ment of  our  account  with  them  for  the  services  heretofore  explained. 
Nee  Ska  Ra,  $6,  water.  Wells  Power  Co.,  $17.05,  electric  lights. 
Anderson  Publishing  Co.,  $266.20,  advertising.  Wayne  Smith,  $75; 
Wayne  Smith  lived  in  Fond  du  Lac,  and  claimed  to  have  expended 
that  money  in  Senator  Stephenson’s  interest,  and  was  reimbursed. 

F.  Parsons,  $6;  no  recollection.  L.  Barney,  $2;  no  recollection. 
C.  D.  Smith,  $112.  I think  that  is  Wayne  Smith’s  father.  He  also 


564 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


lives  in  Fond  du  Lac.  J.  Ratz,  $1.50;  no  recollection.  O.  L.  Gust, 
$60;  no  recollection.  Lew  Ryerson,  $5;  Lew  Ryerson  lives,  I think, 
in  Waushara  County,  and  sent  in  a claim  for  $5  which  he  said  he  had 
expended,  and  I paid  it.  American  Citizen,  cash,  $5;  newspaper 
advertising.  W.  R.  Knell,  $286.61;  Mr.  Knell's  account  shows  that 
he  disbursed  that  amount  in  excess  of  what  ke  received,  and  that  was 
given  to  him  to  square  accounts.  Cary,  Upham  & Black,  a receipt 
for  $57.39;  I do  not  remember  what  that  was  for. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I presume  that  covered  the  legal  services  in 
this  investigation. 

Mr.  Black.  I do  not  think  it  did. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I am  quite  sure  there  were  no  legal  services. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  It  would  not  seem  to  be  even  a refresher. 

Mr.  Sacket.  F.  H.  Bulger,  $25;  no  recollection.  Catholic  Sentinel, 
$10,  advertising. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  did  you  say  about  Bulger? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  no  recollection  about  that  item.  L.  Barney, 
$3 ; no  recollection.  Western  Union,  $10.57,  telegrams.  Sacket,  $42, 
personal  expenses. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  that  for  your  own  personal  expenses  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir.  L.  H.  Stevens,  $200 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  have  already  explained  that. 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  was  on  final  settlement.  Sundries,  $203.27; 
that  I have  no  recollection  of. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  From  what  memoranda  or  data  was  this  state- 
ment beginning  with  October  16  made  out,  and  when  did  you  make  it 
out  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  was  made  on  or  about  the  16th  of  October,  from 
the  bills  or  letters  of  these  people  claiming  the  amounts  paid  them. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  There  are  quite  a number  of  items  here  as  to 
which  you  now  have  no  recollection.  What  I want  to  know  is 
whether,  at  the  time  you  made  up  this  account  or  drew  off  this 
statement,  you  then  did  have  a recollection  of  the  amounts  that 
appear  here  to  have  been  disbursed,  and  the  purposes  for  which  they 
were  disbursed  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I had  in  every  case  a recollection  and  knowledge  of 
these  items  at  the  time  they  were  paid.  The  only  reason  I do  not 
know  now  is  that  I have  forgotten  in  three  years. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Are  you  prepared  to  say  that  this  list  that  you 
have  just  gone  over  is  a list  that  you  made  in  accordance  with  your 
actual  disbursements  on  or  about  £he  date  of  October  16? 

Mr.  Sacket.  This  is  a copy  of  the  list  I made. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I say,  are  you  prepared  to  say  that  the  list  which 
you  have  just  gone  over  is  a list  of  disbursements  that  you  did  actually 
make  on  or  about  October  16? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  whether  or  not  any  of  the  disbursements 
included  in  that  list  were  made  for  any  improper  purpose. 

Mr.  Sacket.  They  were  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Were  any  of  the  sums  that  you  disbursed  on  the 
16th,  to  your  knowledge,  disbursed  tro  reimburse  anyone  who  had 
expended  money  for  an  unlawful  or  improper  purpose  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  There  were  none  to  my  knowledge. 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


565 


Mr.  Littlefield.  Or  in  thfe  bribing  or  corrupting  of  voters  in  the 
primary  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Not  a cent  of  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I do  not  know  whether  you  have  fully  explained 
about  this  item  of  “Sundries,  $203.27.”  As  I understand  you,  you 
have  no  present  recollection  of  how  you  reached  that  sum  of  $203.27  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  not;  no,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Have  you  any  recollection  as  to  whether  or  not 
it  was  the  result  of  items  that  you  had  disbursed;  or  is  your  mind  a 
complete  blank  as  to  how  you  reached  that  result  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  The  item  is  made  up  of  small  items  disbursed  at  that 
time. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  it  now  your  recollection  that  at  that  time  you 
made  the  item  of  “Sundries,  $203.27”  as  the  result  of  the  aggregate  of 
other  small  items  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Of  other  small  items. 

The  Chairman.  I suggest  that  you  identify  that  item,  so  that  the 
record  will  show  what  it  is. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  On  page  612,  “Sundries,  $203.27,”  in  the  list  of 
items  that  aggregate  $3,188.65. 

As  I understand  it,  you  have  no  present  recollection  of  the  items  that 
made  up  that  aggregate  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  But  do  I understand  that  it  is  your  recollection 
that  at  the  time  you  reached  the  result  of  $203.27  as  the  aggregate  of 
small  items  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I did;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  that  is  all  that  you  can  remember  about  it? 

Mr.  Sacket.  That  is  all  I remember  at  this  time. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Are  you  prepared  to  say  that  that  amount  was 
correct,  on  the  basis  of  your  then  computation? 

Mr.  Sacket.  It  was. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Have  not  any  of  those  bills  or  memoranda 
from  which  that  was 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I was  just  going  to  ask  what  became  of  those 
bills. 

What  became  of  the  bills,  or  memoranda,  or  whatever  you  had  as 
the  basis  of  these  disbursements  on  or  about  October  1 6 ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  My  recollection  is  that  they  were  put  into  the  box 
that  was  left  with  the  joint  committee  at  Madison.  If  they  were  not 
destroyed,  that  is  where  they  went;  and  I am  quite  certain  all  of  them 
were  not  destroyed,  if  any. 

Senator  Pomerene.  How  is  that? 

Mr.  Sacket.  If  they  were  not  destroyed,  that  is  where  they  went; 
and  I am  quite  certain  all  of  them  were  not  destroyed,  if  any. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Why  did  you  destroy  all  the  rest  and  save 
these  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  These  were  October  16;  and  I did  not  destroy  bills 
as  a rule — itemized  bills. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Was  it  not  pretty  inconvenient  to  keep  all 
those  bills  and  cards  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I was  just  goin£  to  ask  if  any  of  these  items  were 
entered  on  cards? 

Mr,  Sacket.  No,  sir. 


566 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


Mr.  Littlefield.  You  had  got  through  with  the  accounts  that  you 
were  keeping  on  the  cards? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I had  no  office,  and  I had  to  enter  these  items  on  a 
piece  of  paper  in  my  pocket. 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  was  the  date  of  the  primary? 

Mr.  Sacket.  September  1. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I notice  a great  many  of  these  items  bear 
date  as  having  been  paid  out  after  that  date.  Were  any  of  the  bills 
for  services  rendered  after  September  1 ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  None  of  them,  unless  it  was  the  services  of  three  young 
men  that  I employed  in  the  office.  I may  have  kept  them  for  a few 
days,  to  straighten  up  the  office— a stenographer  or  two. 

Senator  Sutherland.  For  any  service  or  anything  done  in  connec- 
tion with  the  general  election,  as  distinguished  from  the  primary  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No  services  of  that  nature  after  the  primary,  at  all. 

Senator  Sutherland.  None  whatever? 

Mr.  Sacket.  None  whatever. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Not  a dollar  ? 

Mr.  Sackett.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I have  an  item  here  to  inquire  about  the  em- 
ployment of  Mr.  Usher.  Who  employed  Usher?  State  what  you 
know  about  that. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I made  the  arrangement  with  Mr.  Usher,  originally. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  what  that  arrangement  was. 

Mr.  Sacket.  He  was  to  look  after  the  publicity  part  of  the  cam- 
paign. He  was  to  receive  compensation,  the  amount  of  which  I do 
not  recall  at  this  time,  and  was  to  help  us  generally  in  the  advertising 
end  of  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  ascertain  who  the  organizer  of  Juneau 
County  was  ? I think  the  committee  wanted  to  know  that. 

Mr.  Sacket.  I do  not  remember  now.  If  my  attention  could  be 
called  to  the  item,  it  is  possible  that  I might  remember. 

Mr.  Black.  You  were  asked  a day  or  two  ago  who  that  was.  Do 
you  remember  now  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  No;  I do  not  remember. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Will  the  chairman  give  me  that  reference  to  the 
Wisconsin  statute  in  relation  to  managers  ? 

The  Chairman.  I have  not  my  copy  at  hand  at  this  moment. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I mean  the  reference  to  the  Wisconsin  statute 
which  referred  to  managers,  rather  indicating  that  they  are  officials 
recognized  by  the  law.  I think  your  honor  had  it. 

The  Chairman.  If  counsel  will  just  pass  that  by  until  I have  my 
marked  copy,  I will  refer  to  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Very  well.  I had  it  on  my  notes  here. 

Now,  Mr.  Sacket,  have  you  revised  the  list  of  the  items  appearing 
in  Exhibit  49,  making  up  the  aggregate  of  $46,052.29  which  appear 
under  the  head  of  either  “ General  expense,  organizing,”  or  “ General, 
organizing,  ” or  11  General  ”? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes,  sir.  This  is  it,  here. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Just  give  those  items,  please.  I wish  you  to 
include  all  of  the  items  that  appear  under  that  heading,  even  though 
they  may  have  printed  by  their  side  the  initials  “E.  A.  E 

The  Chairman.  Will  counsel  indicate  just  what  feature  of  the 
account  it  is  now  proposed  to  open  up,  stating  the  page  ? 


RODNEY  SACKET. 


567 


Mr.  Littlefield.  It  is  a grouping,  if  your  honor  please,  beginning 
on  page  588,  of  items  like  “General  organizing/’  The  first  item  is 
“General  expense,  organizing,  $100”;  “General  organizing” 

The  Chairman.  Is  it  the  purpose  of  counsel  to  go  over  each  of  the 
items  in  that  account  again  with  this  witness  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  No;  just  to  give  the  items  and  put  them  in  an 
aggregate,  so  that  we  can  have  it  in  the  record. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Have  you  tabulated  those  items,  now? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  He  has  the  tabulation  right  here. 

The  Chairman.  Then  that  paper  can  go  into  the  record  without 
taking  the  time  to  go  over  it  m detail  now. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  have  prepared  a revised  list  of  the  items 
appearing  in  Exhibit  49,  which  appear  under  the  heading  of  either 
“General  expense,  organizing,”  or  “ Organizing,”  or  “General”? 

Mr.  Sacket.  I have.  It  is  as  follows: 


July  6.  General  expense,  organizing $100.  00 

18.  General  expense,  Edmonds’s  check 150.  00 

21.  General  expense 250.00 

23.  General  expense,  E.  A.  E 200.  00 

Aug.  8.  General 250.  00 

8.  General 150.  00 

10.  General 150.  00 

14.  General,  E.  A.  E 25.00 

18.  General,  E.  A.  E 100.  00 

19.  General  (E.  A.  E.,  $200) 300.  00 

21.  General 227.  08 

22.  General 300.  00 

26.  General,  E.  A.  E.  ($200,  $175,  and  $25) 400.  00 

27.  General 75.  00 

28.  General  (E.  A.  E.,  $15  and  $20) 50.  00 

21.  General  (E.  A.  E.,  $200,  and  H.  Bowman  $20) 220.  00 


2,  947.  08 

Mr.  Littlefield.  They  are  the  only  items,  are  they  not,  in  Exhibit 
49,  that  was  before  the  House  committee,  that  would  answer  to  the 
designation  of  general  campaign  expenses  or  “general”  ? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Without  other  explanation,  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  They  are  the  only  items  in  the  account  that 
would  answer  to  that  designation? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes;  without  giving  the  names  of  the  persons  to 
whom  the  money  was  paid. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  others  give  the  names  of  the  persons? 

Mr.  Sacket.  Yes;  and  the  numbers  of  the  checks. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  They  state  in  their  report  here  that  the  amount 
was  $12,000;  and  it  turned  out  to  be  a little  less  than  $3,000.  They 
were  only  $9,000  out  of  the  way. 

I think  that  is  all  we  have  to  ask  Mr.  Sacket. 

The  Chairman.  The  witness  may  be  excused  for  the  present,  and 
will  remain  here  in  attendance.  We  will  now  call  Mr.  Kingsley. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Mr.  Van  Cleve,  if  your  honor  please,  is  here 
again,  in  response  to  the  call  of  the  committee.  I do  not  know  how 
much  more  you  have  to  ask  him,  and  I do  not  know  whether  you  are 
in  a position  to  finish  with  him  and  let  him  go.  He  is  anxious  to 
get  back,  if  you  can  excuse  him.  He  has  the  book  here  that  you 
inquired  about. 

The  Chairman.  If  Mr.  Van  Cleve  has  the  book  here,  we  vill  permit 
him  to  come  forward. 


568 


JOHN  A.  VAN  CLEVE. 


TESTIMONY  OF  JOHN  A.  VAN  CLEVE— Resumed. 

The  Chairman.  What  memorandum  book  is  that  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  The  memorandum  book  that  I used  during  the 
campaign  in  Marinette  County. 

The  Chairman.  Does  it  contain  your  expenses  during  the  cam- 
paign ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  $792  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  $792.75;  and  also  a list  of  those  checks  that  I 
sent  to  Mr.  Puelicher,  aggregating  $52,500. 

The  Chairman.  Let  the  committee  have  that  book.  [The  book 
referred  to  was  handed  to  the  chairman.] 

I find  here  quite  a large  number  of  payments  of  $5  to  men  by 
name,  without  any  indication  of  the  purpose  of  the  payment.  For 
instance,  J.  L.  Gray,  the  29th  of  August,  what  did  you  pay  him 
$5  for  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  That  was  for  services  on  election  day,  or  on 
primary  day. 

The  Chairman.  What  were  the  services  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  I think,  if  you  will  just  let  me  show  you  on  the 
book,  that  this  is  all  explained  here — in  the  different  precincts,  for 
instance.  This  memorandum  book  here  shows  the  men  that  were 
employed  in  the  different  precincts  in  Marinette  County.  Here  is 
Amberg,  first  precinct.  In  that  first  precinct  I employed  John 
Wood. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  employ  him  to  do  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  I employed  him  to  get  three  or  four  teams  on 
primary  day,  to  have  a man  at  the  polls  on  primary  day  with  the 
poll  list,  and  to  get  out  the  vote. 

The  Chairman.  I desire  to  turn  back  now,  in  this  book:  “F.  E. 
Noyes.”  For  what  purpose  did  you  pay  him  $200  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  That  $200  was  paid  to  him  for  editorial  work  on 
the  Marinette  Eagle. 

The  Chairman.  I would  like  to  know,  going  back  to  the  item  of 
$5,  to  which  I called  your  attention,  the  purpose  for  wliich  you  paid 
$5  to  these  men  on  August  29. 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  They  were  all  employed  for  assisting  in  getting 
out  the  vote  on  primary  day. 

The  Chairman.  On  September  2 — that  was  election  day,  was  it 
not  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  I notice  you  paid  on  that  day  six  men;  five  of 
them  you  paid  $5  each  and  one  of  them  $8.50.  What  was  that  for? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  The  $8.50,  as  I recollect  it,  was  paid  to  Ralph 
Skidmore.  I think  that  is  explained  under  the  township  of  Lake, 
right  in  the  first  part  of  the  book  there.  He  paid  $5  to  his  ste- 
nographer for  some  work  that  he  had  done  in  his  office  during  the 
campaign,  and  $3.50  for  a team. 

The  Chairman.  Let  us  pay  some  attention  to  the  five  men  to 
whom  you  paid  $5  each  on  election  day.  For  what  purpose  was 
that  ? 


JOHN  A.  VAN  CLEVE. 


569 


Mr.  Van  Cleve.  It  was  all  paid  for  the  same  purpose.  That  is, 
either  for  running  teams,  or  for  assisting  at  the  polls  with  the  poll 
list,  or  something  like  that. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  here,  1908,  checks  received  from  Isaac 
Stephenson  and  forwarded  to  J.  H.  Puelicher,  June  28,  Stephenson’s 
National,  $2,000;  July  6,  $10,000;  August  20,  $15,000;  August  24, 
$10,000;  August  31,  $2,000;  September  3,  $13,000;  making  $52,500 
which  you  sent  to  Mr.  Puelicher  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  send  that  to  Mr.  Puelicher  that  he  might 
use  it  on  Senator  Stephenson’s  behalf,  for  the  purpose  of  promoting 
his  nomination  as  United  States  Senator  on  the  direct  primary? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Had  you  ever  talked  with  Mr.  Puelicher  before  you 
sent  any  of  that  money,  as  to  whether  or  not  he  intended  to  support 
Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  what  the  money  was  sent  to  him 
for. 

The  Chairman.  This  book  will  remain  in  evidence. 

Senator  Sutherland.  The  entire  expenditure  that  you  made  in 
Marinette  County  was  $792,  was  it? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  It  was  $792.75. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  covered  the  entire  county  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Yes,  sir;  the  entire  county  of  Marinette;  23  pre- 
cincts. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I was  going  to  ask  you  how  many  precincts 
it  included. 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Twenty-three. 

Senator  Sutherland.  About  what  was  the  entire  vote  of  the 
county  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  The  entire  vote  was  about  4,200,  of  which  Mr. 
Stephenson  got  about  3,000. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  employ  a man  in  each  precinct  on 
that  day? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  More  than  one  man? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Yes,  &ir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  How  many  men  in  a precinct  on  the  day  of 
the  primary  election? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  The  exact  number  is  given  in  the  list  there.  I 
think  it  was  between  50  and  60  in  the  county. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Between  50  and  60  employed  on  the  day? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  would  be  an  average  of  two  or  three 
men  to  a precinct  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Of  course  a good  many  of  those  precincts  are 
larger;  that  is,  some  of  them  took  in  three  or  four  congressional  town- 
ships, and  we  had  to  have  teams  and  men  to  get  out  the  vote.  In 
some  of  them  we  had  three  or  four  teams ; and  men  at  the  polls  with 
the  poll  list,  and  all  that  kind  of  thing. 


570 


JOHN  A.  VAN  CLEVE. 


Senator  Sutherland.  Was  any  money  paid  for  any  other  purpose 
than  for  teams  and  men  to  look  over  the  poll  list,  and  men  to  bring  in 
the  votes? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  That  is  all.  There  was  about  $340  that  was  paid 
for  newspaper  service,  of  which  $200  was  that  item  that  Senator  Hey- 
burn  referred  to  paid  to  the  Eagle  Press.  The  balance  of  it,  $792.75, 
less  the  $340,  was  nearly  all  of  it  expended  for  that  purpose  on  pri- 
mary day.  There  was  a few  dollars  listed  there  for  postage,  you  will 
see,  and  smaller  items.  The  bulk  of  it  was  spent  on  primary  day  to 
get  out  the  vote,  and  it  was  spent  for  no  other  purpose. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  about  the  newspaper  to  which  you  gave 
the  $200  ? That  was  to  Mr.  Noyes  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  That  was  to  Mr.  Noyes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  whether  or  not  the  paper  was  friendly  to 
Mr.  Stephenson  before  you  gave  him  the  money. 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Oh,  yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  It  had  been  supporting  him  before? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Oh,  yes;  right  along. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Were  the  men  that  you  employed  on  election 
day  men  that  were  friendly  to  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  All  of  them;  every  one  of  them. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  whether  or  not  you  ascertained  what  the 
fact  was  in  that  regard  before  you  made  any  arrangement  with  them 
about  their  employment. 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  said  that  Mr.  Puelicher  supported  Senator 
Stephenson,  and  then  you  stated:  “That  is  what  the  money  was 
sent  to  him  for.”  What  do  you  wish  to  be  understood  by  that  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  I hardly  know  why  that  question  was  asked;  but, 
of  course,  Mr.  Puelicher  for  years  had  been  very  friendly  to  Senator 
Stephenson.  I knew  that  it  would  not  be  otherwise. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  desire  this  witness  released  to-night  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes,  Mr.  Chairman.  Just  a word  or  two  more. 

Mr.  Puelicher  managed  Senator  Stephenson’s  campaign  in  1907, 
when  the  Senator  was  elected,  did  he  not  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  did  not  wish  to  be  understood  that  any  of 
the  sums  paid  to  him  were  paid  in  consideration  of  his  supporting 
Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  No,  sir;  none  whatever. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I think  this  witness  would  like  to  be  excused,  if 
your  honor  please. 

The  Chairman.  The  book  will  remain  in  evidence. 

(The  book  referred  to  was  received  in  evidence  and  marked  “Ex- 
hibit Van  Cleve,  No.  2,  October  9,  1911.”) 

Senator  Pomerene.  Was  there  any  other  money  expended  in  your 
county — Marinette  County,  is  it  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene  (continuing) . By  anyone  else  in  behalf  of  Sen- 
ator Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Not  that  I know  of.  The  Senator  put  the  man- 
agement of  the  Marinette  County  campaign  in  my  hands.  There  was 
no  other  money  expended  in  the  county  except  $792.75. 


G.  L.  KINGSLEY. 


571 


Mr.  Littlefield.  I think  I asked  this  general  question  before,  but 
if  not,  I would  like  to  do  it  with  all  witnesses  like  Mr.  Van  Cleve. 

Was  any  money  expended  in  this  county,  to  your  knowledge,  for 
the  purpose  of  bribing  or  corrupting  any  voters  in  the  primary  election  ? 

Mr.  Van  Cleve.  Not  a dollar. 

The  Chairman.  The  witness  that  will  be  called  to  the  stand  in  the 
morning  will  be  G.  L.  Kingsley,  and  following  Mr.  Kingsley  will  be 
Mr.  Blaine. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Does  the  committee  excuse  Mr.  Van  Cleve? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  He  will  be  where  you  can  call  him  again  if  you 
have  occasion  to  do  so. 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

(Whereupon,  at  4.35  o’clock  p.  m.,  the  subcommittee  adjourned 
until  to-morrow,  Tuesday,  October  10,  1911,  at  10  o’clock  a.  m.) 

TUESDAY,  OCTOBER  10,  1911. 

Federal  Building, 

Milwaukee,  Wis. 

The  subcommittee  met  at  10  o’clock  a.  m. 

Present : Senators  Heyburn  (chairman) , Sutherland,  and  Pomerene. 

Present  also:  Mr.  C.  E.  Littlefield,  Mr.  W.  E.  Black,  and  Mr. 
H.  H.  J.  Upham,  counsel  for  Senator  Isaac  Stephenson. 

The  names  of  C.  C.  Wellensgard,  W.  K.  Knell,  C.  S.  French,  and 
R.  J.  Shields  were  called. 

Mr.  Wellensgard,  Mr.  Knell,  and  Mr.  French  responded  to  their 
names,  and  the  oath  was  administered  to  them  by  the  chairman. 

TESTIMONY  OF  G.  I.  KINGSLEY. 

Mr.  Kingsley,  having  been  heretofore  duly  sworn,  was  examined 
and  testified  as  follows: 

The  Chairman.  Where  do  you  reside  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Albert  Lea,  Minn. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  your  occupation  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I am  the  manager  of  a branch  of  the  John  Glenn 
Brewing  Co. 

The  Chairman.  How  long  have  you  been  so  engaged  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  About  a year  and  eight  months. 

The  Chairman.  During  the  year  1908,  from  June  until  January  of 
the  following  year,  in  what  business  were  you  engaged  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I was  employed  by  the  State  as  a deputy  game 
warden. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  the  nature  of  your  appointment? 
W ere  you  under  salary  or  on  a per  diem  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  On  a per  diem. 

The  Chairman.  With  expenses  in  addition  to  the  per  diem  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Will  the  chairman  please  ask  him  whether  his 
actual  expenses  were  paid,  or  if  there  was  an  allowance  for  expenses  ? 

The  Chairman.  That  will  be  developed  by  the  inquiry.  Where  did 
you  five  at  that  time? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  At  La  Crosse,  Wis. 


572 


G.  L.  KINGSLEY. 


The  Chairman.  Tha£  is  in  what  county? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  La  Crosse  County. 

The  Chairman.  During  that  period — that  is,  from  June  1,  1908, 
until  the  1st  of  January,  1909 — were  you  at  any  time  engaged  to  do 
political  work  for  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  receive  any  money  during  that  time  for 
political  services  rendered  or  to  be  rendered  in  behalf  of  Senator 
Stephenson’s  candidacy  for  the  United  States  Senate  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  I find  from  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Stone,  the  State 
game  warden,  that  he  claims  to  have  paid  you  a sum  of  money  for 
political  services  to  be  rendered  on  behalf  of  Senator  Stephenson. 
Is  that  true  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  Mr.  Stone  at  any  time  give  you  any  money  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  For  any  purpose  during  that  time? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  authorize  anyone  else  to  give  you  any 
money  which  you  received  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  There  is  a statement  that  was  made  by  Mr. 
Stone  in  his  examination  before  the  joint  committee  of  the  Legislature 
of  the  State  of  Wisconsin  that  he  paid  you  money,  or  that  you 
received  money,  being  part  of  a fund  or  sum  of  $2,500  which  he  had 
received  for  political  work.  Is  that  so  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  No;  it  is  not. 

The  Chairman.  Is  there  any  foundation  whatever  for  it? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  present  at  any  meeting  where  it  was 
proposed  to  make  up  a statement  of  political  expenditures  to  account 
for  $2,500  which  was  alleged  to  have  been  paid  Mr.  Stone? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Just  one  moment.  Is  it  necessary  to  go  into 
that,  Mr.  Chairman  ? That  is  an  incident  for  which  Senator  Stephen- 
son was  in  no  sense  responsible. 

The  Chairman.  I feel  it  necessary  to  go  into  it.  It  goes  to  the 
question  of  the  disbursement — whether  a fund  of  $2,500  paid  to 
Mr.  Stone  was  disbursed. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  As  far  as  my  knowledge  of  the  record  goes  it 
went  simply  to  the  credibility  of  Mr.  Stone. 

The  Chairman.  It  goes  to  the  question  of  whether  or  not  Mr. 
Stone  received  that  money  and  whether  he  disbursed  it.  The 
witness  will  answer  the  question.  State  what  occurred. 

Mr.  Kingsley.  What  occurred  at  the  meeting  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes.  First,  where  was  the  meeting? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  The  meeting  was  held  at  Mr.  Stone’s  house,  some- 
where around  about  midnight.  I could  not  tell  the  exact  time. 

The  Chairman.  Could  you  tell  the  date  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I could  not. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  give  it  by  reference  to  other  events? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  No;  it  is  so  long  ago  that  I could  not  tell. 


G.  L.  KINGSLEY.  573 

The  Chairman.  Was  it  during  the  examination  of  Mr.  Stone 
before  the  joint  committee  of  the  legislature? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I do  not  remember  whether  Mr.  Stone  had  been 
called  at  that  time  or  not.  I do  not  recall  that  to  mind. 

The  Chairman . It  was  during  the  investigation  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  It  was  during  the  investigation.  I think  the 
investigation  had  just  started  at  that  time. 

The  Chairman.  State  what  happened. 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I was  the  last  one  to  come  to  the  house,  and  I 
think  there  were  seven  there. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  give  their  names  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  There  was  Mr.  Stone,  myself,  Mr.  Bowman,  Mr. 
Richtman,  Mr.  Johnson,  Mr.  Tuttle,  and  Mr.  Thomas. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  is  Mr.  Thomas’s  given  name  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I could  not  say  that. 

The  Chairman.  Were  any  of  these  men  members  of  the  legislature, 
or  had  they  been  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Mr.  Thomas  was  an  assemblyman. 

The  Chairman.  Any  other  one? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Was  Mr.  Stone  there? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  State  what  occurred  there  on  that  occasion. 

Mr.  Kingsley.  The  talk  was  about  the  fact  that  he  had  to  account 
for  a sum  of  money,  and  he  wanted  me  to  assume  $200  or  $250  and 
Mr.  Johnson  the  same  amount,  and  Mr.  Richtman  about  $150,  with 
the  understanding  that  we  would  never  be  called  on  the  witness 
stand  to  testify. 

The  Chairman.  What  do  you  mean  by  “ wanted  you  to  assume”  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  He  wanted  to  testify  that  he  had  given  it  to  us, 
but  the  understanding  was  that  we  would  not  be  put  on  the  stand 
to  testify  to  that  fact. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Mr.  Chairman,  I submit  that  if  the  witness  is 
to  go  into  conversations  he  had  better  state  the  conversations  and  not 
his  conclusions. 

The  Chairman.  We  are  here  to  inquire 

Mr.  Littlefield.  But  are  we  not  to  inquire  on  legal  lines  ? 

The  Chairman.  We  are  inquiring  on  very  liberal  lines.  We  are 
seeking  information  in  the  nature  of  an  investigation  as  a basis  for 
another  body  to  act  upon  certain  charges. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  true;  but  I submit  that  the  testimony 
that  may  be  elicited  at  this  hearing  should  be  elicited  on  a familiar 
legal  basis.  I can  not  conceive  that  testimony  that  is  drawn  out 
not  in  accordance  with  well-recognized  legal  rules  can  afterwards 
be  considered  by  even  the  Senate;  but  I submit  that  entirely  to  the 
chairman. 

The  Chairman.  This  witness  will  be  subject  to  cross-examina- 
tion. If  the  responses  of  the  witness  in  reply  to  interrogatories 
submitted  by  the  committee  are  not  satisfactory  to  counsel,  he  can 
cross-examine  and  test  the  testimony  of  the  witness. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  But  I know,  and  the  chairman,  as  a lawyer, 
knows,  that  a conclusion  that  a witness  undertakes  to  state  as  the 
result  of  a conversation  would  not  be  admitted  anywhere  as  a legal 


574 


G.  L.  KINGSLEY. 


proposition.  I shall  not  spend  any  time  in  cross-examining  a wit- 
ness who  simply  states  conclusions.  From  my  point  of  view  that 
testimony  would  not  be  competent  or  admissible. 

The  Chairman.  Does  counsel  present  this  in  the  nature  of  a motion 
to  strike  out  this  testimony? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I present  it  in  the  nature  of  an  objection  to  the 
witness  being  allowed  to  go  on  and  state  conclusions. 

The  Chairman.  But  the  witness  has  already  made  the  statement. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  I move  to  strike  out  the  statement  of  the 
witness  as  a conclusion.  I object  to  the  witness  being  allowed  to 
state  his  conclusions  or  inferences. 

The  Chairman.  The  committee  can  not  know  what  the  witness 
is  going  to  say.  The  witness  having  said  it,  it  may  be  attacked  on  a 
motion  to  strike  out,  but  the  committee  can  not  take  notice  of  any 
admonishment  that  the  witness  be  not  allowed  to  state  a thing. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I will  raise  the  question  by  a formal  motion  to 
strike  out  everything  that  the  witness  has  said  in  relation  to  his  con- 
clusions or  inferences  from  any  conversation  that  he  had  with  Mr. 
Stone. 

The  Chairman.  And  that  motion  will  be  noted.  I was  about  to 
ask  the  witness  to  state  the  conversation. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Let  me  understand  about  this.  You 
object,  Mr.  Littlefield,  to  the  witness  stating  that  Mr.  Stone  wanted 
him  to  do  certain  things,  rather  than  stating  what  was  said  ? I think 
you  are  right  about  that.  I think  the  witness  ought  to  be  compelled 
to  state  the  conversation. 

The  Chairman.  Just  one  moment.  The  Chair  will  make  its  posi- 
tion plain  and  adhere  to  it.  The  witness  stated,  without  any  request 
on  the  part  of  the  chairman,  a certain  thing.  Counsel  has  moved  to 
strike  that  out,  and  the  motion  has  been  noted.  The  chairman  was 
proceeding  to  ask  this  witness  for  the  conversation.  No  objection 
lies  to  any  question  asked  by  any  member  of  this  committee.  The 
objection  will  be  noted;  but  any  member  of  this  committee  is  entitled 
to  ask  any  question  in  any  manner  that  may  seem  proper  to  the  mem- 
ber of  the  committee.  The  chairman  was  about  to  ask  this  witness 
for  the  conversation. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  There  is  no  objection  to  my  stating  my  position? 

The  Chairman.  Oh,  none  whatever. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I will  state  it  in  this  way : I concede,  if  the  com- 
mittee please,  that  the  committee  has  the  power  to  ask  any  question 
it  sees  fit  in  connection  with  this  investigation.  I do  not  concede,  as  a 
matter  of  law,  that  the  committee  has  a right  to  propound  any  ques- 
tion that  does  not  come  within  some  reasonably  well-recognized  legal 
rule.  I think  the  committee  has  the  power  to  introduce  hearsay  testi- 
mony, but  I do  not  think  it  has  the  legal  right  to  do  it.  I concede 
the  committee  has  the  power.  I concede  the  committee  has  the  power 
to  put  questions  that  may  draw  out  inferences  and  conclusions.  I do 
not  concede  the  committee  has  the  legal  right  to  do  that.  I wish  to  be 
on  record  merely  representing  Senator  Stephenson  as  saying  that,  and  I 
do  not  think  this  record  ought  to  be  filled  with  what  we  would  all  agree 
is  legally  incompetent  testimony.  Of  course  I understand  and  well 
recognize  that  the  committee  is  not  going  to  be  confined  to  strict 
legal  rules.  But  when  it  comes  to  my  proposition,  it  seems  to  me  that 
the  committee  ought  to  have  no  objection  to  my  stating  my  objection 


G.  L.  KINGSLEY.  575 

to  testimony  of  that  character  and  getting  that  objection  upon  the 
record. 

I do  not  want  to  sit  here  and  allow  testimony  to  come  in  that  I feel 
morally  certain  could  not  be  properly  considered,  without  making 
some  protest  on  the  record.  I concede  the  committee  has  the  power 
you  say  you  have  and  that  you  propose  to  exercise.  But  when  it 
comes  to  a question  of  whether  or  not  it  is  legally  admissible,  that  is  a 
question  where  the  rights  of  Senator  Stephenson  are  involved,  and  I 
respectfully  want  to  place  my  position  on  the  record  from  time  to  time 
as  I may  have  occasion  to  do  so.  I understand  that  is  not  disagree- 
able to  the  committee  ? 

The  Chairman.  Counsel  will  have  that  opportunity.  There  has 
been  no  suggestion  that  it  be  denied  him.  The  Chair  should  be 
permitted  to  finish  his  statement,  however,  before  being  inter- 
rupted by  counsel.  It  would  be  intolerable  that  the  members  of  the 
committee  should  sit  here  in  this  place  and  argue  out  differences  as  to 
the  manner  of  procedure.  Whenever  the  members  of  the  committee 
differ  they  will  retire  and  consider  their  differences;  and  when  they 
return  they  will  announce  the  decision  of  the  committee,  according  to 
the  rule  which  they  themselves  adopt. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Of  course  we  must  all  realize,  I suppose,  that 
we  are  all  quite  likely,  as  we  go  along  in  a matter  of  this  sort,  to 
unwittingly,  perhaps,  go  beyond  the  rule.  I hope  no  member  of 
the  committee  will  feel  that  I am  doing  anything  improper  if  at  such 
times  I call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  it 

The  Chairman.  That  is  entirely  permissible. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  request  them  to  keep,  so  far  as  they  can, 
within  what  we  all  know  are  well-recognized  legal  principles. 

The  Chairman.  The  rules  governing  an  examination  of  this  kind 
are  these:  No  objection  made  by  counsel  to  a question  asked  by  a 
member  of  the  committee  is  to  be  passed  upon.  No  objection  will  be 
made  by  any  member  of  the  committee  to  a question  asked  by 
another  member  of  the  committee.  That  would  result  in  disorder 
and  would  accomplish  no  good  purpose.  Whenever  any  member  of 
the  committee  desires  to  retire  for  consultation,  the  committee  will 
retire;  and  when  it  returns  to  this  room  it  will  announce  its  conclu- 
sion, according  to  the  rule  of  the  majority. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I do  not  understand  that  Mr.  Littlefield  is 
objecting  to  a question  asked  by  the  chairman.  What  he  is  objecting 
to  is  an  answer  of  the  witness. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Certainly. 

The  Chairman.  And  the  objection  has  been  noted. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  My  objection  is  submitted.  Of  course  we  are 
going  along  in  a fairly  free  and  easy  manner  and  I do  not  mean  by 
that  to  characterize  the  proceedings  of  the  committee  as  improper. 
I am  not  insisting  upon  strict  legal  rules,  and  the  committee  is  not, 
so  far  as  my  examination  is  concerned.  I appreciate  that.  But  I 
feel  we  are  reaching  a stage  here,  perhaps,  when  if  this  witness  goes 
on  and  undertakes  to  detail  conversations  that  seem  to  be  important  we 
should  insist  upon  his  stating  the  conversation  and  not  his  conclusion. 
I do  not  quite  see  how  this  can  affect  Senator  Stephenson  in  anyway, 
but  if  it  is  to  be  admitted  at  all,  I think  the  witnesses  themselves  should 
appreciate  the  fact  that  they  should  state  the  conversation  and  not  their 
conclusion.  I do  not  mean  to  intimate  for  a moment  that  the  wit- 


576 


G.  L.  KINGSLEY. 


nesses  are  not  acting  in  good  faith;  but  I say  they  should  appreciate 
the  fact  that  they  must  confine  themselves  within  some  reasonable 
rules,  and  not  state  conclusions,  not  state  inferences,  not  state  opin- 
ions. If  they  are  going  to  state  conversations,  they  should  state 
conversations,  in  substance,  as  they  remember  -them,  and  stop  there. 

The  Chairman.  The  chairman  is  in  entire  sympathy  with  the  sug- 
gestion; but  it  is  too  late  to  take  back  an  answer  that  has  been  given. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  very  true.  Of  course  the  only  remedy  I 
have  in  this  case  is  to  move  to  strike  it  out,  which  I have  done. 

The  Chairman.  We  shall  not  p/iss  upon  motions  to  strike  out. 
We  will  note  the  objection.  “ Striking  out”  would  only  leave  it  in 
the  record,  with  a motion  to  strike  out. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Of  course  the  chairman  perceives  that  that  is  all 
I can  do. 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  that  is  all  the  committee  can  do. 

State  what  conversation  occurred  between  you  and  Mr.  Stone  in 
regard  to  your  being  charged  with  a portion  of  this  money.  State 
what  he  said,  and  what  you  said,  as  nearly  as  you  can  remember  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Perhaps  I should  make  this  further  suggestion: 
It  seems  to  me  that  is  clearly  hearsay,  if  the  chairman  please.  Mr. 
Stone  is  not  a party  to  these  proceedings. 

The  Chairman.  That  kind  of  hearsay  will  be  admitted,  if  that  is 
hearsay;  because,  according  to  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Stephenson,  Mr. 
Stone  received  $2,500  for  this  purpose,  or  for  some  purpose.  That 
is  already  a part  of  the  case.  It  is  in  the  record. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  true. 

The  Chairman.  We  are  accounting  for  that  money  now.  Go 
ahead  and  state  the  conversation. 

Mr.  Kingsley.  He  wanted  us  to  assume  that  amount  of  money. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  he  say  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  He  said  he  had  to  account  for  a certain  part  of 
the  money — I do  not  remember  how  much  money — and  he  wanted 
us  to  assume  either  $200  or  $250,  and  the  third  party  $150. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  give  us  the  language  in  which  he  stated  it  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I can  not.  I can  not  remember  the  conversation 
after  that  length  of  time. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  he  wanted  you  to  do  it.  Did  he  make 
any  statement  in  regard  to  wanting  you  to  do  it  ? If  so,  what  state- 
ment? You  can  give  the  substance  of  the  statement. 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I think  he  said,  though  I am  not  positive  in  regard 
to  that,  that  he  had  to  testify  to  what  he  had  done  with  this  money. 

The  Chairman.  That  is,  he  told  you  that  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  He  had  to  make  an  accounting  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  say  to  Mr.  Stone  in  response  to 
that  statement  on  his  part? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I could  not  say  exactly. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  tell  him  you  would  do  it  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I think  we  agreed  to  do  it,  with  the  understanding 
that  we  would  not  be  put  on  the  stand  to  testify  to  it. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  receive  any  part  of  this  $2,500  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  No,  sir;  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  write  or  give  or  sign  a receipt  to  Mr. 
Stone  for  any  sum  of  money  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  No,  sir. 


G.  L.  KINGSLEY. 


577 


The  Chairman.  What  Mr.  Stone  was  this  ? There  seems  to  be  a 
J.  A.  Stone  and  a J.  W.  Stone. 

Mr.  Kingsley.  J.  W.  Stone. 

The  Chairman.  In  the  testimony  taken  before  the  joint  investi- 
gating committee  on  March  11,  1909,  at  Madison,  Wis.,  Mr.  Stone 
testifies  as  follows : 

Q.  Now,  Mr.  Stone,  give  me  another  name  there  on  that  list. 

Mr.  Stone  had  already  stated  that  he  had  in  his  hand  a list  of  the 
persons  to  whom  he  paid  portions  of  the  $2,500. 

A.  George  L.  Kingsley. 

Q.  Where  does  he  live? — A.  At  La  Crosse. 

Q.  What  county? — A.  La  Crosse  County. 

Q.  And  how  long  has  he  been  on  the  force? — A.  Well,  now,  really  I couldn’t  say. 
He  has  been  on  some  time. 

Q.  How  much  did  you  give  him? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  page  is  the  chairman  reading  from  ? 

The  Chairman.  I am  reading  from  page  1770: 

Q.  How  much  did  you  give  him? — A.  I can’t  tell  you  the  exact  amount. 

Q.  As  near  as  you  can  remember. — A.  Well,  something  over  $200. 

Is  that  true?  Did  he  give  you  something  over  $200. 

Mr.  Kingsley.  No,  sir;  he  did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  give  you  any  money  at  all  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  No,  sir;  he  did  not. 

The  Chairman  (reading) : 

Q.  Have  you  ever  asked  him  how  much  it  was? — A.  No 
Q.  He  would  know,  wouldn’t  he? — A.  I think  so. 

Q.  You  paid  him  in  Madison,  did  you? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Cash? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Out  of  this  same  money? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Have  you  anything  more  definite  as  to  the  time  when  you  paid  him  and  the 
amount  you  paid  him  than  you  have  with  reference  to  Sholts? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Now,  you  say  about  200.  What  is  your  impression,  whether  it  was  more  or  less 
than  200  that  you  gave  him?— A.  Why,  I think  it  was  over  200. 

Q.  You  can’t  tell  how  much  more? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  made  an  entry  of  it  in  your  book? — A.  Yes;  I did  at  that  time. 

Q.  And  he  was  to  do  the  same  work  that  the  other  wardens  did? — A.  Yes,  sir. 
Q.  In  that  district?— A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Do  you  know  whether  he  did  the  work  or  not? — A.  I do  not. 

Q.  Nor  whether  he  spent  the  money  or  not? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  You  never  asked  him — A.  No,  sir. 

By  Senator  Husting: 

Q.  You  say  “ over  200.  ” Do  you  mean  about  300  or  225? — -A.  Well,  I can’t  tell  you 
the  exact  amount. 

Q.  Well,  do  you  mean  approximately  200? — A.  Yes,  sir,  something  like  that. 
Q.  It  couldn’t  have  been  very  much  over  200? — A.  Why,  I don’t  think  so. 

Senator  Morris.  I would  like  to  ask  you  a question.  Is  Mr.  Kingsley  one  of  the 
men  to  whom  you  sent  that  circular  letter? — A.  No,  sir;  I don’t  think  so. 

I have  read  you  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Stone — not  that  leading  up 
to  this  question,  but  from  the  time  the  question  was  reached  as  to 
his  paying  you  money.  Is  the  statement  made  by  Mr.  Stone,  as 
I have  read  it  to  you,  true? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Is  any  part  of  it  true? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  receive  any  money,  at  any  time  during 
that  campaign,  from  Mr.  Stone  for  any  purpose  ? 

15235°— vol  1—11 37 


578 


G.  L.  KINGSLEY. 


Mr.  Kingsley.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  work  for  Mr.  Stephenson  for  the  United 
States  Senate,  or  the  nomination  for  Senator  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  No,  sir;  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  help  to  raise  any  money  to  create  a fund 
to  promote  the  election  of  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  One  moment,  if  the  chairman  pleases,  I very 
seriously  and  very  earnestly  object  to  that  question. 

The  Chairman.  Counsel  will  state  the  grounds  of  objection. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  I will.  In  the  first  place,  there  is  no  charge 
here  that  relates  to  ex-Gov.  Davidson. 

Mr.  Black.  The  question  relates  to  Senator  Stephenson. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Oh,  I beg  pardon.  I thought  it  was  ex-Gov. 
Davidson. 

The  Chairman.  No  ; Senator  Stephenson. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  all  right.  I have  no  objection. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  participate  in  raising  such  a fund  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I did  not  quite  understand  the  question. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  participate  in  raising  or  contribute  to  a 
fund  being  raised  for  the  purpose  of  assisting  or  promoting  the  nomi- 
nation of  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  The  Senator  was  referring  to  an  item  of  $50  paid 
to  Frank  Brown.  Did  you  pay  Frank  Brown  $50  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  That  was  for  a campaign  fund  for  Gov.  Davidson. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  it  was  not  for  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  No,  sir;  it  was  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  was  the  subject  I was  going  to  object  to 
going  into. 

The  Chairman.  I have  that  before  me  here.  That  is  all  I have 
to  ask. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  I understand  you  to  say,  Mr.  Kingsley, 
that  at  this  meeting  at  Mr.  Stone’s  house  you  did  agree  to  assume  the 
$200,  or  whatever  it  was  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  If  I remember  right,  we  agreed  to  assume  that, 
with  the  understanding  that  we  would  not  be  put  on  the  stand.  That 
is  my  recollection. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is,  you  agreed  that  Mr.  Stone  might 
state  to  the  investigating  committee  that  he  had  paid  you  $200  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I did  not  understand  your  question. 

(The  reporter  read  aloud  the  pending  question.) 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I do  not  know  that  I can  remember  that  now.  I 
think  we  agreed  to  assume  that,  with  that  understanding.  That  is 
as  near  as  my  memory 

Senator  Sutherland.  With  what  understanding? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  With  the  understanding  that  we  would  not  be  put 
on  the  stand. 

Senator  Sutherland.  How  was  your  agreeing  to  assume  it  to  in 
any  manner  serve  Mr.  Stone’s  purpose  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  He  had  to  account  for  some  money. 

Senator  Sutherland.  He  had  to  account  where? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I suppose  to  the  committee. 


G.  L.  KINGSLEY. 


579 


Senator  Sutherland.  To  the  investigating  committee  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I think  so. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is,  he  had  to  state  to  the  investigating 
committee  that  he  had  paid  out  this  $2,500  to  you  and  to  others  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  There  was  a certain  part  of  it;  I do  not  know 
whether  it  was  $2,500  or  not.  I do  not  know  how  much  he  had  to 
account  for. 

Senator  Sutherland.  He  had  to  state  that  a part  of  it  had  been 
paid  to  you  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  There  was  a certain  amount  of  it  that  he  had  to 
account  for. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  he  had  to  state  that  a part  of  it  had 
been  paid  to  you  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  agree  that  he  might  state  that  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  No  more  than  what  I have  said  in  regard  to  assum- 
ing that. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  understand  that  he  was  going  to 
state  it  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I could  not  say  whether  I understood  that  or  not. 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  use  did  you  understand  he  was  going 
to  make  of  that  assumption  upon  your  part  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I think  that  was  the  understanding — that  we  were 
to  assume  that.  Whether  he  was 

Senator  Sutherland.  How  was  that  to  help  Stone  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Why,  to  account  for  this  amount  of  money. 

Senator  Sutherland.  To  account  to  whom  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I suppose  to  the  committee. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Then  he  was  going  to  state  to  the  committee 
that  he  had  paid  you  $200  out  of  it  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I think  so ; yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  you  understood  that  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Why 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  or  did  you  not  understand  that  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I think  we  did. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  understand  it  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I think  I did. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Can  you  not  state  any  more  clearly  than 
that  ? Do  you  not  know  whether  you  did  or  not  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Well,  just  now,  the  exact  conversation  that 
occurred  at  that  time — it  is  so  long  ago  that  I can  not. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I am  not  asking  you  for  the  conversation. 
What  did  you  understand  about  it  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Just  what  I stated — that  he  wanted  us  to  assume 
this  amount  of  money. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  did  you  or  did  you  not  understand 
that  he  intended  to  state  to  the  legislative  investigating  committee 
that  he  had  paid  you  the  $200  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I think  we  understood  that. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Mr.  Kingsley,  just  answer  my  question. 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  understand  that  he  intended  to 
make  that  statement  to  the  legislative  investigating  committee  ? 


580 


G.  L.  KINGSLEY. 


Mr.  Kingsley.  Well,  I do  not  know  that  I could  state  definitely 
now  whether  I understood  that  he  was  to  testify  to  that  fact  before 
that  committee  or  that  he  had  to  account  for  this  money,  and  we 
agreed  to  assume  that  amount. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Let  us  go  back  again:  You  knew  that  he 
had  some  purpose  in  having  you  assume  the  $200  payment? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  was  that  purpose,  as  you  understood  it  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  The  way  I understood  it,  just  as  I said,  was  that 
he  had  to  account  for  a certain  amount  of  money.  I do  not  know 
how  much  it  was ; but  he  had  to  account  for  that ; and  he  wanted  us 
to  assume  that,  with  the  understanding  that  we  would  not  be  put 
on  the  stand. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  understood  that  he  had  to  account  to 
this  joint  investigating  committee  for  that  amount  of  money? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I think  it  was  to  the  committee  that  he  had  to 
account.  If  I remember  right,  they  were  in  session  at  the  time. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  you  understood  that,  in  making  the 
account,  he  would  have  to  make  a statement  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Now,  I [The  witness  hesitated.] 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  know  whether  you  did  or  not? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I think  I understood  that  he  was  going  to  testify 
to  that  fact. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Before  the  investigating  committee? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I think  so. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  you  knew  that  he  was  going  to  make  a 
false  statement  of  fact  about  it,  then? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I can  not  exactly  remember  the  conversation  as  it 
occurred  there,  just  word  for  word. 

Senator  Sutherland.  No,  no.  You  knew  he  was  going  to  make 
the  statement  before  the  investigating  committee,  that  he  had  paid 
you  $200,  did  you  not? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I think  I did. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  you  knew  that  the  statement  was  false  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I certainly  did. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  you  were  willing  to  agree  that  he  should 
make  a false  statement,  provided  you  were  not  called  upon  to  sub- 
stantiate it.  Is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  No;  I do  not  know  whether  that  was  the  exact 
agreement  on  our  part  or  not. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Were  you  present  when  he  tesified? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  No,  sir;  I was  not. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  hear  about  his  testimony  before 
the  committee? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  No,  sir;  I did  not  pay  any  attention  to  it. 

Senator  Sutherland.  When  did  you  first  learn  that  he  had  said 
before  the  investigating  committee  that  he  had  paid  you  $200? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I do  not  now  remember  what  day  it  was.  I saw 
in  the  newspaper,  that  he  had  testified  that  he  gave  me  that  money. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  do  anything  about  it? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I went  before  the  committee  when  they  sub- 
poenaed me,  and  testified  that  he  did  not. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  did  not  go  before  the  committee  until 
you  were  subpoenaed  ? 


G.  L.  KINGSLEY. 


581 


Mr.  Kingsley.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  were  content  to  let  that  false  statement 
stand  before  the  committee 

Mr.  Kingsley.  No,  sir;  I did  not  intend  to  let  it  stand. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I did  not  finish  my  question.  You  were 
content  to  let  the  false  statement  stand  before  the  committee  until 
they  compelled  you  to  come  before  them  ? Is  not  that  true  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I do  not  think  it  was.  The  subpoena  was  issued 
right  away  afterward. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  did  not  volunteer  to  go  before  them? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Did  I volunteer? 

Senator  Sutherland.  Yes. 

Mr.  Kingsley.  No,  sir;  I did  not. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Then,  until  the  subpoena  was  served  upon 
you,  you  were  content  to  let  the  statement  stand,  were  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I do  not  know  just  how  you  mean. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  were  willing  to  let  it  stand  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I do  not  know  whether — I do  not  know  how  to 
answer  that  question. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Would  you  voluntarily  ever  have  gone 
before  the  committee? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  If  I had  not  been  subpoenaed  ? 

Senator  Sutherland.  Yes. 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I think  I would. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Why  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Because  I would  not  want  anybody  to  state  that 
he  gave  me  that  money  when  he  did  not. 

Senator  Sutherland.  But  you  had  agreed,  in  advance,  that  he 
might  state  it,  had  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  That  happened  so  long  ago  that  I can  not  remember 
the  exact  facts. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Pomerene.  This  meeting  was  in  Madison,  was  it  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  With  Mr.  Stone,  the  game  warden,  and  these 
other  gentlemen  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  the  legislative  committee  was  in  session 
at  that  time,  was  it  ? 

Mr.  Kinjgsley.  My  impression  is  that  it  was,  at  that  time. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Was  it  the  joint  committee,  or  the  committee 
from  the  Senate  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I think  it  was  the  joint  committee. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I think  that  is  all. 

The  Chairman.  Just  a moment.  I want  these  dates  to  appear  in 
the  record  at  this  point.  The  record  will  show  that  Mr.  Stone  was 
testifying  on  April  2,  and  this  witness  testified  on  April  10. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  the  chronology  of  the  events. 

The  Chairman.  I make  the  statement  merely  to  show  the  lapse  of 
time. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Eight  days  intervened. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  was  in  1909. 


582 


G.  L.  KINGSLEY. 


The  Chairman.  Yes.  April  2 and  April  10;  and,  in  the  meantime, 
a number  of  other  witnesses,  Bowman  and  Lowe,  other  game  wardens, 
and  Wheeler  and  Stone  himself  were  on  the  stand. 

Senator  Pomerene.  How  much  time  had  intervened  between  the 
date  of  your  conference  with  Stone  and  the  date  when  you  were 
called  to  testify  before  the  committee  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I could  not  tell  that. 

Senator  Pomerene.  About  how  long  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I could  not  give  you  any  time  at  all.  I do  not 
remember. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  have  stated  that  you  saw  in  the  news- 
papers that  he  had  testified  to  the  fact  of  his  giving  you  from  $200 
to  $250,  or  thereabouts — I do  not  name  the  exact  amount.  How 
soon  did  you  see  that  after  you  had  had  this  conference  ? 

Mfr*.  Kingsley.  I could  not  testify  to  that  from  my  knowledge. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Was  it  a matter  of  several  days? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I could  not  say  as  to  that.  I do  not  remember. 

The  Chairman.  It  was  less  than  a week,  was  it,  or  about  a week? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I could  not  state  definitely.  I do  not  remember. 

The  Chairman.  Those  things  can  all  be  gathered  from  the  record — 
the  date  of  the  testimony,  and  the  date  of  the  adjournment  at  the 
request  of  Mr.  Stone,  during  which  adjournment  this  meeting  was 
held;  they  are  all  matters  of  record. 

You  may  take  the  witness,  gentlemen. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  knew  that  this  statement  that  Mr.  Stone 
was  to  make  before  this  joint  investigating  committee  was  to  be  a 
statement  on  oath,  did  you  not?  Or  do  you  not  know  enough 
about  it  to  know  whether  you  did  or  not? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Why,  I did  not — in  fact,  I don’t  know  whether  I 
did  or  not  at  that  time. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  he  not  say  that  he  expected  he  would  have 
to  testify  before  the  committee  ? Have  you  not  already  sworn  to 
that,  right  here  on  the  stand  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I think  he  did  say  that. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  do  you  understand  to  be  the  meaning  of 
the  word  “ testify”?  To  make  a statement  on  oath  or  otherwise? 
What  do  you  say  about  that  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  That  word  was  not  mentioned,  I think. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  have  mentioned  it  here. 

Mr.  Kingsley.  You  mean  “ testify”  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes.  You  have  already  stated  here  that  Mr. 
Stone  said  that  he  expected  he  would  have  to  testify.  Do  you  want 
to  withdraw  that  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  He  said  he  might  be  called  on  to  account  for  this 
money. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Have  you  not,  in  substance,  already  stated,  right 
here  on  the  stand,  that  Mr.  Stone  told  you,  at  that  time,  that  he 
expected  to  be  called  as  a witness  ? Have  you  not  said  that  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I think  I did. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  withdraw  it?  Now.  think  it  over.  Do 
you  withdraw  it  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I do  not  understand  just  what  you  mean. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I have  asked  if  you  have  not  already  stated  here 
that  Stone  told  you  that  he  expected  he  would  have  to  testify.  You 


G.  L.  KINGSLEY. 


583 


say  you  have  stated  that.  You  do  not  withdraw  the  statement,  do 
you  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I think  Mr.  Stone  said  that  he  had  to  account  for  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  He  did  not  say  that  he  had  to  testify,  did  he  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I do  not  think  he  did. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  withdraw  the  statement  that  you  just 
made  before  the  committee  that  he  did  say  that  he  had  to  testify,  or 
did  you  quite  know  what  you  were  talking  about  when  you  said  that  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I do  not  know  that  I understood  that  part  of  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  know  what  the  word  “ testify  ” means  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I think  I do. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  does  it  mean  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  That  a man  has  to  testify  to  the  truth. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  On  what  ? On  oath  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  On  oath. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  testify  now,  before  the  committee,  that 
you  do  not  know  that  Mr.  Stone  was  arranging  for  his  testimony  before 
that  joint  committee?  Do  you  swear  to  that?  [The  witness  hesi- 
tated.] The  question  is  whether  you  do  not  know  that  at  that  time 
Mr.  Stone  was  arranging  for  his  testimony  before  the  joint  committee  ? 
What  do  you  say  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I do  not  know  whether  Mr.  Stone  had  been  sub- 
poenaed at  that  time. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  But  I ask  you  again  if  you  do  not  know  that  at 
that  time,  when  you  had  this  conference  in  Mr.  Stone’s  house,  to  which 
you  have  testified  here,  Mr.  Stone  was  arranging  for  his  testimony 
before  the  joint  committee.  Do  you  not  know  that,  or  do  you  say 
that  you  do  not  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I do  not  think  I know  that  to  be  a fact. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  do  not? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  It  might  be  that  was  what  he  was  arranging  for; 
but  to  say  that,  I do  not  think  I know. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  does  it  happen,  then,  that  when  you  agreed 
with  him  that  you  would  assume  responsibility  for  the  receipt  of  $200, 
as  you  have  stated  here,  you  made  the  agreement  with  the  under- 
standing that  you  would  not  be  called  on  to  testify,  if  you  did  not 
know  that  Mr.  Stone  was  arranging  for  his  testimony  ? How  did  you 
happen  to  make  that  statement  providing  that  you  would  not  be 
called  on  to  testify  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I understand  now  what  you  mean. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Then  answer  my  question. 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I think  that  is  what  he  was  arranging  for. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  do  not  have  any  doubt  about  it,  do  you, 
sitting  right  where  you  are  now  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I think  that  is  what  he  was  arranging  for. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  know  it,  do  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I think  so. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  It  is  not  a question  of  thinking.  You  know  it, 
do  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I think  so. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  With  that  knowledge,  you  were  conspiring  with 
Mr.  Stone  to  enable  him  to  give  false  testimony,  were  you  not?  Do 
you  not  know  that?  Or  does  not  your  intelligence  go  that  far? 


584 


G.  L.  KINGSLEY. 


Mr.  Kingsley.  I do  not 

Mr.  Littlefield  (interrupting).  You  do  not  know  whether  you 
were  conspiring  with  Mr.  Stone,  to  enable  Mr.  Stone  to  give  false 
testimony  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  The  agreement  was  that  we  would  assume  that 
money,  with  the  understanding  that  we  would  not  be  put  on  the 
stand. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  understand  the  question  that  I am  ask- 
ing you?  Do  you  know  what  “ conspire”  means? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I think  I do. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I ask  whether,  with  knowledge  that  Mr.  Stone 
was  to  testify,  you  were  not,  on  that  occasion,  conspiring  with  him 
to  enable  him  to  testify  falsely?  Do  you  understand  the  question? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Then  answer  it. 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I suppose  that  is  what  you  would  call  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes.  You  were  conspiring  with  him  to  enable 
him  to  commit  perjury,  were  you  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  How  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Kingsley.  He  asked  us  to  assume  that. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Answer  that  question:  Were  you  conspiring 
with  Mr.  Stone  to  enable  him  to  commit  perjury  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I did  not  think  that  I was  conspiring  with  him  to 
make  him  commit  perj  ury . 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  thought  you  were  conspiring  with  him  to 
enable  him  to  testify  falsely,  did  you  not? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  That  might  be. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Might  be?  You  did,  did  you  not?  Do  you 
not  know  that  ? Do  you  sit  there  and  say  you  do  not  know  that  ? 
What  do  you  say  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  That  might  be  true. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  not  know  it  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I do  not  think  I thought  of  that  for  the  time  being. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  did  not? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I do  not  think  so. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  It  did  not  occur  to  you  that  you  were  con- 
spiring to  enable  him  to  testify  falsely? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  No,  sir;  I do  not  think  it  did. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  But  it  did  occur  to  you  to  put  in  a stipulation 
that  you  would  not  be  required  to  testify,  did  it? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  How  is  that  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  When  you  made  your  agreement  that  you  would 
assume  $200  or  $225,  or  whatever  the  amount  was,  it  did  occur  to 
you  to  put  in  a stipulation  that  you  would  not  be  required  to 
testify?  It  did  occur  to  you  to  do  that? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I did  not  do  it.  That  was  the  understanding. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  say  that  you  did  not  put  in  that  stipula- 
tion, do  you  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  That  I put  in  the  stipulation  that  I would  not  be 
put  on  the  stand  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes,  sir. 


G.  L.  KINGSLEY.  585 

Mr.  Kingsley.  The  remark  was  made  right  there  that  we  would 
not  have  to  go  on  the  stand. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  say  that  you  did  not  make  it  a condition, 
when  you  agreed  with  Mr.  Stone  to  assume  the  $200  or  $225,  that  you 
would  not  be  called  on  to  testify  ? Did  you  not  make  that  a condition  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I guess  it  would  be  a condition. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Why  did  you  make  that  condition?  Was  it  not 
because  you  knew  that  if  you  did  testify  to  that  fact,  you  would  com- 
mit perjury  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I did  not  intend  to  testify  to  that  fact. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  No;  but  is  it  not  because  you  knew  that,  if  you 
did  testify  to  that  fact,  you  would  commit  perjury? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  That  if  I did  testify  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes.  You  knew  that,  did  you  not? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  then  you  knew  that  if  Mr.  Stone  testified 
to  it,  as  you  expected  he  would,  he  would  commit  perjury,  did 
you  not? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Exactly.  And  having  made  these  admissions, 
do  you  now  say  that  you  did  not  conspire  with  Mr.  Stone  to  enable  him 
to  commit  perjury?  What  do  you  say  to  that,  Mr.  Kingsley? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I suppose  that  is  so. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  I guess  it  is  so.  You  say  here,  this  morn- 
ing, in  answer  to  the  chairman’s  question  when  he  read  from  the 
record,  that  the  statements  that  he  read  from  Mr.  Stone’s  testimony 
were  all  false  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  do  say  that? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Are  you  quite  certain  you  noticed  the  signifi- 
cance of  that  question  when  you  answered  it  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  That  he  gave  me  that  money  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  No  ; but  the  record  that  was  read  to  you  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  said  it  was  all  false;  that  all  of  his  state- 
ments were  false  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  That  he  gave  me  that  money  ? It  is  false. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  No.  Here  is  the  statement  that  the  chairman 
read  to  you,  and  I want  to  ask  if  that  is  false. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  is  the  page  to  which  you  are  about  to 
refer,  Mr.  Littlefield,  so  that  I can  follow  it  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Page  1771  (reading): 

Senator  Morris.  I would  like  to  ask  you  a question:  Is  Mr.  Kingsley  one  of  the 
men  to  whom  you  sent  that  circular  letter? — A.  No,  sir;  I don’t  think  so. 

Is  that  false  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I do  not  know  what  circular  letter  he  has  refer- 
ence to. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  do  not  know  whether  it  is  true  or  false, 
do  you  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I do  not  know  anything  about  that  circular  letter. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I ask  you  that  question.  He  says,  in  answer 
to  that,  that  you  were  not  one  of  the  men  to  whom  he  sent  the  cir- 
cular letter.  Is  that  true  or  false  ? 


586 


G.  L.  KINGSLEY. 


Mr.  Kingsley.  I could  not  say.  I do  not  know. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  do  not  know  anything  about  that? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  About  that  circular  letter  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes.  When  you  answered  the  Senator  that  all 
of  Mr.  Stone’s  statements  were  false,  you  answered  inadvertently,  I 
take  it,  because  it  was  in  the  question  that  was  asked  you.  Is  that 
right? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I do  not  understand  that  question. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  When  you  answered  that  every  statement 
that  was  read  to  you  by  the  Senator  from  the  record  was  false,  this 
was  included  in  it;  and  when  you  said  that  it  was  all  false,  I suppose 
it  was  an  inadvertence,  and  you  did  not  notice  the  statement  to  which 
I have  just  called  your  attention? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  What  I meant  by  that  was  in  regard  to  the  money. 
I did  not  notice  that  about  the  circular  letter. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  did  not  intend  to  include  anything  else? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  know  that  you  were  to  be  sub- 
poenaed before  the  subpoena  was  served  upon  you  to  appear  before 
the  legislative  committee  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I could  not  say  as  to  that,  Senator.  I do  not 
remember. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Had  you  heard  that  you  were  going  to  be 
subpoenaed  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Yes;  I think  I had  heard  that  the  subpoena  was 
going  to  be  issued. 

Senator  Sutherland.  How  long  before  the  subpoena  was  served 
had  you  heard  that  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  It  must  have  been  a day  or  two,  or  something  like 
that,  maybe. 

Senator  Sutherland.  From  whom  did  you  hear  it  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I do  not  remember  now  whom  I heard  it  from; 
in  a roundabout  way,  somewhere. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  hear  it  from  any  person  that  you 
now  recall  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Had  there  been  any  talk  about  this  state- 
ment of  Mr.  Stone’s  that  he  had  paid  you  $200  or  $250,  or  whatever 
it  was  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Had  there  been  any  talk? 

Senator  Sutherland.  Had  there  been  any  talk  about  it — any 
gossip  about  it  anywhere  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Oh,  yes;  it  was  talked  about.  You  could  hear  it 
on  the  streets  everywhere. 

Senator  Sutherland.  The  matter  was  being  talked  about  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Gossip  came  to  your  ears,  did  it  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  make  any  statement  about  it 
when  you  heard  this  gossip  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I can  not  call  that  to  mind  now,  Senator. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  different  people  tell  you  that  this 
statement  had  been  made  ? 


G.  L.  KINGSLEY.  587 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Oh,  yes.  I was  approached  by  people  who  asked 
that — friends  of  mine. 

Senator  Sutherland.  They  came  to  you  and  told  you  that  Stone 
had  made  this  statement,  about  the  payment  of  $200  to  you  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  did  you  say  to  them? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I told  them  that  I did  not  get  it. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  told  them  that  you  did  not  get  it? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  tell  them  anything  about  this 
agreement  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  just  simply  said  that  you  did  not  get  it  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  you  remember  anybody  in  particular 
to  whom  you  talked  about  it  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  That  I talked  to  ? 

Senator  Sutherland.  Yes. 

Mr.  Kingsley.  No,  I do  not. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  go  to  anybody  in  connection  with 
the  investigation  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  No,  sir,  I did  not. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  go  to  any  member  of  the  legis- 
lature ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  suggest  to  anybody  that  you  should 
be  called  as  a witness? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I do  not  think  so.  I have  no  recollection  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  You  heard  about  Mr.  Stone’s  testimony  either  the 
day  he  gave  it  or  the  next  day,  did  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I could  not  state  exactly  about  it.  It  may  have 
been  the  next  day  or  it  may  have  been  two  days  after. 

The  Chairman.  When  you  heard  about  it,  you  denounced  the 
statement  as  untrue? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  denounced  it  to  a number  of  your  friends  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I do  not  know  how  many,  but  parties  that  talked 
to  me  about  it. 

The  Chairman.  Your  statements  were  responsible  for  the  matter 
being  further  investigated,  were  they  not  ? In  other  words,  you  put 
your  friends  in  possession  of  the  knowledge  that  the  statements  that 
Stone  made  were  not  true,  did  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I told  some  of  my  friends  that  it  was  not  true, 
when  they  asked  me  the  question. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  reason  did  you  have  for  doing  that, 
Mr.  Kingsley? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  What  reason  ? 

Senator  Sutherland.  Yes;  why  did  you  state  to  your  friends  that 
the  statement  that  Stone  had  made  was  not  true  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I did  not  get  the  money,  and  there  was  no  use  in 
saying  I did  get  it,  when  I did  not. 

Senator  Sutherland.  But  why  did  you  state  to  them  that  you 
did  not  ? 


588 


G.  L.  KINGSLEY. 


Mr.  Kingsley.  I wanted  them  to  know  the  truth. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  evidently  agreed  with  Stone  that  he 
might  make  the  statement.  You  understood  that  he  was  going  to 
make  the  statement.  Why  did  you  not  object  before? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is,  why  did  you  not  repent  earlier  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  That  is  something  I do  not  know. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Why  did  you  not  tell  Mr.  Stone  that  you 
would  not  stand  for  such  a thing  as  that  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I do  not  think  I fully  realized  at  that  time  just 
what  it  meant,  until  after  it  was  over  with. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  tell  anybody,  before  you  went  on  the 
stand,  about  this  talk  with  Stone  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Did  I tell  anybody  ? 

Senator  Pomerene.  Yes. 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Do  you  mean  in  regard  to  what  occurred  there  ? 
Senator  Pomerene.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Kingsley.  No,  sir;  I did  not. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  told  no  member  of  the  committee  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  No  official  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  No  friend  or  assistant  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I mean,  assistant  in  the  investigation. 

Mr.  Kingsley.  That  is,  anything  of  what  I heard  there  ? 

Senator  Pomerene.  Yes.  You  have  testified  that  there  was  a 
meeting  at  which  four  or  five  of  you  met  Mr.  Stone  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  some  arrangement  was  made  to  aid  him 
in  accounting  for  this  money  that  he  received.  Before  you  testified 
on  the  stand,  did  you  talk  with  anyone  about  what  had  occurred  at 
that  meeting  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Not  any  more  than  to  say  I did  not  get  the  money. 
Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  to  say,  you  did  not  disclose  to  anybody, 

Erior  to  your  becoming  a witness  on  oath  yourself,  that  there  had 
een  what  is  known  as  the  “frame  up.’’  You  know  what  I mean  by 
that  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  did  not  disclose  to  anybody,  before  you 
testified  on  the  stand,  that  there  was  what  is  known  as  the  “frameup” 
in  Stone’s  house,  before  Stone  testified  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I did  not — any  more  than  to  say  that  I did  not 
get  the  two  hundred 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  does  not  relate  to  it.  That  does  not  refer 
to  the  “frame  up”  at  all,  does  it? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I do  not  know  that  it  does. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  know  it  does  not  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Why  do  you  say  you  did  not,  any  more  than  to 
say  that  you  did  not  get  the  money?  You  know  that  that  does  not 
refer  to  the  “frame  up.” 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  does  counsel  mean  by  the  “frame  up  ?” 
Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  what  is  alluded  to  in  a “scare  head” 
by  the  joint  committee,  in  connection  with  this  arrangement  made  in 


G.  L.  KINGSLEY. 


589 


Mr.  Stone’s  house.  It  is  designated  by  the  committee  as  a ‘ frame 
up.”  Making  no  reflection  upon  the  committee,  I think  every  citi- 
zen of  Wisconsin  who  is  familiar  with  the  public  history  of  the  times 
knows  it  as  the  “ frame  up.”  That  is  why  I referred  to  it  in  that  way. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I was  wondering  whether  the  witness  under- 
stood exactly  what  you  meant. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  witness  knows.  [To  the  witness:]  You 
know  what  I mean,  when  I refer  to  the  “frame  up”  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  So  that,  so  far  as  you  and  I are  concerned,  our 
language  is  perfectly  intelligible  as  between  us  when  I refer  to  the 
“frame  up”? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I suppose  you  read  the  report  of  this  investi- 
gation in  the  newspapers,  did  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I probably  read  a little  of  it;  not  very  much.  I 
did  not  read  it  all. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  read  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Stone  in 
the  newspapers  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I might  have  read  some  parts  of  it.  I did  not 
read  it  all. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  read  the  part  that  related  to  a man 
named  Kingsley  and  an  alleged  $200  that  one  Kingsley  was  supposed 
to  receive  ? Did  you  read  that  in  the  newspapers  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I think  I did. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  read  it  the  morning  when  it  was  pub- 
lished, or  did  you  just  get  a file  of  newspapers  somewhere,  that 
drifted  into  your  hands,  incidentally  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I probably  read  it  the  next  day. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  not  know  that  you  did? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I can  not  say  positively.  I do  not  know  that  I 
was  home  the  next  day  after  he  testified. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  not  read  the  newspapers  when  you  are 
away  from  home  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Generally  I do,  when  I can  get  them. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  ordinarily  have  the  price  of  a newspaper 
with  you,  have  you  not? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I fihink  so. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Newspapers  circulate  in  almost  all  parts  of 
Wisconsin,  do  they  not  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  But  I might  have  been  out  somewhere  in  the  bot- 
toms, where  I would  not  have  a chance  to  see  the  newspapers. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Oh,  I see.  The  morning  when  this  newspaper 
came  out  you  might  have  been  out  in  the  bottoms  somewhere 
engaged  in  this  game-warden  service  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I was  at  that  time. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  On  a per  diem  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Your  expenses  being  paid? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  So  that  you  might  have  been  out  in  the  bottoms 
and  not  have  gotten  the  paper  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I might  have  been  home.  I do  not  remember. 


590 


G.  L».  KINGSLEY. 


Mr.  Littlefield.  Have  you  any  doubt  that  you  read  that  state- 
ment of  Mr.  Stone’s,  so  far  as  it  related  to  you,  when  it  came  out  in 
the  newspaper,  the  first  time  it  came  out? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Have  I any  doubt  whether  I read  it? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes. 

Mr.  Kingsley.  No  ; I have  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  not  know  that  you  read  it  the  morning 
it  came  out? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I could  not  say  exactly  whether  I did  or  did  not. 
I might  have  read  it  that  day  or  the  next  day. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Have  you  any  doubt  about  it,  Mr.  Kingsley? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I read  about  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Have  you  any  doubt  you  read  it  the  first  day  it 
came  out? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I could  not  say  when  I read  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  could  not  say? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  No. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  the  effort  you  made  to  rehabilitate  your- 
self was  to  simply  tell  your  friends  that  you  did  not  get  the  money? 
That  was  all,  was  it  not — that  is,  if  what  you  said  is  true,  that  the 
only  effort  you  made  to  rehabilitate  yourself  was  to  tell  your  friends 
that  you  did  not  get  the  money  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I told  them  that. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  all  you  did  tell  them? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  did  not  make  any  reference  to  the  “ frame 
up,”  you  say? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  wish  the  committee  to  understand  that 
you  were  very  earnest  and  insistent  that  these  facts  connected  with 
the  “ frame  up”  should  be  disclosed  before  the  joint  investigating 
committee  ? Do  you  wish  them  to  understand  that  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I do  not  understand  your  question. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  wish  the  committee  to  understand  that 
you  were  anxious  to  have  the  information  in  relation  to  that  ‘ ‘ frame  up  ’ ’ 
conveyed  to  the  joint  investigating  committee  of  the  Wisconsin  Legis- 
lature ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I was  ready  to  testify  to  that  fact. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  understand  the  question  I asked  you? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I think  I do. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  If  you  do,  please  be  kind  enough  to  answer  it. 
I ask  if  you  were  anxious.  Do  you  know  what  that  word  means  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I ask  you,  now,  if  you  were  anxious  that  the 
Wisconsin  legislative  committee  should  have  the  knowledge  in  rela- 
tion to  that  “ frame  up”  ? Were  you  or  were  you  not;  or  do  you  not 
know? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Yes;  I was. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Then,  if  you  were,  why  did  you  not  tell  some- 
body about  it  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  It  had  already  been  told. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  It  had  already  been  developed  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Yes,  sir. 


G.  L.  KINGSLEY. 


591 


Mr.  Littlefield.  In  testimony  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I do  not  know  whether  it  was  in  testimony.  I 
understand  that  one  of  the  Senators  had  the  information. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  were  anxious  to  give  the  information,  and 
the  reason  you  did  not  carry  out  that  anxiety  was  because  they  had 
already  been  told.  Is  that  it  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  When  did  you  first  learn  that  they  had  been 
told?  Was  it  before  you  testified? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Who  told  you  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I was  told  by  Senator  Morris. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  He  told  you  that  they  knew  all  about  it  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  tell  him  that  you  knew  all  about  it  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I did  not  say  one  way  or  the  other.  He  told  me 
that  the  committee  knew  all  about  the  meeting  and  the  whole  busi- 
ness. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is,  before  you  testified  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  he  ask  you  if  you  knew  anything  about  the 
meeting  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  All  I said  was,  “Is  that  so?” 

Mr.  Littlefield.  He  did  not  ask  if  you  knew  anything  about  that  ? 

Senator  Pomerene.  Who  was  this,  who  said  he  knew  all  about  it? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Senator  Morris,  one  of  the  members  of  the  inves- 
tigating committee;  a member  on  the  part  of  the  senate.  Senator 
Marsh,  Senator  Morris,  and  Senator  Husting  were  the  three  senate 
members. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Thank  you.  I missed  that  in  your  question. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I want  to  ask  you  one  more  question.  This  tes- 
timony that  you  gave  and  these  acts  that  you  performed  in  connec- 
tion with  the  “frameup”  were  all  in  the  city  of  Madison? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Have  you  ever  been  prosecuted  for  conspiring  to 
commit  perjury? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  LrrTLEFiELD.  Have  any  of  the  other  distinguished  gentlemen 
who  were  present  on  the  occasion  of  that  “frame  up”  been  prosecuted 
for  conspiring  to  commit  perjury? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Not  that  I know  of. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  know  the  name  of  the  district  attorney 
of  that  county  in  January  and  February,  1909  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  I do  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  do  not  know  who  it  was  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  know  whether  he  lives  in  the  city  of 
Madison? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  That  I could  not  say. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Mr.  Kingsley,  do  you  remember  testifying 
before  the  legislative  committee  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Yes,  sir. 


592 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE. 


Senator  Sutherland.  Do  you  remember  giving  this  testimony: 

By  Mr.  Bray:  Q.  I suppose  after  this  meeting  it  was  understood  that  nothing  was 
to  be  said  about  that  meeting  at  Stone’s  house,  wasn’t  it? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

You  testified  to  that,  did  you  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  it  was  true  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland  (reading): 

Q.  When  did  you  first  hear  about  it  after  that? — A.  Well,  in  what  way  do  you 
mean,  Mr.  Bray? 

Q.  How  did  the  story  get  out? — A.  Why,  I was  subpoenaed,  and  told  to  come  to 
Madison;  and  I came  here  on  a Thursday  night,  if  I remember  right.  I reported  to  the 
chairman  of  the  committee,  and  I met  Senator  Morris  on  the  stairway.  I shook  hands 
with  him,  and  walked  up  in  his  office  and  sat  down,  and  he  told  me  that  they  knew  all 
about  it. 

Mr.  Hambrecht.  Q.  Knew  all  about  what? — A.  Knew  all  about  the  meeting,  and 
I didn’t  say  anything.  He  said — I don’t  know  just  exactly  how  he  said  it — but  “A 
ceitain  party  has  told  the  whole  business.” 

Q.  In  other  words,  you  didn’t  tell  it? — A.  No,  sir;  I didn’t.  I want  it  distinctly 
understood  I didn’t  tell. 

Mr.  Hambrecht.  Q.  Do  you  know  who  did  tell?  Did  Senator  Morris  say  who  told 
him? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Who  was  it? — A.  I would  rather  have  Senator  Morris  tell  that,  unless  I am  com- 
pelled to  answer  it. 

Q.  I would  like  to  have  you  answer  it. — A.  He  said  Mr.  Richtman  told  about  it. 

Q.  Why  didn’t  you  want  to  tell  about  it? — A.  Nobody  had  asked  me  to  tell  about  it. 

Q.  Did  you  think  that  was  a proper  thing  to  do? — A.  I don’t  understand  now  what 
you  mean. 

Q.  Did  you  think  that  was  a proper  thing  to  do,  to  keep  silent  when  Mr.  Stone  was 
going  to  say  you  had  received  money,  when  it  wasn’t  true? — A.  When  I took  thafc  on 
my  shoulders  the  understanding  was  I was  not  to  be  subpoenaed,  or  to  be  on  the  stand 
to  perjure  myself. 

Q.  If  you  were  subpoenaed  and  were  put  on  the  stand,  you  would  have  told  the 
truth? — A.  I certainly  would. 

You  gave  that  testimony;  did  you? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Ites,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  that  was  true  ? 

Mr.  Kingsley.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  We  have  nothing  further,  if  the  chairman  please. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  all. 

TESTIMONY  OF  JOHN  J.  BLAINE. 

Mr.  Blaine,  having  been  heretofore  duly  sworn,  was  examined  and 
testified  as  follows: 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Blaine,  do  you  at  this  time  hold  any  public  office  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I do. 

The  Chairman.  What  office  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  State  senator  from  the  sixteenth  district  of  Wisconsin. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  your  present  term  commence,  and  when 
does  it  expire  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  My  term  commenced  in  January,  1909,  and  expires 
in  January,  1913. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Four  years? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Four  years. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  holding  any  public  office  during  the 
year  1908  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I was  not. 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE. 


593 


The  Chairman.  So  that  your  official  status  began  January  1,  1909  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  It  is  not  January  1.  I think  it  is  the  first  Wednesday 
after  the  second  Tuesday  in  January. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  the  time  you  were  sworn  in? 

Mr.  Blaine.  The  time  I was  sworn  in. 

The  Chairman.  What  time  were  you  elected  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  At  the  general  election  in  November,  1908. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  nominated  at  a direct-primary  election  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I was  nominated  at  a direct-primary  election  in 
September,  1908. 

The  Chairman.  On  September  1,  1908? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I believe  it  was  September  1. 

The  Chairman.  As  a member  of  the  State  Senate  of  Wisconsin,  in 
the  session  commencing  in  January,  1909,  you  participated  in  the 
investigation  of  charges  against  Senator  Stephenson,  affecting  his 
election,  did  you  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I presented  a substitute  resolution  and  certain  charges. 

The  Chairman.  You  filed  specific  charges,  did  you  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  What  were  known  as  specific  charges,  and  have  been 
referred  to  as  specific  charges. 

The  Chairman.  In  the  copy  of  the  proceedings  sent  to  the  United 
States  Senate  by  the  Governor  of  Wisconsin  they  are  designated 
‘specific  charges/’  Were  they  so  designated  in  the  document  that 
you  filed  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I can  tell  by  referring  to  the  document.  I do  not 
remember. 

The  Chairman.  I will  read  the  language,  on  page  4: 

Resolved,  That  such  committee  shall  report  to  the  senate  and  assembly  in  full  upon 
such  matters  with  the  evidence  and  their  recommendations  thereon  on  or  before  the 
1st  day  of  April,  1909. 

The  resolution  was  introduced  by  Senator  Blaine.  Then  follow 
specific  charges. 

Mr.  Blaine.  Yes;  they  were  designated  as  specific  charges. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  take  up  those  charges  for  consideration; 
and  I will  read  them  and  interrogate  you  in  regard  to  them  as  we  go 
along.  First : 

To  the  honorable  Senate  and  Assembly  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin : 

I,  John  J.  Blaine,  an  elector  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin  and  a member  of  the  State 
senate,  upon  information  and  belief,  do  hereby  specifically  charge  and  allege: 

1.  That  Isaac  Stephenson,  of  Marinette,  Wis.,  now  United  States  Senator  and  a 
candidate  for  reelection,  did,  as  such  candidate  for  such  reelection,  give  to  one 
E.  A.  Edmonds,  of  the  city  of  Appleton,  Wis.,  then  an  elector  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin 
and  said  city  of  Appleton,  a valuable  thing,  to  wit:  a sum  of  money  in  excess  of 
$106,000,  and  approximating  the  sum  of  $250,000,  as  a consideration  for  some  act  to  be 
done  by  said  E.  A.  Edmonds  in  relation  to  the  primary  election  held  on  the  1st  day 
of  September,  1908,  which  consideration  was  paid  prior  to  said  primary  election,  and 
that  said  Isaac  Stephenson  was  at  the  time  of  such  payment  a candidate  for  the  Repub- 
lican nomination  for  United  States  Senator  at  such  primary,  and  did  by  such  acts  as 
above  set  forth  violate  section  45426  of  the  statutes. 

You  made  that  specific  charge? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I did. 

The  Chairman.  Upon  what  did  you  base  it  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Upon  the  information  gained  from  E.  A.  Edmonds. 

The  Chairman.  Upon  what  was  your  belief  based  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Upon  the  information  gained  from  E.  A.  Edmonds. 

15235°— VOL  1—11 38 


594 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE. 


The  Chairman.  Was  it  made  upon  any  other  information  or  belief 
than  that  which  you  had  from  Mr.  Edmonds  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Only  generally  in  reference  to  the  conduct  of  the 
campaign,  as  I have 

The  Chairman.  When  you  use  the  term  “generally,”  do  you  refer 
to  any  specific  person  or  act  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I refer  to  specific  persons  and  specific  acts. 

The  Chairman.  What  persons  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Those  mentioned  in  the  subsequent  charges. 

The  Chairman.  Any  others  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  And  from  speeches  that  had  been  made  by  public 
men  in  the  State. 

The  Chairman.  What  public  men? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Mr.  John  A.  Aylward,  candidate  for  governor  on  the 
Democratic  ticket. 

The  Chairman.  Upon  what  speech  or  speeches  that  had  been  made 
by  Mr.  Aylward  did  you  rely  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Just  one  moment,  if  the  chairman  please.  1 
would  suggest  this:  I think  it  is  perfectly  proper  to  inquire  about 
the  sources;  but  we  wish  to  object,  if  the  chairman  please,  to  Mr. 
Blaine’s  stating  anything  that  may  have  been  said  by  these  various 
people.  I have  no  doubt  the  names  given  will  give  the  subcommittee 
sources  of  information.  But,  for  instance 

The  Chairman.  I think  counsel  perhaps  misapprehends  the  ques- 
tion. The  question  is  what  he  acted  upon,  not  what  somebody  else 
acted  upon. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  true;  that  may  be.  But  even  if  he 
acted  upon  what  turns  out  so  be  pure  hearsay,  it  seems  to  me  we 
ought  not  to  have  it  in  the  record  for  the  purpose  of  embarrassing 
the  Senator,  if  it  does.  It  may  be  in  a class  entirely  different,  if  the 
chairman  please,  from  statements  made  by  Mr.  Edmonds.  I sup- 
pose the  bcommittee  would  feel  that  Mr.  Edmonds  was  Mr.  Stephen- 
son’s manager;  and  the  theory  would  be  that  whatever  Mr.  Edmonds 
said,  he  said  perhaps  when  he  was  acting  as  the  agent  of  Senator 
Stephenson.  But  Mr.  Aylward  was  the  Democratic  candidate  for 
governor — a man  with  whom  the  Senator  had  no  connection  what- 
ever; and  I suppose  whatever  he  said  may  have  been  in  the  nature 
of  some  political  charge.  That  would  be  clearly  hearsay.  Of  course, 
I have  no  objection  to  the  witness  giving  the  names  of  the  people; 
but  it  does  not  seem  to  me  that  he  ought  to  be  allowed  to  put  into 
the  record  what  these  various  people  may  have  said,  because  to  my 
mind  that  is  clearly  hearsay. 

The  Chairman.  If  this  witness  made  a specific  charge  against 
Senator  Stephenson,  based  upon  anything,  it  is  proper  to  know  what 
that  thing  was,  even  though  it  may  prove  to  afford  no  basis  for  such 
belief  or  for  such  statement.  It  does  not  charge  Senator  Stephenson 
with  anything  to  show  that  this  man  made  a statement  based  upon 
unsubstantial  grounds. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  No.  I make  this  objection  early  because  I want 
if  possible,  if  the  chairman  please,  to  keep  the  record  clear  of  what 
we  all  know  to  be  hearsay  testimony.  I do  not  think  the  subcom- 
mittee desires  to  get  it  in. 

The  Chairman.  The  subcommittee  will  not  receive  the  statements 
of  these  men  as  evidence  of  anything.  They  will  be  received  merely 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE. 


595 


as  the  basis  of  a specific  and  responsible  charge  made  by  this  witness. 
If  they  are  not  of  a character  upon  which  any  charge  could  be  based, 
they  will  naturally  fall.  As  suggested  to  me  by  Senator  Pomerene, 
they  will  be  received  also  for  the  purpose  of  aiding  us  in  getting 
primary  evidence. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  is,  we  could  not  consider  pure  hearsay 
in  trying  to  come  to  a conclusion — clearly  not.  But  suppose  the 
witness  were  to  say  that  he  had  certain  information  from  one  John 
Jones,  upon  which  information  he  based  one  of  these  charges:  It 
would  be  of  interest  to  us  as  an  investigating  committee  to  know 
what  that  information  was  not  that  we  are  going  to  hold  anyone 
responsible  for  it.  But  suppose,  later  on,  we  call  in  John  Jones,  and 
with  the  information  that  we  have  obtained  from  the  witness  w'e  are 
able  to  get  at  the  primary  evidence.  It  seems  to  me  that  we  ought 
to  be  permitted  to  do  that. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That,  of  course,  may  raise  an  important  prac- 
tical question.  My  impression  is  that  as  far  as  the  witness,  Senator 
Blaine,  is  concerned*  there  is  nothing  very  serious  either  way.  I do 
not  rise  on  account  of  Mr.  Blaine’s  particular  testimony.  But  if 
we  get  hearsay  testimony  in  here,  and  it  becomes  a part  of  the  record, 
it  will  be  extremely  difficult  later  to  remove  the  effect  that  it  may 
have. 

The  Chairman.  If  the  committee  desire  to  examine  witnesses  for 
the  purpose  of  ascertaining  what  other  people  have  stated  to  them,  I 
think  that  is  to  the  last  degree  proper. 

Senator  Pomerene.  It  ought  not  to  be  assumed  that  Mr.  Blaine 
would  be  misled  by  any  question. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I am  going  a little  bit  further:  This,  to  be  sure, 
is  a proceeding  before  the  Senate;  but  Senator  Stephenson  is  a 
man  who  has  a leading  public  position  in  this  State.  I want  to  be 
perfectly  frank  about  this.  I do  not  think  the  subcommittee  wants 
drawn  out  here  in  the  progress  of  this  investigation,  either  from  Sena- 
tor Blaine  or  from  any  other  witness — and  I am  not  making  any  sug- 
gestion at  all  that  reflects  upon  any  witness — a mass  of  hearsay  that 
later  on  may  prove  to  be  entirely  unfounded.  In  the  first  place,  it 
encumbers  the  record.  In  the  second  place,  it  is  extremely  difficult, 
if  the  chairman  please,  for  a man  who  is  looking  over  this  record  to  be 
unaffected  by  suggestions  that  come  in  that  way.  In  addition  to 
these  considerations,  the  public  interest  does  not  require  (and  I will 
go  farther  and  say  that  in  my  judgment  the  public  interest  does  not 
justify,  nor  should  we  be  subjected  to  it)  that  there  should  be  spread 
broadcast  in  the  newspapers  throughout  this  country  hearsay  evi- 
dence that  may  be  drawn  out  here,  as  to  which  the  public  will  not  dis- 
criminate even  for  a moment.  Of  course  we  are  not  trying  this  case 
before  the  public,  but  it  has  its  public  phases.  As  representing  the 
Senator,  I ask  the  subcommittee — and  I want  to  be  earnest  about 
this — to  keep  the  investigation  as  nearly  as  possible  within  legal 
rules.  The  Senator  should  not  be  prejudiced,  even  in  the  public 
prints.  This  evidence  goes  all  over  the  country;  it  is  displayed  in 
headlines.  The  members  of  the  subcommittee  know  what  vital  in- 
jury is  done  to  a great  many  men  by  hearsay  testimony  taken  in 
investigations  of  this  sort.  The  public  get  the  charge;  the  man’s 
reputation  is  assailed,  and  the  harm  and  the  injury  are  done. 


596 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE. 


Senator  Stephenson  is  being  subjected  to  a very  exhaustive  investi- 
gation here,  and  I hope  the  subcommittee  will  feel  that  he  ought  not 
to  be  prejudiced  or  injured  by  testimony  which  we  all  agree  is  entirely 
inadmissible.  If  the  committee  desires  to  get  information  of  that 
sort  from  the  witnesses  I will  ask  that  instead  of  allowing  the  wit- 
nesses to  sit  here  in  public,  so  that  the  newspapers  can  spread  their 
statements  throughout  the  country,  they  be  examined  in  that  regard 
privately,  so  that  you  can  get  the  information.  I want  the  subcom- 
mittee to  have  the  information.  While  I do  not  submit  this  as  a 
legal  proposition,  if  the  chairman  please,  it  has  an  important  practical 
consideration.  We  do  not  want  and  we  ought  not  to  have  the  public 
mind  poisoned  by  hearsay  evidence  that  may  come  in  here.  I know 
the  subcommittee  does  not  want  it  and  will  not  intentionally  allow  it 
to  be  done. 

The  Chairman.  I would  like  to  say,  with  reference  to  the  question 
of  the  public  mind,  that  the  subcommittee  is  not  giving  any  consid- 
eration whatever  to  the  public  mind,  nor  will  it  do  so. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  very  true.  But  of  course  we  all  know — 
there  is  no  occasion  for  my  standing  here  to  discuss  the  proposition — 
that  hearsay  testimony,  coming  from  any  of  these  witnesses,  can  not 
possibly  be  considered. 

The  Chairman.  I hope  counsel  will  relieve  himself  of  that  misap- 
prehension. It  is  not  our  purpose  to  introduce  hearsay  testimony; 
and  if  the  question  is  read,  I think  it  will  be  discovered  that  it  is 
merely  an  inquiry  as  to  the  basis  upon  which  this  witness  made  a 
statement. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  It  may  be,  if  the  chairman  please,  that  the  vig- 
orous objection  that  I make  here  is  a little  premature;  but  the  mem- 
bers of  the  subcommittee  appreciate  the  practical  significance  of  this 
matter. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  consider  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I feel  bound,  as  representing  Senator  Stephen- 
son, to  say  this:  There  are  great  many  of  these  statements.  The 
newspapers  are  not  to  blame.  The  reporters  sit  here.  They  have  a 
right  to  transmit  anything  that  is  disclosed  here.  It  does  not  make 
any  difference  what  it  is;  it  is  public  property.  The  subcommittee 
does  not  want  in  the  record  anything  that  will  improperly  jeopardize 
or  injure  Senator  Stephenson,  either  before  the  Senate  or  before  the 
public,  because  there  is  not  only  no  occasion  for  it  but  it  ought  not  to 
be  done.  It  may  be  that  this  particular  question  does  not  go  as  far 
as  I contemplated.  But  I feel  very  strongly  about  this  matter;  and 
I think  the  committee  are  with  me  on  the  legal  proposition. 

If  I may  be  allowed  a general  suggestion,  members  of  these  com- 
mittees will  never  find,  either  as  members  of  the  legal  profession  or  as 
conducting  a solemn  investigation,  involving  rights  that  are  sacred 
and  dear — rights  that  each  member  of  this  subcommittee  now 
enjoys — that  it  will  prove  advantageous  to  a proper  investigation  of 
those  questions  to  spread  before  the  public  gaze  testimony  as  to 
which,  once  read,  it  is  difficult  even  for  a man  that  hears  the  case  to 
discriminate.  You  may  drive  in  the  nail,  if  the  chairman  please,  and 
you  may  withdraw  it,  but  the  hole  made  by  the  nail  remains. 

Of  course  we  all  understand  what  the  conditions  are  when  we  are 
trying  a case  in  court:  Once  get  a proposition  before  the  jury,  even 
if  it  be  not  legally  there,  and  who  can  tell  how  much  effect  it  may 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE. 


597 


have  upon  a man’s  rights?  The  court  says,  “ Strike  it  out.”  In  the 
record  it  is  out.  But  is  it  out  in  the  minds  of  the  men  who  pass  upon 
one’s  rights  ? Theoretically,  yes.  Practically,  whether  or  not  it  is, 
depends  a great  deal  upon  the  constitution  of  the  mind  of  the  man 
who  reads  it. 

As  far  as  the  public  is  concerned,  it  does  not  stop  to  discriminate 
between  what  is  proper  and  what  is  improper — what  is  hearsay  and 
what  is  legally  competent.  If  it  happens  to  be  a little  sensational,  it 
is  displayed  everywhere,  and  creates  an  uncomfortable  and  an  unfortu- 
nate atmosphere. 

I do  not  believe  any  man  on  the  subcommittee  is  to  be  affected  by 
popular  considerations.  But  having  the  responsibility  of  protecting 
the  rights  of  Senator  Stephenson,  I should  very  much  prefer  to  do  it,  in 
the  last  analysis,  unembarrassed  by  an  unfortunate  public  atmos- 
phere that  may  have  been  created,  unwittingly  and  unintentionally, 
by  evidence  that  was  not  legally  competent,  introduced  before  a com- 
mittee and  spread  broadcast  in  black-faced  headlines  throughout  the 
public  press. 

To  my  mind,  this  is  a matter  of  great  importance  to  Senator  Stephen- 
son. I feel  bound,  as  representing  him,  to  insist  as  strongly  as  it  is  proper 
for  me  to  insist,  upon  the  rule  in  that  regard  being  observed.  I will 
not  discuss  things  that  we  all  know  about.  It  is  not  proper  for  me  to 
go  before  this  subcommittee  with  the  considerations  that  now  lurk  in 
my  mind  and,  I have  no  doubt,  lurk  in  the  chairman’s  mind.  Trial 
by  newspaper  and  magazine  is  not  the  trial  guaranteed  to  citizens  of 
the  United  States  by  Magna  Charta  and  the  Constitution  that  is  predi- 
cated thereon.  I am  very  anxious,  so  far  as  I can,  to  keep  the  investi- 
gation so  that  there  can  be  no  ground  for  complaint  along  that  line,  so 
far  as  we  are  concerned  and  so  far  as  the  subcommittee  is  concerned. 

The  Chairman.  I trust  that  as  the  questions  arise  the  subcommit- 
tee’s ruling  will  meet  with  the  approbation  of  counsel.  It  has  no  inten- 
tion of  transgressing  the  rules  of  evidence. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I do  not  think  the  subcommittee  has  any  such 
intention. 

The  Chairman.  Read  the  question. 

(The  reporter  read  as  follows :) 

The  Chairman.  Upon  what  speech  or  speeches  that  had  been  made  by  Mr.  Aylward 
did  you  rely? 

The  Chairman.  That  does  not  call  for  what  he  said  in  his  speech. 

Mr.  Blaine.  No.  Now,  we  are  going  to  get  confused  here. 

The  Chairman.  No;  we  will  not  get  confused.  Just  answer  that 
question,  as  to  what  speech  it  was. 

Mr.  Blaine.  Let  me  explain.  I think  the  chairman  has  in  mind 
the  first  charge — the  specific  charge  of  $106,000. 

The  Chairman.  I have  in  mind  only  your  answer  to  the  last  ques- 
tion. Read  the  last  two  or  three  questions  and  answers. 

(The  reporter  read  as  follows:) 

The  Chairman.  Any  others? 

Mr.  Blaine.  And  from  speeches  that  had  been  made  by  public  men  in  the  State. 

The  Chairman.  What  public  men? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Mr.  John  A.  Aylward,  candidate  for  governor  on  the  Democratic  ticket. 

The  Chairman.  Upon  what  speech  or  speeches  that  had  been  made  by  Mr.  Aylward 
did  you  rely? 

The  Chairman.  It  is  what  you  understood;  not  what  he  said. 


598 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE. 


Mr.  Littlefield.  I think,  if  the  chairman  please,  we  shall  have  to 
go  back  one  question  further,  so  that  Mr.  Blaine  can  have  the  context. 

The  Chairman.  Let  us  get  this  answer.  I want  to  know  what 
the  speeches  were,  and  where  he  made  them. 

Mr.  Blaine.  The  impression  is  not  going  to  be  clear,  or  at  least 
it  may  be  hazy  in  my  mind 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I think,  Senator 

The  Chairman.  Let  the  witness  answer. 

Mr.  Blaine.  I refer  to  subsequent  charges;  they  all  go  together. 

The  Chairman.  No;  let  subsequent  charges  rest  until  we  reach 
them.  You  have  said  that  you  made  this  charge  based  upon  speeches 
and  the  speech  of  a certain  man.  I want  to  know  what  speech  it  was 
and  where  he  made  it;  and  then  I will  stop  there. 

Mr.  Blaine.  But  I go  back  and  refer  to  the  subsequent  charges. 

The  Chairman.  Not  until  they  are  called  up. 

Mr.  Blaine.  Then  the  subcommittee  and  I are  at  a misunderstand- 
ing on  just  what  is  meant. 

The  Chairman.  I intend  to  take  these  charges,  letting  each  one 
stand  on  its  own  basis. 

Mr.  Blaine.  Let  me  make  this  explanation:  The  $106,000  charge, 
referring  to  that  specifically,  was  made  upon  the  information  from 
Mr.  Edmonds— — 

The  Chairman.  You  have  stated  that. 

Mr.  Blaine.  The  other  things  influenced  that  belief  that  I gained 
from  that  information 

The  Chairman.  Just  a moment.  We  shall  have  to  get  ourselves 
disciplined,  because  it  is  not  the  intention  of  the  committee  to  have 
any  explanation  unless  it  is  an  explanation  made  after  the  question 
I am  asking  you  about  is  answered,  and  I am  going  to  stay  by  the 
first  charge  for  the  present.  Do  not  confuse  it  with  the  others,  be- 
cause each  charge  here  is  made  separately.  Did  you  base  that  charge 
upon  anything  else  than  what  Mr.  Edmonds  told  you  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  The  thing  that  caused  me  to  make  the  charge  was  the 
information  derived  from  Mr.  Edmonds. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  all,  was  it? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Principally. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  let  that  rest,  for  the  first  charge.  What 
information  did  Mr.  Edmonds  give  you  upon  which  you  made  that 
charge  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  He  gave  me  the  information  that  he  had  charge  of 
a fund  of  $106,000  or  thereabouts.  He  was  not  definite;  it  was  over 
$100,000  and  about  $106,000.  He  gave  me  the  information  that  he 
had  charge  of  that  fund  to  disburse  in  the  campaign  for  Mr.  Stephenson, 
as  his  manager. 

The  Chairman.  It  was  merely  his  statement  that  he  had  charge  of 
this  fund  that  you  took  as  a basis  for  making  the  first  specific  charge  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  As  to  the  $106,000. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  before  you  the  first  specific  charge? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Yes;  as  to  the  $106,000. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  not  go  beyond  that  charge  at  this  time. 

Mr.  Blaine.  There  are  two  charges  in  the  first.  One  says 
“$106,000,  and  approximating  the  sum  of  $250,000.” 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE. 


599 


The  Chairman.  I am  coming  to  that.  You  have  said  that  it  was 
upon  what  he  told  you  that  you  made  the  charge  as  to  the  $106,000. 
Upon  what  did  you  make  the  charge  as  to  the  $250,000  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Only  upon  calculations  that  I had  gained  from  edi- 
torials and  statements  in  the  Free  Press  as  to  what  amount  the  Free 
Press  had  cost  in  certain  campaigns,  through  campaigns. 

The  Chairman.  Deductions  made  by  you  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Deductions. 

The  Chairman.  What  do  you  mean  by  the  cost  of  the  Free  Press? 
Why  do  you  select  the  Free  Press? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Because  it  was  generally  understood  throughout  the 
State  that  Senator  Stephenson  owned  the  great  majority  of  its  stock. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  whether  he  did  or  not  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I do  not;  only  from  general  information. 

The  Chairman.  Had  you  any  knowledge  as  to  the  extent  of 
Senator  Stephenson’s  ownership  in  the  Free  Press  when  you  filed  this 
specific  charge  No.  1 ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Only  as  I gained  it  from  suits,  I think,  against  the 
Free  Press,  and  general  information. 

The  Chairman.  What  suits  against  the  Free  Press? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I think  there  were  some  libel  suits  against  the  Free 
Press,  and  they  developed  who  were  the  stockholders. 

The  Chairman.  Then  are  we  to  understand  that  the  difference 
between  the  item  of  $106,000  and  the  $250,000  represents  a sum  at 
which  you  estimate  the  services  of  the  Free  Press? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Based  upon  what  I have  stated,  substantially  so,  yes. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  is  to  be  applied  entirely  to  the  Free  Press 
item? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Entirely. 

The  Chairman.  Let  us  see  if  we  have  your  testimony  right:  You 
say  the  first  item  of  $106,000  was  based  solely  upon  the  statements 
Mr.  Edmonds  made  to  you;  and  the  difference  between  that  and 
$250,000  was  based  upon  your  deduction  as  to  the  services  rendered 
by  the  Free  Press? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Not  the  services  of  the  Free  Press. 

The  Chairman.  State  what  you  mean,  then;  or,  rather,  to  what 
you  do  charge  that  difference. 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  will  require  an  explanation.  It  was,  I think, 
generally  reported — and  that  is  where  I got  my  information — that 
about  $400,000  had  been  spent  in  three  campaigns  by  the  Free  Press 
prior  to  this 

The  Chairman.  Now  we  will  leave  that.  We  will  just  strike  out 
the  statement  as  to  what  he  had  expended  in  prior  campaigns. 

Mr.  Blaine.  No;  I mean 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  had  been  expended  in  prior  cam- 
paigns ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I am  not  referring  to  campaigns  for  Senator  Stephen- 
son. I am  referring  to  campaigns  generally — that  it  cost  $400,000. 
I am  quite  certain  I obtained  that  information  from  an  editorial  in 
the  Free  Press.  If  three  campaigns  cost  $400,000,  it  is  a matter  of 
calculation  what  one  campaign  would  cost. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  the  basis  of  your  charge,  is  it  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  is  the  explanation. 


600 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE. 


The  Chairman.  We  will  go  on  now  and  confine  ourselves  for  the 
present  to  the  item  of  $106,000,  which  you  say  you  got  from  Mr. 
Edmonds.  Did  Mr.  Edmonds  give,  you  more  than  a general  state- 
ment as  to  the  amount  that  had  been  expended  through  him? 

Mr.  Blaine.  He  did  not. 

The  Chairman.  He  gave  you  no  details  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No  details. 

The  Chairman.  He  gave  you  no  facts,  or  what  purported  to  be 
facts,  as  to  the  manner  of  the  expenditure  of  that  money  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Not  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  You  based  that  charge  upon  the  mere  payment  of 
that  sum  to  Mr.  Edmonds  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  And  that  he  was  to  disburse  it  for  Mr.  Stephenson  in 
the  campaign. 

The  Chairman.  Then,  was  the  charge  based  upon  the  giving  of  it 
to  him  for  disbursement,  or  the  giving  of  it  into  his  possession  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Both.  That  was  my  idea  of  the  law — the  payment 
to  him,  and  for  him  to  disburse  it. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  make  this  charge — that  is,  the  first  specific 
charge — under  section  338,  entitled  “Bribery  in  connection  with 
caucus,”  which  is  section  4542b? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I am  not  familiar  with  what  you  are  speaking  about. 
I will  have  to  refer  to  the  statute. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  the  charges  before  you  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Yes,  sir.  I refer  to  section  4542b  of  the  statute. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  section  338  of  the  election  laws  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Those  election  laws  are  compilations.  Section  4542b 
provides  that  every  person  who  shall  give  or  offer  to  give  any  valuable 
thing  or  bribe  to  an  elector  as  a consideration  for  some  act  to  be  done 
in  rdation  to  such  preliminary  meeting,  caucus,  or  convention  shall 
be  punished  as  provided  in  section  4542a. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  the  preceding  section. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Is  that  the  entire  section  4542b  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No.  I am  just  giving  the  substance  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  Will  you  read  the  whole  section  into  the  record,  in 
connection  with  your  charge  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I have  not  got  it,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I will  hand  him  this  book,  if  he  wants  it. 

The  Chairman.  The  chairman  will  read  it. 

Mr.  Blaine.  We  do  not  use  these  [referring  to  pamphlet  of  elec- 
tion laws].  They  are  not  reliable.  I refer  to  the  statutes.  These 
are  compilations  by  clerks,  and  there  may  be  misprints.  I am  not 
going  to  suggest  to  the  committee  that  these  are  reliable.  The 
attorneys  in  this  State  very  seldom  use  them.  If  they  do  use  them, 
they  are  absolutely  wrong. 

The  Chairman.  And  if  the  language  does  compare  with  the 
statute 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I suppose  we  can  get  the  Wisconsin  statute 
without  too  much  trouble. 

The  Chairman.  I would  prefer  at  this  time  to  proceed  with  the 
examination;  and  I desire,  m connection  with  this  question,  to  put 
into  the  record  both  sections. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  witness  may  want  to  take  that  to  compare, 
if  the  chairman  please 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE. 


601 


The  Chairman.  It  may  be  subject  to  comparison  at  any  time. 
This  is  put  in  on  the  responsibility  of  the  subcommittee  rather  than 
of  the  witness.  I will  premise  it  by  this:  You  state  in  this  charge 
that  the  things  enumerated  constituted  a violation  of  section  4542b 
of  the  statutes. 

Mr.  Blaine.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Now  I will  read  section  4542b: 

Every  person  who,  by  bribery  or  corrupt  or  unlawful  means,  prevents  or  attempts 
to  prevent  any  voter  from  attending  or  voting  at  any  preliminary  meeting  or  caucus 
mentioned  in  sections  11a  to  Hi,  or  who  shall  give  or  offer  to  give  any  valuable  thing 
or  bribe  to  any  officer,  inspector  or  delegate  whose  office  is  therein  created,  or  who 
shall  give  or  offer  to  give  any  valuable  thing  or  bribe  to  an  elector  as  a consideration 
for  some  act  to  be  done  in  relation  to  such  preliminary  meeting,  caucus  or  convention, 
or  who  shall  interfere  with  or  in  any  manner  disturb  any  preliminary  meeting,  caucus 
or  convention  held  under  said  provisions  shall  be  punished  as  provided  in  section 
4542a. 

I will  now  read  section  4542a,  in  order  that  the  record  may  have 
the  statute  providing  for  the  punishment  right  in  connection  with  the 
one  defining  the  offense.  Section  4542a  reads: 

Any  person  who  shall  vote  or  offer  to  vote  more  than  once  in  any  caucus,  or  at  any 
caucus  held  in  any  caucus  district  in  which  he  shall  not  at  the  time  be  a resident 
and  duly  qualified  elector,  or  in  any  caucus  where  candidates  and  delegates  are  to  be 
chosen,  if  he  has  already  voted  at  the  caucus  of  any  other  political  party  for  candidates 
to  be  voted  for  or  for  delegates  to  be  chosen  in  a convention  to  nominate  candidates 
to  be  voted  for  at  the  next  ensuing  election,  or  who  shall  print,  distribute  or  offer  to 
distribute  any  caucus  tickets  or  ballots  to  be  voted  for  at  such  caucus,  or  shall  print  or 
distribute  sample  ballots  or  remove  from  any  booth  or  place  where  a caucus  is  held 
any  tickets  for  candidates  or  persons  to  be  voted  for,  shall  be  punished  by  a fine  not 
exceeding  five  hundred  dollars  or  by  imprisonment  in  the  county  jail  not  less  than 
two  months  nor  more  than  six  months,  or  by  both  such  fine  and  imprisonment. 

I read  that  law  into  the  record  at  this  time  as  a basis  for  the 
examination  of  this  witness  as  to  his  intention  in  making  specific 
charge  No.  1. 

You  say  that  the  things  that  you  charged  were  considered  by  you 
to  be  a violation  of  that  section  of  the  statute  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Wherein  were  they  a violation  of  that  section? 

Mr.  Blaine.  In  paying  the  money  to  an  elector — a valuable  thing. 

The  Chairman.  To  what  elector  ? Edmonds  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Edmonds. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  the  basis  and  the  crux  of  your  charge, 
then  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  is  the  basis  of  that  charge;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Is  there  anything  else  than  that  which  you  have 
stated  that  was  the  basis  of  the  first  specific  charge  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Nothing  except  the  charges  following,  which  the 
chairman  suggests 

The  Chairman.  We  are  coming  to  that  almost  immediately. 

Mr.  Blaine.  With  that  suggestion,  I would  say  “no.” 

The  Chairman.  At  this  point  we  will  read  the  section  of  the  law 
extending  the  provisions  of  this  a<it  to  primary  elections,  for  the 
purpose  of  grouping  the  statute  law.  It  is  paragraph  2 of  section  39, 
found  on  page  33  of  this  compilation  of  the  election  laws.  I will 
read  it: 

Any  act  declared  an  offense  by  the  general  laws  of  this  State  concerning  caucuses 
and  elections  shall  also,  in  like  case,  be  an  offense  in  all  primaries,  and  shall  be  punished 
in  the  same  form  and  manner  as  therein  provided,  and  all  the  penalties  and  provisions 


602 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE. 


of  the  law  as  to  such  caucuses  and  elections  except  as  herein  otherwise  provided, 
shall  apply  in  such  case  with  equal  force,  and  to  the  same  extent  as  though  fully  set 
forth  in  this  act. 

Did  you,  in  making  that  first  specific  charge,  take  into  considera- 
tion the  use  that  Mr.  Edmonds  made  of  the  money;  or  did  you  base 
it  upon  the  mere  fact  that  Senator  Stephenson  had  paid  it  to  an 
elector,  Mr.  Edmonds  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  It  was  the  fact  that  he  had  paid  it. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  proceed  now  to  the  second  specific  charge. 
I will  read  it : 

That  said  Isaac  Stephenson  did,  prior  to  said  primary,  pay  to  said  Fdmonds  the 
above  mentioned  sums  with  the  design  that  said  Fdmonds  should  pay  to  other  electors 
of  this  State  out  of  said  sums  above  mentioned  and  other  sums  of  money  received  by 
said  Edmonds  from  said  Isaac  Stephenson,  prior  to  said  primary,  sums  ranging  from 
$5  per  day  to  $1,000,  in  bulk,  as  a consideration  for  some  act  to  be  done  in  relation  to 
said  primary  by  said  electors  for  said  Isaac  Stephenson  as  such  candidate  in  violation 
of  said  section. 

To  what  section  did  you  refer  when  you  said  “in  violation  of  said 
section’ ’ ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Section  4542 b of  the  statutes. 

The  Chairman.  Will  you  specify  wherein  that  section  was  violated, 
in  your  judgment,  as  the  basis  upon  which  you  made  this  second 
specific  charge  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Mr.  Edmonds  having  stated  that  he  had  $106,000  to 
be  disbursed  through  him,  it  could  only  be  concluded  by  myself  in 
making  the  charge  that  it  was  to  be  disbursed  to  people,  individuals; 
and  if  any  amount  of  it  were  paid  to  an  individual  for  something  that 
that  individual  was  to  do  in  the  primary  election,  and  paid  as  a 
valuable  thing,  it  constituted  a violation  of  section  4542 b. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  your  interpretation  of  that  section? 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  was  my  interpretation  of  this  section. 

The  Chairman.  Then  you  based  it  upon  your  interpretation  of  the 
statute  rather  than  upon  knowledge  which  you  had  as  to  the  charac- 
ter of  the  disbursements,  did  you  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Yes ; because  I had  no  means  of  knowing  the  charac- 
ter of  the  disbursements. 

The  Chairman.  At  the  time  you  made  this  second  specific  charge, 
did  you  have  any  knowledge  of  specific  disbursements  or  expenditures 
made  by  Mr.  Edmonds  on  behalf  of  Senator  Stephenson  upon  which 
you  based  that  charge? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Nothing  except  as  contained  in  the  subsequent 
charges. 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  but  allow  each  of  those  to  speak  for  itself. 

Mr.  Blaine.  Yes.  Aside  from  those,  I had  none. 

The  Chairman.  The  second  specific  charge  was  based  upon  your 
interpretation  of  the  law  that  the  payment  to  Mr.  Edmonds  in  itself 
constituted  a violation  of  the  law  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Of  the  law;  yes. 

The  Chairman.  Or  that  a payment  by  him  to  any  other  persons  for 
any  purpose  intended  to  forward  the  election  of  Senator  Stephenson 
would  constitute  a violation  of  the  law,  regardless  of  the  purpose  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  is  my  interpretation  of  the  statute. 

The  Chairman.  We  pass  now  to  the  third  specific  charge: 

That  with  full  knowledge  and  with  instructions  from  said  Isaac  Stephenson,  as  to 
how  and  for  what  purposes  said  sums  were  to  be  expended,  said  sums  were  so  paid  as 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE. 


603 


above  stated  to  said  Edmonds  by  said  Isaac  Stephenson  and  that  said  sums  were  paid 
as  above  stated  for  the  purposes  above  stated  and  also  for  the  purpose  of  bribing  and 
corrupting  a sufficient  number  of  the  electors  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin  to  encompass 
the  nomination  of  said  Isaac  Stephenson  at  said  primary  for  the  office  of  United  States 
Senator. 

Did  you  base  that  charge  upon  knowledge  possessed  by  you  at  the 
time  you  made  it  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  charge  follows  and  was  based  upon  the  same 
knowledge  and  information  that  I had  in  reference  to  charges  1 and  2. 
It  was  to  be  inclusive.  I wanted  to  draw  it  broad  enough  so  that  if 
an  investigating  committee  began  its  work  the  charges  would  be  so 
inclusive  that  they  would  take  up  the  entire  subject,  instead  of  being 
limited  to  one  or  two  specific  instances.  That  was  the  purpose  of  that. 

The  Chairman.  The  committee  will  proceed  first  to  probe  these 
charges  as  to  the  basis  upon  which  you  made  them.  Later  we  can 
consider  the  question  as  to  the  general  principle  or  spirit  of  them. 

I want  to  ask  you  now  whether  or  not  you  had  any  knowledge  of 
your  own  upon  which  you  based  the  statement  that  instructions  were 
given  by  Isaac  Stephenson  “as  to  how  and  for  what  purpose  said 
sums  were  to  be  expended”  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I had  no  knowledge,  excepting  the  information  given 
by  Mr.  Edmonds  that  it  was  given  to  him  as  Mr.  Stephenson's  cam- 
paign manager  to  be  disbursed. 

The  Chairman.  Did  Mr.  Edmonds  tell  you  that  Mr.  Stephenson 
had  told  him  how  and  for  what  purpose  these  sums  were  to  be  ex- 
pended ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No,  no.  That  was  a conclusion. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  a statement  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  is  just  a statement.  That  is  a conclusion. 

The  Chairman.  A conclusion? 

Mr.  Blaine.  A conclusion. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  not  intend  that  to  be  a statement  of  fact 
within  your  knowledge? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Not  at  all;  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  To  proceed: 

With  instructions  from  said  Isaac  Stephenson,  as  to  how  and  for  what  purposes  said 
sums  were  to  be  expended,  said  sums  were  so  paid  as  above  stated  to  said  Edmonds  by 
said  Isaac  Stephenson  and  that  said  sums  were  paid  as  above  stated  for  the  purposes 
above  stated — 

Referring  back  to  your  statement  that  they  were  “for  some  act  to 
be  done  in  relation  to  said  primary  by  said  electors  for  said  Isaac 
Stephenson  as  such  candidate,  in  violation  of  said  section,”  was  your 
statement  that  they  were  “in  violation  of  said  section”  a conclusion 
that  you  drew  from  the  general  statement  that  moneys  were  paid  to 
a person  for  some  act  to  be  done  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  It  was. 

The  Chairman.  But  not  based  upon  knowledge  on  your  part  of 
the  act? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Not  at  all;  no. 

The  Chairman.  In  the  third  charge  you  say: 

That  said  sums  were  paid  as  above  stated  for  the  purposes  above  stated  and  also  for 
the  purpose  of  bribing  and  corrupting  a sufficient  number  of  the  electors  of  the  State 
of  Wisconsin  to  encompass  the  nomination  of  said  Isaac  Stephenson  at  said  primary  for 
the  office  of  United  States  Senator. 


604 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE. 


At  the  time  you  made  these  charges  and  filed  them,  had  you  any 
knowledge  that  the  money  was  given  by  Senator  Stephenson  to 
Mr.  Edmonds  for  the  purpose  of  bribing  and  corrupting  any  electors 
of  the  State  of  Wisconsin? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No  personal  knowledge. 

The  Chairman.  Upon  what  did  you  base  that  statement  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Following  the  first  and  second  charges,  to  make  the 
charges  inclusive. 

The  Chairman.  But  there  is  nothing  in  the  first  or  second  charges 
with  reference  to  bribery  or  corruption. 

Mr.  Blaine.  The  purpose  of  adding  that  was  because  section  4478 
of  the  statutes  defines  Bribery.  It  gives  a definition  of  bribery  in 
elections  entirely  different  than  the  two  sections  that  we  have  quoted. 
With  the  knowledge  of  our  laws  then  existing,  I put  that  in  as  a con- 
clusion, so  that  that  section  would  be  covered,  that  particular  charge, 
if  the  position  was  taken  that  the  violation  of  section  45426  was  not 
bribery. 

The  Chairman.  That  being  your  answer — that  you  based  the  third 
specific  charge  upon  section  4478 — it  will  be  proper  to  put  section  4478 
in  the  record  at  this  time  for  convenient  reference.  Do  you  include 
section  4478a  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I have  not  that  in  my  statement.  I have  not  section 
4478a  here.  We  have  a rather  peculiar  way  of  numbering  our  stat- 
utes, and  it  is  probably  in  a subsequent  volume. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Here  it  is : 

Sec.  4478a.  The  following  persons  shall  also  be  deemed  guilty,  etc. 

Is  this  what  you  mean  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I have  not  included  that. 

Senator  Pomerene.  When  was  that  edition  of  the  statute  pub- 
lished ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  In  1898. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  when  was  this  law  passed?  Do  you 
remember  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  this  is  1898. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Does  that  contain  the  statute  as  it  existed  at 
the  time  of  the  election? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Yes;  at  the  time  of  the  election. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Does  the  chairman  want  this,  or  has  he  it  there  ? 

The  Chairman.  I assume  that  this  is  a correct  print. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  page  do  you  find  that  on? 

Senator  Pomerene.  Page  176,  I think. 

The  Chairman.  Without  reading  them  we  will  insert  in  the  record 
at  this  point  sections  4478  and  4478a,  in  order  that  they  may  appear 
in  connection  with  this  testimony. 

Mr.  Blaine.  Section  4479  is  one  that  ought  to  be  included.  I have 
thought  so  since,  but  I did  not  have  it  in  mind  at  that  time. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  include  that  in  its  order  in  the  record. 

(The  above-mentioned  sections  are  as  follows:) 

Sec.  4478.  The  following  persons  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  bribery  at  elections: 

1.  Every  person  who  shall,  directly  or  indirectly,  by  himself  or  by  any  other  person 
on  his  behalf,  give,  lend,  or  agree  to  give  or  lend,  or  offer,  or  promise  to  procure 
or  endeavor  to  procure  any  money  or  valuable  consideration  to  or  for  any  voter,  to 
or  for  any  person  on  behalf  of  any  voter,  or  to  or  for  any  other  person  in  order  to  induce 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE. 


605 


any  voter  to  vote  or  refrain  from  voting,  or  do  any  such  act  as  aforesaid,  corruptly,  on 
account  of  such  voter  having  voted  or  refrained  from  voting  at  any  election. 

2.  Every  person  who  shall,  directly  or  indirectly,  by  himself  or  by  any  other  person 
on  his  behalf,  give  or  procure,  or  agree  to  give  or  procure  or  offer,  promise,  or  endeavor 
to  procure  any  office,  place  of  employment,  public  or  private,  to  or  for  any  voter,  or  to 
or  for  any  person  on  behalf  of  any  voter,  or  to  or  for  any  other  person  in  order  to  induce 
such  voter  to  vote  or  refrain  from  voting,  or  do  any  such  act  as  aforesaid,  corruptly,  on 
account  of  any  voter  having  voted  or  refrained  from  voting  at  any  election. 

3.  Every  person  who  shall,  directly  or  indirectly,  by  himself  or  by  any  other  person 
on  his  behalf,  make  any  such  gift,  loan,  offer,  promise,  procurement,  or  agreement  as 
aforesaid  to  or  for  any  person  in  order  to  induce  such  person  to  procure  or  endeavor 
to  procure  the  election  of  any  person  to  a public  office,  or  the  vote  of  any  voter  at  any 
election. 

4.  Every  person  who  shall,  upon  or  in  consequence  of  any  such  gift,  loan,  offer,  prom- 
ise, procurement,  or  agreement,  procure,  or  engage,  promise,  or  endeavor  to  procure 
the  election  of  any  person  to  a public  office  or  the  vote  of  any  voter  at  any  election. 

5.  Every  person  who  shall  advance  or  pay  or  cause  to  be  paid  any  money  to  or  for 
the  use  of  any  other  person  with  the  intent  that  such  money  or  any  part  thereof  shall 
be  expended  in  bribery  at  any  election,  or  who  shall  knowingly  pay  or  cause  to  be  paid 
any  money  wholly  or  in  part  expended  in  bribery  at  any  election. 

Sec.  4478a.  The  following  persons  shall  also  be  deemed  guilty  of  bribery  at  elections: 

1.  Every  voter  who  shall,  before  or  during  any  election,  directly  or  indirectly,  by 
himself  or  by  any  other  person  on  his  behalf  receive,  agree,  or  contract  for  any  money, 
gift,  loan,  or  valuable  consideration,  office,  place  of  employment,  public  or  private, 
for  himself  or  for  any  other  person  for  voting  or  agreeing  to  vote  or  for  refraining  or 
agreeing  to  refrain  from  voting  at  any  election. 

2.  Every  person  who  shall,  after  any  election,  directly  or  indirectly,  by  himself 
or  by  any  other  person  in  his  behalf,  receive  any  money  or  valuable  consideration  on 
account  of  any  person  having  voted  or  refrained  from  voting  or  having  induced  any 
other  person  to  vote  or  refrain  from  voting  at  any  election;  and  any  voter  or  other 
person  so  offending  shall  be  punished  by  imprisonment  in  the  county  jail  not  less  than 
one  month  nor  more  than  one  year. 

Sec.  4479.  Any  person  being  or  seeking  to  be  a candidate  for  any  office  at  any  elec- 
tion authorized  by  law  who  shall  give  or  promise  to  give  to  any  elector  or  other  person 
any  money  or  thing  of  value  or  any  pecuniary  advantage  or  benefit  for  the  purpose  of 
inducing  or  influencing  such  elector  or  other  person  to  vote  for  him  in  any  convention 
or  meeting  of  the  people  held  for  the  purpose  of  nominating  any  person  or  persons  to 
be  voted  for  at  any  such  election,  to  make  him  the  nominee  of  any  such  convention  or 
meeting  and  the  candidate  to  be  voted  for  for  any  office  at  such  election,  or  who  shall 
so  give  or  promise  any  such  thing  to  any  such  person  for  the  purpose  of  inducing  or 
influencing  any  person  to  sign  any  nomination  paper  which  seeks  to  have  him  nomi- 
nated as  a candidate  for  any  office  to  be  so  voted  for;  and  any  such  elector  or  other 
person  who  shall  ask,  solicit*  or  receive  any  money  or  thing  of  value  or  any  pecuniary 
advantage  or  benefit  from  such  candidate  as  a consideration  or  inducement  for  his 
vote  at  any  such  convention  or  meeting  of  the  people,  or  his  signature  to  any  such 
paper,  shall  be  punished  by  imprisonment  in  the  county  jail  not  more  than  one  year 
or  by  fine  not  exceeding  five  hundred  dollars. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  there  in  those  sections — 4478,  4478a,  or 
4479— upon  which  you  based  this  language  charging  that  Edmonds 
was  paid  money  by  Stephenson  for  the  purpose  of  bribing  and-  cor- 
rupting a sufficient  number  of  the  electors  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin 
to  encompass  the  nomination  of  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Section  4478  uses  the  word  “corruptly,”  and  that  is 
why  I used  it  in  this  charge. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  the  only  reason  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  was  the  reason — to  be  inclusive,  to  cover  the 
entire  subject. 

The  Chairman.  The  sections  that  we  have  already  considered  do 
not  use  the  word  “corruptly.” 

Mr.  Blaine.  I do  not  understand  that  they  do;  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  in  order  that  you  might  make  the  charge 
under  a statute  providing  that  it  should  be  done  corruptly  as  a basis 


606 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE. 


of  constituting  the  offense,  you  used  the  language  in  the  third  specific 
charge  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I added  those  words ; yes. 

The  Chairman.  Not  because  you  had  any  knowledge  of  specific 
acts  or  facts  upon  which  to  base  the  charge  of  bribing  and  corrupting  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No,  sir;  not  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  “not  at  all?” 

Mr.  Blaine.  Not  at  all;  not  any  personal  knowledge. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  there  are  no  facts  in  your  mind  to  be 
inquired  of  upon  which  you  base  those  charges  1,  2,  and  3? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No;  I would  say  “no.” 

The  Chairman.  And  it  was  not  because  you  had  any  knowledge 
of  acts  performed  by  these  men  that  were  corrupt,  or  in  violation  of 
the  statute,  that  you  made  those  charges,  but  because  of  the  general 
language  of  the  statute  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  is  it. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  true  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  To  be  inclusive  in  case  an  investigation  was  had. 

The  Chairman.  Now  we  come  to  the  fourth  specific  charge,  which 
is  more  specific : 

That  in  pursuance  of  the  purposes  and  designs  above  stated,  said  Isaac  Stephenson, 
did,  by  and  through  his  agents,  prior  to  said  primary,  pay  to  one  U.  C.  Keller,  of  Sauk 
County,  an  elector  of  this  State,  the  sum  of  $300  as  a consideration  for  some  act  to  be 
done  by  said  Keller  for  said  Stephenson  preliminary  to  said  primary,  corruptly  and 
unlawfully. 

Have  you  knowledge  of  any  of  the  facts  therein  charged  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Only  as  conveyed  to  me  by  an  elector  of  this  State. 

The  Chairman.  It  was  on  information  that  you  made  it  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  On  information. 

The  Chairman.  Who  was  that  elector  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  James  A.  Stone;  and  his  letter  is  in  evidence.  I have 
a memorandum  giving  that. 

The  Chairman.  His  testimony  is  in  evidence.  That  is  not  the 
game  warden  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  is  not  the  game  warden. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I should  like  to  say  right  here  that  with  the  little 
examination  I have  been  able  to  give  this  matter  I do  not  find  that 
full  letter  in  evidence. 

Mr.  Blaine.  Stone’s  letter  on  page  945  of  the  record  of  the  joint 
investigating  committee  is  all  I can  find. 

The  Chairman.  I shall  be  glad  to  supply  that  right  here.  I have 
an  index. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I will  look  into  the  matter  of  that  letter,  but  I 
did  not  know’  but  that  we  might  make  a little  headway  right  here. 
I did  not  know  but  that  you  could  produce  the  original. 

Mr.  Blaine.  I do  not  believe  it  is  in  existence.  It  contains  matter 
that  possibly  some  members  of  the  committee  did  not  want  in;  and 
the  letter  has  gone  astray. 

The  Chairman.  At  this  time  I will  make  the  suggestion  that  you 
eliminate  statements  of  that  kind,  because  they  go  into  the  record. 

Mr.  Blaine.  Oh ! I beg  your  pardon.  I did  not  refer  to  any 

The  Chairman.  Let  us  keep  all  statements  of  that  kind  out  of  it. 

Mr.  Blaine.  1 desire  to  withdraw  that  remark. 

The  Chairman.  In  the  index  that  I have  made  of  the  exhibits  I do 
not  find  any  letter  from  Mr.  Stone. 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE.  607 

Mr.  Blaine.  No;  the  Stone  letter  is  found,  so  far  as  I can  find,  in 
the  record,  on  page  945  of  the  joint  legislative  investigation. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  but  that  is  an  excerpt,  without  date  or 
signature. 

Mr.  Blaine.  But  the  original  letter 

Mr.  Littlefield.  There  is  no  question  pending  now,  Mr.  Blaine. 

Mr.  Blaine.  I was  making  an  explanation. 

The  Chairman.  You  read  it  in  connection  with  your  testimony  at 
the  hearing,  did  you  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I did. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  the  letter  on  page  945  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Page  945. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  desire  to  now  state  that  letter  as  the  basis, 
in  whole  or  in  part,  of  your  statement  made  in  specific  charge  No.  4 ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I do;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Then  suppose  you  read  it  now  into  the  record. 

Mr.  Blaine.  I will  say  that  this  letter  was  dated  prior  to  the  filing 
of  the  charges. 

The  Chairman.  First,  before  reading  it,  explain  why  portions  of  it 
have  been  eliminated.  Did  you  not  read  it  all  at  the  hearing? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I gave  the  letter  to  the  committee. 

The  Chairman.  Oh!  You  gave  it  to  the  committee? 

Mr.  Blaine.  To  the  chairman  of  the  committee.  The  committee 
had  possession  of  the  letter. 

The  Chairman.  Read  it  as  it  is  printed  in  the  record. 

Mr.  Blaine  (reading): 

I note  that  you  are  taking  the  square  position  as  to  investigation.  * * * It  is 
not  an  impeachment  of  the  primary  principle  to  demand  it,  but  the  reverse.  A 
verdict  of  a jury  may  be  impeached  on  a showing  of  fraud  or  corruption.  So  of  the 
judgment  of  any  court.  Fraud  in  any  contract  renders  it  invalid. 

A thorough  investigation  would  do  much  good,  whatever  the  result.  Roosevelt’s 
doctrine  of  publicity  as  a remedy  for  the  trust  evil  may  well  be  applied  here. 

* * * The  avowed  worker  for  Stephenson  in  Sauk  County  was  U.  C.  Keller, 
ex-clerk  of  court.  * * * On  this  proposition  he  stated  to  me  in  the  hearing  of 
several  others  that  he  had  $300  of  Stephenson’s  money  to  spend  in  the  primary  cam- 
paign. As  a cover  for  his  work  he  was  put  on  the  “game-warden  force”  without  pay. 
This  appointment  was  canceled,  I am  informed,  shortly  afterwards.  All  this  can  be 
substantiated. 

Another  thing  which  would  bear  investigation  is  the  subscription  list  of  the  Wis- 
consin Agriculturist  paper  published  at  Racine.  Immediately  after  the  “adv.”  “The 
Grand  Old  Man  ” was  published  in  that  paper  immense  quantities  of  “sample  ” numbers 
were  circulated  through  this  part  of  the  district.  I presume  throughout  the  State. 
Who  paid  for  this  circulation? 

Matters  like  this  could  be  found  in  every  county,  I believe.  I feel  like  congratulat- 
ing you  on  the  position  you  have  taken  and  sincerely  believe  that  your  action  will  be 
approved  if  you  press  for  an  investigation  and  show  up  the  fraud. 

Truly, 

That  letter  was  signed  by  James  A.  Stone,  of  Reedsburg,  Wis. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  is  the  name  of  the  town?  Reedsburg? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Reedsburg. 

The  Chairman.  What  became  of  the  original  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  The  original  letter  was  delivered  to  the  legislative 
committee. 

The  Chairman.  Was  it  delivered  to  the  committee  at  the  time  you 
introduced  it  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Later. 


608 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE. 


The  Chairman.  What  became  of  it  when  you  had  finished  reading 
it  ? You  appear  to  have  read  it  before  the  committee. 

Mr.  Blaine.  No;  I read  a copy  to  the  committee.  Then  they 
demanded  the  original  and  I forwarded  the  original  to  them  subse- 
quently. 

The  Chairman.  What  became  of  the  copy  ? Did  you  deliver  that 
to  the  committee  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I delivered  that  to  the  committee. 

The  Chairman.  At  the  time  you  read  it  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  At  the  time  I read  it. 

The  Chairman.  Were  there  any  eliminations  from  it? 

Mr.  Blaine.  There  were  eliminations  in  the  copy  as  I made  it;  yes. 

The  Chairman.  Then  you  did  not  copy  the  whole  letter  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Oh,  no;  1 did  not  copy  the  whole  letter.  I eliminated 
part  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  Why  did  you  eliminate  part  of  it  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  It  referred  to  the  subsequent  campaign  of  a public 
man  in  this  State  which  I considered  had  no  relation  to  the  senatorial 
investigation. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  the  committee  are  not  chargeable  with 
having  mutilated  the  document  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Not  at  all;  no. 

The  Chairman.  Because  you  had  eliminated  this. 

Senator  Pomerene.  There  was  nothing  omitted  which  pertained  to 
this  inquiry  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Not  at  all;  no. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  it  was  upon  the  statements  contained  in 
that  letter  that  you  based  the  fourth  specific  charge? 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  is  true. 

The  Chairman.  Was  it  upon  anything  else? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No. 

The  Chairman.  You  had  no  personal  information  upon  which  you 
based  it  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No  personal  information. 

The  Chairman.  And  no  information  conveyed  to  you  except  that 
contained  in  that  letter? 

Mr.  Blaine.  In  that  letter;  that  is  correct. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  the  fourth  specific  charge  must  rest  upon 
that  letter  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  is  correct. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  now  take  the  fifth: 

That  in  further  pursuance  of  such  purposes  and  design,  said  Isaac  Stephenson,  by 
and  through  his  agents,  prior  to  said  primary,  paid  to  one  Hambright,.  of  Racine,  Wis., 
large  sums  of  money,  as  a consideration  for  some  act  to  be  done  by  said  Hambright  for 
said  Stephenson  preliminary  to  said  primary — said  Hambright  being  then  an  elector  of 
this  State — corruptly  and  unlawfully. 

Upon  what  do  you  base  that  statement  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Upon  a statement  from  Mr.  Henry  C.  Campbell,  of 

Milwaukee. 

The  Chairman.  Of  Milwaukee  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  purport  to  give  you  the  statement  upon 

his  information  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Upon  his  information. 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE. 


609 


The  Chairman.  Directly  from  Hambright? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I do  not  recollect;  I think  not.  I am  not  certain 
about  that. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  upon  what  information,  if  any,  Mr. 
Campbell  made  this  statement  to  you  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I can  not  recall  anything  now.  It  appears  to  me 
that  I had  a memorandum  of  it,  and  that  was  given  to  the  committee, 
which  showed  the  reason  if  there  was  one. 

The  Chairman.  Which  shows  the  reason  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  If  there  was  one. 

The  Chairman.  Where  and  when  did  Mr.  Campbell  make  the 
statement  to  you  upon  which  you  based  this  specific  charge  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  In  the  city  of  Milwaukee,  on  the  24th  day  of  January, 
1909. 

The  Chairman.  Was  there  a committee  in  session  then  investi- 
gating the  question  of  Senator  Stephenson’s  election  or  nomination? 

Mr.  Blaine.  There  was  not.  I had  come  to  the  city  of  Milwaukee 
to  investigate  before  presenting  the  formal  charges  in  full. 

The  Chairman.  You  anticipated  the  meeting  of  the  committee  in 
your  preparation  to  make  these  charges ; did  you  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No;  I did  not  know  what  the  disposition  of  the 
legislature  would  be. 

The  Chairman.  I am  not  using  the  word  “anticipated”  in  that 
sense.  I mean  in  point  of  time.  Knowing  that  a committee  was 
going  to  investigate,  or  probably  would  investigate,  did  you  begin  to 
prepare  yourself  so  as  to  make  the  charges  before  that  committee  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I did  not  know  there  was  going  to  be  a committee 
appointed.  My  resolution  provided  for  the  appointment  of  a com- 
mittee. 

The  Chairman.  Your  resolution  provided  for  it;  but  it  had  not 
been  acted  upon  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  It  had  not  been  acted  on.  Allow  me  to  suggest — 
this  is  only  a suggestion — that  a resolution  to  investigate  had  been 
defeated  prior  to  this. 

The  Chairman.  I find  that  in  the  record.  What  I want  to  know 
is  as  to  the  time  and  circumstances  under  which  Campbell  made  the 
statement  to  you.  Just  state  as  to  the  time,  either  by  date  or  by 
reference. 

Mr.  Blaine.  The  time  that  he  made  the  statement  was  on  Sunday, 
January  24,  1909. 

The  Chairman.  Tell  us  the  circumstances  under  which  he  made 
the  statement. 

Mr.  Blaine.  I made  an  appointment  with  Mr.  Campbell  through 
Mr.  William  Powell,  then  a reporter  on  the  Milwaukee  Journal,  to 
meet  Mr.  Campbell  in  the  city  of  Milwaukee. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  Mr.  Campbell  ? The  editor  of  the  Journal  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  One  of  the  editors,  or  the  editor;  I do  not  know  which. 
I met  Mr.  Campbell  by  appointment  at  the  Plankinton  Hotel. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Campbell  was  one  of  the  editors  of  the  Evening 
Journal  of  this  city  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  prompted  you  to  make  this  engagement 
with  Mr.  Campbell  ? 

15235°— vol  1—11 39 


610 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE. 


Mr.  Blaine.  I desired  to  know  what  information  the  Journal  as  a 
newspaper  might  have  in  reference  to  the  charges  that  had  been 
generally  made  throughout  the  State  in  reference  to  the  primary 
election. 

The  Chairman.  Had  the  Journal  antagonized  the  election  of 
Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  It  was  opposed  to  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  Had  you  been  favorable  to  Senator  Stephenson’s 
nomination  and  election  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No;  I had  not. 

The  Chairman.  At  no  time? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I was  opposed  to  Senator  Stephenson,  both  in  the 
primary  and  subsequently. 

The  Chairman.  Had  you  been  cooperating  with  the  Journal  in 
your  opposition  to  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I had  not.  No. 

The  Chairman.  How  did  you  come  to  make  the  appointment  with 
Mr.  Campbell  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Only  because  my  personal  acquaintanceship  with 
Mr.  Powell  and  my  reading  of  the  Milwaukee  Journal  led  me  to  at 
least  conclude  that  they  might  give  me  some  information;  and  I am 
not  certain  but  that  I had  talked  with  Mr.  Campbell  prior  to  this.  I 
can  not  recall  that. 

The  Chairman.  You  came  here  for  the  purpose  of  having  this 
conversation  with  Mr.  Campbell,  the  arrangement  having  been  made 
by  Mr.  Powell  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Mr.  William  Powell. 

The  Chairman.  Was  Powell  present  at  the  conversation  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  He  was  not. 

The  Chairman.  Did  Mr.  Campbell  profess  to  make  statements  to 
you  of  things  within  his  own  knowledge? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Things  that  had  been  brought  to  him  as  a newspaper 
man,  upon  information. 

The  Chairman.  That  had  been  brought  to  him;  not  upon  his  own 
information  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Not  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  state  to  you  the  source  of  his  information? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I think  in  our  talk  he  did.  I do  not  remember  just 
the  source.  It  is  possible  that  in  the  other  investigation  I stated  the 
source.  I doubt  that. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  the  politics  of  the  Journal? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Or  what  was  it  then  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I think  it  is  classified  as  nonpartisan. 

The  Chairman.  What  do  you  mean  by  “ nonp artisan”  ? Do  you 
mean  not  in  favor  of  any  party  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  it  does  not  wear  the  party  tag  of  either  party. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  what  you  call  “ nonpartisan”  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  is  the  way  they  put  it. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  mean  that  it  is  not  in  favor  of  any 
political  party  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I think  it  does  not  support  any  political  party. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  it  does? 

Mr.  Blaine.  It  does  not. 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE. 


611 


The  Chairman.  It  does  not  recognize  party  politics  at  all? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I think  it  recognizes  the  nonpartisan  principle  purely. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Campbell  is  the  editor  of  that  paper;  is  he? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  What  political  faith  does  Mr.  Campbell  profess? 

Mr.  Blaine.  As  far  as  I know,  he  is  a Republican. 

The  Chairman.  He  has  always  been  a Republican,  so  far  as  you 
know,  has  he  not? 

Mr.  Blaine.  So  far  as  I know.  I have  not  known  Mr.  Campbell  a 
great  many  years. 

The  Chairman.  Was  he  personally  in  favor  of  Senator  Stephen- 
son’s nomination  or  election  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  From  his  language  and  what  appeared  in  his  paper 
I should  say  “no.” 

The  Chairman.  No;  I do  not  mean  his  paper. 

Mr.  Blaine.  From  his  own  conversation? 

The  Chairman.  I am  speaking  now  of  Mr.  Campbell  personally. 

Mr.  Blaine.  No;  he  did  not  favor  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  this  was  a coming  together  of  antago- 
nistic elements  for  the  purpose  of  laying  a foundation  for  filing 
these  charges,  was  it  ? 

Mr.  Blaine  I would  not  put  it  that  way.  I would  say  that  it  was 
my  purpose  to  ascertain  as  much  as  I could  in  reference  to  specific 
charges  to  be  filed. 

The  Chairman.  Why  were  you  desiring  to  file  specific  charges 
against  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  The  reason  was  stated  in  my  address  before  the  leg- 
islature. They  having  defeated  the  Democratic  resolution  of  Sena- 
tor Husting,  to  make  the  investigation  without  specific  charges,  and 
it  being  stated  by  members  of  the  committee  that,  without  specific 
charges,  they  would  not  make  an  inquiry,  or  would  not  vote  for  an 
investigation,  I therefore  concluded  to  file  the  specific  charges,  with 
the  idea  that  that  would  bring  about  an  investigation. 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  a Democrat? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I am  a Republican. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  a Republican  then? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I was. 

The  Chairman.  Whom  were  you  supporting  for  the  Senate? 

Mr.  Blaine.  In  the  primary? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Blaine.  I supported  Mr.  Hatton  in  the  primary. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Hatton  was  a Republican  candidate,  was  he? 

Mr.  Blaine.  He  was. 

The  Chairman.  Whom  did  you  support  in  the  legislature  for 
Senator  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  My  position  was  not  to  support  anyone  until  the  inves- 
tigation was  closed. 

The  Chairman.  When  the  time  arrived  under  the  law  that  you 
should  vote,  as  a member  of  the  senate  of  this  State,  for  candidates 
for  the  United  States  Senate,  for  whom  did  you  cast  your  vote  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I cast  my  vote  on  the  several  days  for  various  men. 

The  Chairman.  Republicans  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Republicans.  All  Republicans.  And  a statement 
made  in  joint  convention  of  the  legislature  was  that  I could  not  vote 


612 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE. 


for  Mr.  Stephenson  until  the  investigation  had  been  completed  and  we 
ascertained  whether  there  had  been  any  corruption  or  fraud  or  unlawful 
means  used  in  the  primaries.  I say  I made  that  in  the  joint  con- 
vention. That  might  have  been  made  in  an  address  before  the 
senate. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  have  a statement  from  Mr.  Hambright 
upon  which  you  based,  in  whole  or  in  part,  the  fifth  specific  charge  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  You  knew  Mr.  Hambright,  did  you  not? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  him  now  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I do  not. 

The  Chairman.  What  does  he  do  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I have  no  knowledge  whatever. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  nothing  of  his  antecedents  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I know  nothing  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  And  have  not  learned  anything  up  to  this  time  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Not  that  I know  of;  no. 

The  Chairman.  Then  you  placed  no  reliance  upon  any  statement 
that  Mr.  Hambright  might  have  made  either  to  you  or  to  Mr.  Camp- 
bell, did  you  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I can  not  say  that  I did  not  place  any  reliance  upon  it. 
I did  not  think  about  it. 

The  Chairman.  Would  you  place  reliance  upon  the  statement  of  a 
man  with  whom  you  had  no  acquaintance  or  of  whom  you  knew 
nothing  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I was  getting  this  information  in  order  to  make  the 
charges  specific  instead  of  general;  and  this  was  merely  one  of  the 
incidents,  and  not  of  any  great  importance  to  my  mind  at  that  time. 

The  Chairman.  Had  Mr.  Campbell  told  you  that  any  member  of 
that  legislative  body  had  been  bribed,  would  you  have  been  willing 
to  make  and  file  specific  charges  based  upon  Mr.  Campbell’s  statement  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Entirely  alone  ? 

The  Chairman.  To  the  extent  that  you  made  them  in  this  fifth 
charge  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  In  this  fifth  charge?  Unless  in  connection  with  the 
other  charges. 

The  Chairman.  These  separate  charges  are  distinct  one  from  the 
other.  They  are  not  intended  to  be  taken  as  one  charge,  are  they  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No;  they  are  just  to  point  out  specific  instances  of 
supposed  violation  of  law. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  a lawyer,  and  one  of  large  experience,  1 
understand  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I thank  you  for  the  compliment. 

The  Chairman.  You  know  that  specific  charges,  made  under  these 
circumstances,  partake  of  the  nature  of  an  indictment,  before  a 
legislative  investigation  committee,  and  you  realize  that  each  of  those 
charges  must  stand  upon  its  own  responsibility,  do  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  was  not  the  position  I took. 

The  Chairman.  It  was  not  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  you  really  have  no  knowledge,  even 
second  hand,  as  to  any  money  being  paid  by  Senator  Stephenson,  or 
by  any  of  his  agents,  directly  or  indirectly,  to  Hambright,  have  you  ? 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE. 


613 


Mr.  Blaine.  Nothing  except  as  I have  stated. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  “ large  sums  of  money.  ” Just  limit  that. 
What  do  you  consider  11  large  sums  of  money?” 

Mr.  Blaine.  There  was  no  amount  known.  It  was  simply  sug- 
gested that  it  was  a large  sum  of  money. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  think  it  was  a hundred  dollars  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Nothing  was  suggested.  I do  not  entertain  an 
opinion  upon  it,  and  did  not  at  that  time. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  do  not  know  who  Hambright  is  or  what 
he  does  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Not  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  been  to  Racine,  Wis.,  have  you  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I was  never  in  the  city. 

The  Chairman.  You  were  never  at  Racine  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No,  sir;  I have  not  been  at  Racine. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  pass  to  the  sixth  specific  charge.  I read  it: 

That,  in  further  pursuance  of  the  purposes  and  design  above  stated,  said  Isaac 
Stephenson  did,  by  and  through  his  agents,  prior  to  said  primary,  pay  to  one  Roy 
Morse,  of  Fond  du  Lac,  Wis.,  then  an  elector  of  this  State,  the  sum  of  $1,000  as  a 
consideration  for  some  act  to  be  done  by  said  Morse  for  said  Isaac  Stephenson  pre- 
liminary to  said  primary,  corruptly  and  unlawfully. 

Did  you  have  personal  knowledge  or  have  you  now  personal 
knowledge  that  any  money  was  paid  to  Roy  Morse  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No;  not  personal  knowledge. 

The  Chairman.  Upon  what  did  you  base  that  statement  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  My  best  recollection  at  the  time  that  I testified  before 
the  other  committee  and  my  best  recollection  now  is  that  that  was 
contained  in  an  editorial  published  in  the  Appleton  Crescent,  which 
was  published  in  Appleton,  Wis.  I do  not  seem  to  have  that  edi- 
torial and  I do  not  believe  it  was  produced  before  the  other  com- 
mittee. I do  not  remember. 

The  Chairman.  How  did  you  fix  upon  the  sum  of  $1,000  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I am  quite  positive  the  editorial  stated  a thousand 
dollars. 

The  Chairman.  You  had  no  more  definite  information  than  the 
editorial  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Not  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  talk  with  the  editor  of  the  paper  about  it  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I did  not;  no. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  take  any  trouble  to  ascertain  upon  what 
the  editorial  was  based ; as  to  the  facts  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I did  not  have  the  time. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  a pretty  serious  charge  to  make  against 
one  of  your  fellow  citizens. 

Mr.  Blaine.  The  charges,  however,  were  so  generally  made  that 
these  specific  charges  were  not  so  serious. 

The  Chairman.  They  are  so  serious  that,  if  proven  true,  they 
would  subject  Senator  Stephenson,  under  the  laws  of  the  State  of  Wis- 
consin, to  the  payment  of  a large  fine  and  imprisonment  in  the  peni- 
tentiary. Is  not  that  true  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  Mr.  Morse  also. 

The  Chairman.  I am  speaking  now  of  Senator  Stephenson  only. 


614 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE. 


Mr.  Blaine.  Yes;  it  was  a serious  charge  and  a serious  occasion. 

The  Chairman.  Is  any  occasion  ever  serious  enough,  in  your  judg- 
ment, to  justify  a man  in  making  a charge  that,  if  proven,  would 
subject  a person  to  fine  and  imprisonment  without  having  any 
knowledge  of  facts  upon  which  to  base  the  charge  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  My  knowledge 

The  Chairman.  I say  is  any  situation  ever  serious  enough  to 
justify  that  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  You  think  it  is  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  If  I understand  your  question. 

(By  request,  the  reporter  read  the  question  referred  to,  as  follows:) 

The  Chairman.  Is  any  occasion  ever  serious  enough,  in  your  judgment,  to  justify  a 
man  in  making  a charge  that,  if  proven,  would  subject  him  to  fine  and  imprisonment, 
without  having  any  kno wedge  of  facts  upon  which  to  base  the  charge? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Yes,  assuredly. 

The  Chairman.  Then  you  believe  in  justification  for  that  kind  of 
thing  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Indeed.  I found  a parallel  in  the  W.  A.  Clark  case, 
before  I made  the  charges. 

The  Chairman.  I am  speaking,  now,  of  your  responsibility. 

Mr.  Blaine.  I was  justifying  myself  upon  that  case,  and  upon  the 
general  charges  that  were  made  throughout  the  State. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  talk  this  over  with  the  editor  of  the  paper  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  see  the  editor  of  that  paper? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  interview,  or  seek  to  have  an  inter- 
view, with  any  person  connected  with  the  editorial  responsibility  of  the 
paper  in  which  you  saw  that  statement  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Why  did  you  not  write  the  editor  a letter,  or  tell 
him  that  you  desired  to  make  a responsible  use  of  that  statement,  and 
ask  him  as  to  his  authority  for  it  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I think  all  of  this  was  finally  settled,  in  my  mind,  to 
file  these  charges,  between  Friday  of  the  week  preceeding  the  sub- 
mission of  my  substitute  resolution  and  the  Tuesday  morning 
following,  and  I neither  had  the  time  nor  the  money  to  make  any 
extended  investigation.  I did  not  consider  it  necessary. 

The  Chairman.  There  was  a telephone  between  your  house  and 
Fond  du  Lac,  was  there  not  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I was  not  in  my  office. 

The  Chairman.  You  could  have  gone  to  your  office? 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  would  have  been  70  miles  away. 

The  Chairman.  But  there  is  a telephone  connection  with  the  edi- 
torial room  of  that  newspaper,  is  there  not  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  From  Madison,  where  you  were? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  From  Madison  or  from  here? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  you  could  have  at  least  called  the  editor's 
attention  to  this  statement  and  had  him  say  to  you,  “ Do  not  rely  upon 
that  statement,"  or  “You  may  rely  upon  it."  and  you  did  not  do  it ' 

Mr.  Blaine.  No 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE. 


615 


The  Chairman.  You  would  rather  jeopardize  Senator  Stephenson’s 
reputation,  and  put  him  to  the  expense  of  meeting  these  charges  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I had  no  reason  to  believe  that  the  editor  of  the  Apple- 
ton  Crescent  was  not  a reliable  man. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  have  any  reason  to  believe  that  he  was  ? 
You  say,  now,  that  you  do  not  know  him,  and  never  saw  him. 

Mr.  Blaine.  I assume  that  everybody  is  reliable,  until  they  are 
shown  to  be  different. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  not  assume  that  Senator  Stephenson  was 
reliable  and  honest,  did  you  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I do  not  think  that  is  the  law  in  this  particular  case. 

The  Chairman.  But  you  volunteered  the  test  that  you  would 
apply — that  you  believe  every  man  reliable  until  it  is  proven  that 
he  is  not  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No;  that  is  not  what  I believe.  That  is  political. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  accept  as  true  and  reliable  every  editorial 
utterance  you  saw  in  regard  to  this  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  In  a general  way. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  A statement  of  this  kind. 

The  Chairman.  There  were  a great  many  editorials  that  were 
favorable  to  and  entirely  justified  Senator  Stephenson.  Did  you 
accept  those  as  true  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I accepted  some  things  that  were  said  as  true,  but 
not  the  justification  as  true. 

The  Chairman.  The  presumption  was  against  him,  in  your  mind, 
was  it  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  The  presumption  was  against  him. 

The  Chairman.  So,  Mr.  Blaine,  that  is  all  the  foundation  that 
you  had  for  charging  that  “ corruptly  and  unlawfully”  Isaac  Stephen- 
son paid  a thousand  dollars  to  Boy  Morse,  of  Fond  du  Lac  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No.  6.  Specification  No.  6. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  been  keeping  some  track  of  this  investi- 
gation, I presume,  have  you  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Some  track  of  it;  yes. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  not  know  that  testimony  in  this  investiga- 
tion, undisputed  so  £ar,  shows  that  Mr.  Morse,  on  August  27,  was 
paid  1450  out  of  the  campaign  fund,  and  that  that  is  all  the  money 
he  received;  and  that  the  expenditure  of  that  money  has  been 
accounted  for  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I do  not  know  that. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  not  a little  bit  solicitous  as  to  whether 
or  not  you  were  going  to  be  borne  out  and  justified  by  the  testimony 
in  this  case,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  you  had  made  that  charge  of 
corruption  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I did  not  attend  the  hearings  of  the  committee.  I 
was  busily  engaged  in  my  duties  as  State  senator.  There  was  a com- 
mittee to  investigate  that,  and  I assumed  that  that  responsibility 
was  upon  that  committee,  and  my  responsibility  was  in  my  seat  in 
the  State  senate. 

The  Chairman.  I am  speaking,  now,  of  the  responsibility  morally 
which  every  man  owes  to  his  fellow  man,  when  he  makes  a charge  that 
reflects  upon  the  honesty  and  credit  of  his  fellow  man,  if  that  charge 
is  being  investigated  by  an  authorized  body.  It  did  not  occur  to  you 


616 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE. 


that  you  should  at  least  advise  yourself  as  to  whether  or  not  the 
charges  that  you  had  made  were  sustained  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  It  occurred  to  me  that  the  committee  was  attending 
to  that  part  of  the  legislative  duty. 

The  Chairman.  The  committee  are  attending  to  it.  There  is  no 
question  about  that. 

Mr.  Blaine.  I do  not  refer  to  this  committee.  I mean  our  inves- 
tigating committee.  They  were  investigating. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  now  say  that  you  believe  that  the  statement 
which  you  made  under  oath,  in  the  sixth  specific  charge,  that  Senator 
Stephenson  corruptly  and  unlawfully  paid  a thousand  dollars  as  a con- 
sideration by  Isaac  Stephenson  for  some  unlawful  act  to  be  done 

Mr.  Blaine.  I did  not  make  the  charge  under  oath.  I made  it 
upon  information  and  belief. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  under  oath,  is  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Not  at  all.  It  is  not  under  oath. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  think  there  is  no  responsibility  for  an 
affidavit  made  on  information  and  belief  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  There  is  no  affidavit. 

The  Chairman.  But  you  are  a sworn  officer  of  the  State,  and  if  no 
oath  were  administered  to  you,  you  would  have  the  same  responsibility, 
would  you  not,  if  you  go  before  a committee  of  the  body  of  which  you 
are  a member  and  testify,  even  though  no  oath  is  administered  to  you  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  If  we  were  held  to  that  responsibility  I fear  that  some 
of  our  public  acts  would  be  subject  to  prosecution  for  perjury  some- 
times, inadvertently. 

The  Chairman.  Is  not  that  the  rule  recognized  in  all  judicial  and 
legislative  bodies,  that  a statement  made  by  a member  who  has  been 
sworn  as  a member  attaches  to  him  the  responsibility  of  an  oath  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No;  I think  the  constitution  provides  for  the  reverse. 
It  gives  immunity  to  members  of  the  legislature. 

The  Chairman.  What  immunity  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  As  to  what  they  say  while  they  are  members. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  the  language,  that  he  may  not  be  held  re- 
sponsible for  what  he  says ; but  does  that  relieve  him  from  the  respon- 
sibility of  telling  the  truth? 

Mr.  Blne.  The  moral  responsibilty  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Blaine.  The  truth  so  far  as  he  knows  it?  Not  at  all;  not  at 
all.  That  is  the  moral  responsibility  that  he  owes  to  himself. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  anything  to  say  as  to  this  sixth  specific 
charge,  in  view  of  the  facts  that  have  been  brought  out  under  oath, 
as  to  whether  or  not  you  now  desire  to  stand  by  that  charge  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I have  not  examined  the  testimony  to  ascertain  if  only 
$450  has  been  paid.  I take  the  chairman's  statement  for  that;  and 
that  information  can  be  corrected,  as  $450  instead  of  $1,000 — a 
pretty  close  guess. 

The  Chairman.  Take  the  seventh  specific  charge,  which  reads  as 
follows : 

That  in  further  pursuance  of  such  purposes  and  designs,  said  Isaac  Stephenson,  by 
and  through  his  agents,  prior  to  said  primary,  paid  to  divers  persons,  then  electors  of  the 
county  of  Grant,  Wis.,  ranging  from  $5  per  day  and  upward,  as  a consideration  for  some 
act  to  be  done  by  said  several  electors  for  said  Isaac  Stephenson,  preliminary  to  said  pri- 
mary, corruptly  and  unlawfully. 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE. 


617 


Will  you  give  me  the  name  of  some  one  person  to  whom  he,  or  those 
representing  him,  paid  the  sum  of  $5,  or  any  sum  of  money,  for  any 
purpose  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  L.  H.  Stevens,  of  Lancaster,  gave  me  that  informa- 
tion. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  give  his  name  as  one  to  whom  Senator 
Stephenson  paid  money  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  To  whom  money  was  paid. 

The  Chairman.  What  knowledge  have  you  of  that? 

Mr.  Blaine.  His  own  declaration. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  state  to  you  how  much  money  he  had 
received  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  He  did  not,  in  a specific  way.  He  said  that  he  was 
going  to  get  more  than  $5  per  day  and  expenses. 

The  Chairman.  For  doing  what? 

Mr.  Blaine.  For  doing  work  for  Senator  Stephenson — organizing 
and  picking  off  Hatton  and  McGovern  men. 

The  Chairman.  What  do  you  mean  by  “ picking  off  ?” 

Mr.  Blaine.  By  getting  those  men  to  work  for  Senator  Stephenson 
instead  of  for  Hatton  and  McGovern. 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  picking  “them”  off  to  get  them  to  work 
for  a candidate  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  is  what  he  called  it. 

The  Chairman.  Picking  them  off? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  tell  you  that  in  the  absence  of  his  inter- 
vention they  would  not  work  for  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  He  did  not,  no;  because  he  had  just  started  out  on 
the  campaign. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  know? 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  that  is  what  he  meant? 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  know  that  in  the  absence  of  Mr.  Stevens’s 
work  or  intervention  these  men  would  not  support  Senator  Stephen- 
son ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Oh,  no. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  you  do  not  know  whether  or  not  the  money 
was  given  or  used  for  anything  of  value  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Excepting  as  he  said  that  he  was  going  to  use  it  for 
that  purpose. 

The  Chairman.  I understand  you  to  say  that  he  said  he  was  going 
to  “pick  them  off,”  and  you  say  “picking  them  off”  meant  to  get 
them  to  vote  for  Senator  Stephenson  and  see  them  about  voting  for 
Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No.  I said  Mir.  Stevens  said  that  he  would  pay  them 
for  their  services. 

The  Chairman.  What  services  ? 

Mir.  Blaine.  To  be  rendered  for  Mr.  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  What  kind  of  services? 

Mir.  Blaine.  In  the  campaign.  I do  not  know  what. 

The  Chairman.  Be  more  definite. 

Mir.  Blaine.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  What  acts? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I do  not  know  what  he  meant. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know? 


618 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE. 


Mr.  Blaine.  I just  state  what  he  said. 

The  Chairman.  And,  in  making  these  charges,  you  did  not  know? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I stated  what  he  said. 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  but  I now  want  to  probe  your  knowledge. 
You  state,  in  this  seventh  charge,  that  Senator  Stephenson  “paid” — 
you  use  the  word  “paid”  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Yes;  paid  L.  H.  Stevens 

The  Chairman  (continuing).  “To  divers  persons,  then  electors,” 
these  sums. 

You  have  that  upon  the  statement  of  Stevens  that  he  intended  to 
do  it  ? Is  that  it  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  he  was  receiving  it. 

The  Chairman.  I know;  but  was  he  paying  it  to  divers  persons? 
Mr  Stevens  is  not  divers  persons  He  is  one  person. 

Mr.  Blaine.  I understand.  He  said  he  was  going  to  pay  it  to  other 
persons. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  whether  he  did  or  not? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No ; I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  You  made  this  statement,  then,  upon  Mr.  Stevens's 
statement  that  h e was  going  to  pay  divers  persons  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No;  Mr.  Stevens  was  one  of  the  persons  to  whom 
money  had  been  paid.  O.  A.  Eastman  is  another  person  to  whom 
money  had  been  paid. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  money  was  paid  to  Eastman  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  The  committee  will  take  a recess  until  3 o’clock, 
because  of  the  hour  of  the  funeral  of  the  late  Judge  Quarles. 

Mr.  Blaine.  I would  like  to  ask  the  committee  if  it  is  possible  to 
get  through  with  me  to-day  ? 

The  Chairman.  I could  not  make  any  promise.  You  are  a very 
important  witness,  Mr  Blaine,  as  you  can  readily  understand,  and 
it  is  impossible  for  me  to  say  just  when  we  will  be  through  with  you. 

Mr.  Blaine.  I am  on  order  to  show  cause  in  court  to-morrow. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  assist  you. 

Mr.  Blaine.  I can  return. 

The  Chairman.  We  desire  to  finish  your  examination.  What  time 
would  it  be  necessary  for  you  to  leave  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  To-night.  I can  leave  as  late  as  7.20,  I think. 

The  Chairman.  We  may  be  through  with  you  by  that  time.  I can 
not  tell.  You  can  understand  that,  being  the  party  upon  whom  this 
investigation  rests,  we  want  to  finish  your  examination. 

(Whereupon,  at  12  o’clock  and  30  minutes  p.  m.,  the  committee 
took  a recess  until  3 o’clock  p.  m.) 

AFTER  RECESS. 

The  recess  having  expired,  the  subcommittee  reassembled. 

TESTIMONY  OF  JOHN  J.  BLAINE— Resumed. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Blaine,  we  were  examining  you  on  the  seventh 
charge  when  the  committee  took  a recess.  You  have  said  that  Mr. 
Stevens  was  one  of  the  men  to  whom  you  referred  under  the  head  of 
“divers  persons.” 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE. 


619 


Mr.  Blaine.  He  was  one  of  the  persons  referred  to  in  charge  7. 

The  Chairman.  He  was  one  of  those  whom  you  had  in  mind. 
What  was  the  name  of  the  other? 

Mr.  Blaine.  0.  E.  Eastman. 

The  Chairman.  Did  Mr.  Eastman  receive  any  money  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  He  told  me  that  he  did. 

The  Chairman.  You  made  this  statement,  then,  upon  Mr.  East- 
man’s statement  to  you.  Did  you  ask  Mr.  Eastman  as  to  the  basis 
of  his  information  or  statement  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  He  received  the  money  himself. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  state  from  whom  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Not  from  whom;  just  the  “Stephenson  people.” 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  use  the  term  “Stephenson  people”? 

Mr.  Blaine.  “Stephenson  people.” 

The  Chairman.  What  did  lie  say  ? Just  give  us  his  language. 

Mr.  Blaine.  He  met  me  in  Madison  and  asked  me  to  pull  oil  or  to 
not  have  the  investigation,  or  not  to  use  my  influence  for  an  investi- 
gation, because  there  was  a meeting  at  Blatteville,  where  he  was 
present  with  some  Cook  supporters,  and  that  they  had  changed  to 
Stephenson,  and  that  he  got  money  for  changing. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  state  from  whom  he  got  the  money? 

Mr.  Blaine.  From  the  Stephenson  people. 

The  Chairman.  From  whom  ? 

Mr.  Blainf*.  Not  any  individual. 

The  Chairman.  He  did  not  say  from  which  of  the  Stephenson 
people  he  got  money  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  He  did  not  attempt  to  name  them  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  On  that  statement  to  you,  you  made  the  seventh 
specific  charge  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Those  were  the  two  things  that  influenced  my  mind. 

The  Chairman.  Those  were  the  only  two  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Excepting  as  I have  generally  charged. 

The  Chairman.  I am  referring  to  the  term  “divers  persons,  electors 
of  the  county  of  Grant.” 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  was  the  only  direct  information  I had. 

The  Chairman.  And  upon  that  information  you  made  the  state- 
ment that  money  was  paid  to  “divers  persons”  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  On  the  information  from  Stevens  and  Eastman. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  had  no  information  from  any  other 
person  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I had  none  at  that  time. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  any  information  as  to  whether  or  not 
either  of  those  men  actually  used  the  money  for  any  purpose  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Nothing  except  as  contained  in  the 

The  Chairman.  Unless  you  know,  do  not  state  it. 

Mr.  Blaine.  Nothing,  except  as  contained  in  the  legislative 
examination. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  hearsay. 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  you  do  not  want — yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  no  personal  knowledge? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No,  sir. 


620 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE. 


The  Chairman.  And  you  had  none  at  the  time  you  made  this 

charge  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  now  pass  to  the  eighth  specific  charge, 
and  I will  read  it: 

That  in  further  pursuance  of  such  purposes  and  design,  said  Isaac  Stephenson,  by 
and  through  his  agents,  prior  to  said  primary,  did  pay  to  divers  persons  who  were  at 
such  time  electors  in  this  State  a consideration  for  some  act  to  be  done  for  said  Isaac 
Stephenson  by  such  electors  preliminary  to  such  primary,  corruptly  and  unlawfully. 

Upon  what  knowledge  possessed  by  you  did  you  make  that 
statement  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  is  only  a general  charge  and  intended  to  give 
the  committee,  if  appointed,  an  opportunity  to  make  a thorough,  wide 
examination — no  information  directly. 

The  Chairman.  You  specify  no  money  in  that.  You  have  used 
different  language. 

Mr.  Blaine.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  “did  pay  to  divers  persons  who  were  at 
such  time  electors  in  this  State  a consideration.” 

Mr.  Blaine.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  the  nature  of  the  consideration? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I think  I was  using  the  statutory  expression, 
should  have  been  “a  thing  of  value”  instead  of  “consideration. 
That  would  be  money  that  I had  in  mind. 

The  Chairman.  But  you  did  not  charge  that  it  was  money? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Was  it  money? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I say  I do  not  know  anything  about  that  personally. 
That  was  a general  charge. 

The  Chairman.  Then  you  are  not  prepared  to  give  the  committee 
any  statement  of  facts  within  your  knowledge  upon  which  you  made 
that  charge  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Nothing  on  that  charge. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  pass  to  the  ninth  specific  charge,  and  I 
will  read  it: 

That  in  further  pursuance  of  such  purposes  and  designs,  said  Isaac  Stephenson,  by 
and  through  his  agents,  prior  to  said  primary,  did  pay  to  electors  of  this  State,  who 
were  of  a different  political  opinion  and  who  held  to  other  political  principles  than 
that  of  the  Republican  Party,  more  particularly  Democrats,  sums  of  money  as  a con- 
sideration for  some  act  to  be  done  by  such  electors  for  said  Isaac  Stephenson  prelimi- 
nary to  said  primary,  corruptly  and  unlawfully. 

Upon  what  facts  within  your  knowledge  did  you  make  that  specific 
charge  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  is  a general  charge.  I had  in  mind  rumors  in 
reference  to  two  Democrats  at  that  time. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  have  any  knowledge  of  any  facts  upon 
which  you  based  that  charge  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No  personal  knowledge. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know,  then,  of  any  Democrat  to 
whom  Isaac  Stephenson  either  personally  or  through  his  agents  at 
any  time  paid  money  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Not  as  a matter  of  personal  knowledge;  I do  not. 

The  Chairman.  From  whom  did  you  get  the  information  upon 
which  you  made  that  charge? 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE. 


621 


Mr.  Blaine.  I got  information  from  an  editorial  by  Mr.  Bishop 
in  the  Bloomington  Record,  a Democratic  paper  published  at  Bloom- 
ington, Wis. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  the  man’s  name  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Mr.  Bishop  is  the  editor. 

The  Chairman.  And  it  was  upon  statements  made  in  that  editorial 
that  you  based  this  charge  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I used  it  as  a basis. 

The  Chairman.  Did  that  editorial  undertake  to  state  the  names 
of  the  Democrats  who  had  been  purchased  by  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I have  that  editorial  here,  I think. 

The  Chairman.  Give  us  Mr.  Bishop’s  first  name. 

Mr.  Blaine.  I do  not  know  his  first  name.  I communicated  with 
him,  but  I do  not  remember  his  initials. 

The  Chairman.  Let  us  see  the  editorial. 

Mr.  Blaine  (producing  paper).  It  is  barely  possible  that  that  in- 
formation was  given  to  me  in  the  first  instance  by  Mr.  Stevens — I am 
not  certain  about  that — and  that  the  editorial  merely  substantiated  it. 
There  were  so  many  things  happening  that  I can  not  remember  the 
exact  connection. 

The  Chairman.  This  editorial  which  you  have  handed  me  speaks 
of  a man  named  Edward  Pollock,  editor  of  the  Lancaster  Teller. 
Was  he  a Democrat  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No,  sir;  he  was  a Republican. 

The  Chairman.  Why  do  you  produce  this  editorial  to  sustain  your 
statement,  contained  in  the  ninth  specific  charge,  that  Democrats 
were  purchased  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Because  Mr.  Bishop  is  a Democrat,  and  he  wrote  the 
editorial. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Bishop  does  not  claim  that  he  was  purchased. 

Mr.  Blaine.  He  was  not  attempting  to. 

The  Chairman.  lie  speaks  of  Edward  Pollock  in  that  editorial. 

Mr.  Blaine.  “Offer,”  I think  the  editorial  suggests. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  simply  the  sport  of  a newspaper. 

The  Chairman.  This  is  the  foundation,  then,  for  your  ninth  specific 
charge;  is  it  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Mr.  H.  E.  Austin  had  also  given  me  some  information, 
but  that  is  hearsay. 

The  Chairman.  Was  that  prior  to  the  time  you  filed  these  charges  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  That,  I remember,  was  prior.  I do  not  remember 
that  that  editorial  was  prior. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  do  not  remember  that  the  editorial  was  prior  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I have  not  made  a record  that  it  was.  I do  not  know 
that  it  was. 

The  Chairman.  I want  to  probe  that  question.  Give  me  the  date 
of  the  issue  in  which  this  editorial  appears. 

Mr.  Blaine.  I can  not.  I think  some  one  else  cut  it  out  for  me. 

The  Chairman.  You  think  this  was  after  you  made  that  charge? 

Mr.  Blaine.  It  is  possible,  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  It  speaks  of  your  making  the  charge  before  the 
editorial  was  written.  This  editorial  could  not  have  been  the  incen- 
tive for  making  the  charge,  because  it  mentions  the  fact  that  you  had 
filed  these  charges. 


622 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE. 


Mr.  Blaine.  You  understand  that  I had  made  an  address  before 
the  State  Senate  a week  prior  to  the  charges. 

The  Chairman.  I am  inquiring  as  to  the  information  you  had 
when  you  filed  these  charges. 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  is  my  best  impression.  I can  not  say  exactly. 
I am  not  certain. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  not  know  that  this  editorial  was  pub- 
lished after  the  charges  were  made  and  filed? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I do  not  know  that  it  was  or  was  not. 

The  Chairman.  Then  you  will  not  insist  that  this  was  one  of  the 
bases  upon  which  you  rested  the  charges  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Oh,  not  absolutely;  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Give  us  the  name  of  the  man  who,  you  say,  had 
made  these  statements. 

Mr.  Blaine.  Mr.  H.  E.  Austin. 

The  Chairman.  Who  was  he  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  A Democrat. 

The  Chairman.  Where  does  he  reside  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  He  then  resided  in  the  township  of  Hickory  Grove. 

The  Chairman.  What  does  he  do  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  He  is  a cheese  dealer. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  that  man  tell  you  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  He  told  me  that  Mr.  Stevens  had  seen  him  and 
wanted  to  get  his  support  for  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  Do  not  confuse  Senator  Stephenson  and  Mr. 
Stevens. 

Mr.  Blaine.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  that  Mr.  Stevens  had  seen  Mr.  Austin  and 
wanted  to  get  his  support  for  Senator  Stephenson.  Did  he  tell  Mr. 
Austin  that  Senator  Stephenson  had  oll'ered  him  money? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  That  he  had  given  him  or  offered  to  give  him  any- 
thing of  value  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  He  did  not. 

The  Chairman.  It  was  just  moral  suasion? 

Mr.  Blaine.  He  did  not  say  anything  about  that.  Mr.  Stevens 
mentioned  Mr.  Austin  when  he  was  talking  to  me. 

The  Chairman.  But  he  did  not  say  that  he  had  bought  him  or  was 
going  to  buy  him  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  As  I understood  it,  Mr.  Stevens  had  just  come  from 
Mr.  Austin’s  place.  He  had  been  trying  to  get  him  to  work  for 
Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  “ trying  to  get  him”  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Yes;  and  Mr.  Stevens  said  that  he  was  hiring  all  the 
people  he  could.  I do  not  know  whether  he  tried  to  hire  Mr.  Austin. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  a glittering  generality.  Let  us  reduce  it 
down  to  some  accurate  statement.  What  did  Mr.  Stevens  say  in 
reference  to  Mr.  Austin  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  He  said  he  wanted  to  know  of  me  about  Mr.  Austin. 
I told  him  he  was  a Democrat.  He  said  he  knew  it,  and  that  he 
could  not  get  him.  He  knew  he  was  a Democrat. 

The  Chairman.  And  that  was  all  there  was  of  it? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Oh,  that  is  the  substance  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  the  extent  of  it  ? 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE.  623 

Mr.  Blaine.  Understand,  I can  not  go  into  the  details  of  all  those 
conversations. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  was  it  he  said?  He  said  he  knew  it,  and 
could  not  get  him  ? 

The  Chairman.  If  counsel  will  please  desist,  I desire  to  examine 
this  witness.  Then  counsel  will  Rave  all  the  opportunity  that  he 
desires. 

Then  the  charge  that  Mr.  Stephenson  or  his  representatives  did  pay 
money  to  the  electors  of  the  State  who  were  of  a different  political 
opinion  for  some  act  to  be  done  rests  upon  the  statement  that  Mr. 
Stevens  made  to  you ; does  it  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Oh,  it  does;  but  it  is  broader  than  that. 

The  Chairman.  Is  the  additional  breadth  based  upon  facts,  or  upon 
deductions  that  you  have  drawn  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  The  scandal  was  so  public 

The  Chairman.  Just  refrain  from  that. 

Mr.  Blaine  (continuing).  That  I made  this  charge. 

The  Chairman.  We  do  not  want  general  reputation  at  this  time. 

Mr.  Blaine.  This  is  a general  charge.  That  is  the  purpose.  That 
is  why  I answer  it  in  that  way. 

The  Chairman.  Just  answer  the  question  whether  or  not  it  is  true, 
within  your  knowledge,  that  Isaac  Stephenson,  or  his  agents,  or  any- 
one representing  him,  did  pay  to  any  elector  of  the  State  of  a different 
political  opinion  any  money  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I know  nothing  about  it  personally. 

The  Chairman.  If  you  know  nothing  about  it,  of  course  you  can 
not  testify  to  any  facts. 

Mr.  Blaine.  No,  $ir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  get  any  specific  information  from  any 
person  who  did  know  or  claim  to  know  of  these  facts  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Nothing  aside  from  what  I have  said. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  pass  to  the  tenth  specific  charge,  which  I 
will  read : 

That  in  further  pursuance  of  such  purposes  and  designs,  said  Isaac  Stephenson,  by 
and  through  his  agents,  prior  to  such  primary,  did  offer  to  pay  to  Edward  Pollock,  of 
Lancaster,  Wis.,  certain  sums  of  money,  as  editor  of  the  Teller,  a newspaper  published 
in  said  city  of  Lancaster,  Wis.,  and  to  other  editors  of  newspapers  who  were  at  such 
time  electors  of  this  State,  for  the  purpose  of  purchasing  the  editorial  support  of  such 
editors,  and  as  a consideration  of  something  to  be  done  relating  to  such  primary,  cor- 
ruptly and  unlawfully. 

Upon  what  facts  did  you  base  that  charge  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  An  editorial  in  the  Lancaster  Teller. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  the  editorial  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I have  the  editorial. 

The  Chairman.  Please  produce  it. 

Mr.  Blaine.  Here  it  is.  It  is  dated  January  21.  It  is  not  my 
memorandum. 

Senator  Pomerene.  In  what  paper  did  you  say  this  appeared  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  The  Teller,  published  at  Lancaster,  Wis. 

The  Chairman.  Was  Edward  Pollock  the  editor  of  that  paper? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  have  this  editorial  in  your  possession,  or 
had  you  read  it,  prior  to  the  time  you  made  and  filed  these  charges  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I had  read  it  and  talked  with  Mr.  Pollock. 


624 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE. 


The  Chairman.  Prior  to  the  time  you  formulated  these  charges  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  the  tenth  specific  charge  was  the  result  of 
your  haying  read  that  editorial  and  talked  with  Mr.  Pollock  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  It  was. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  here,  “and  to  other  editors  of  newspapers 
who  were  at  that  time  electors  of  this  State.”  To  what  other  editors 
of  newspapers  did  you  refer  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I had  no  personal  knowledge  of  any.  That  is  a gen- 
eral charge. 

The  Chairman.  Did  Mr.  Pollock  tell  you  that  he  had  been  offered 
a specific  sum  of  money  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No;  he  did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Who  did  he  say  made  the  offer  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  He  did  not  say. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ask  him  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  We  talked  it  over  generally.  It  referred  to  the  Ste- 
phenson people.  The  editorial,  I think,  gives  about  all  he  said.  I 
have  not  read  the  editorial  recently,  and  I do  not  remember  exactly. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  tell  you  the  name  of  the  person  who  offered 
to  pay  him  the  money  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No;  he  did  not. 

The  Chairman.  This  says  “certain  sums  of  money.,,  What  were 
the  sums  of  money  offered  to  Mr.  Pollock  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Why  did  you«say  “certain  sums  of  money  ?” 

Mr.  Blaine.  Oh,  that  is  an  expression.  I can  not  give  any  reason. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  not  give  it  its  technical  meaning,  then? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No;  not  especially. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Pollock  told  you  that  some  one  offered  him 

money  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  tell  }mu  who  that  person  was  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  He  did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  describe  him  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ask  him  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I did  not  ask  him ; no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  willing  to  make  a charge  of  this  kind 
upon  a statement  by  a man  who  told  you  neither  the  person,  his 
name,  nor  the  amount  of  money  that  was  offered  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I would  take  Mr.  Pollock’s  word  under  any  circum- 
stances. 

The  Chairman.  But  his  word  does  not  seem  to  have  gone  to  the 
extent  of  naming  either  the  party  or  the  money. 

Mr.  Blaine.  Not  specifically. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  did  not  ask  him  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Would  he  have  told  you? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  have  any  knowledge  of  any  offer  having 
been  made  to  any  other  paper  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Nothing. 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE. 


625 


The  Chairman.  And  yet  you  made  this  charge  that  Isaac  Stephen- 
son and  his  agents  prior  to  the  primary  did  oner  to  pay  some  sums 
of  money  to  other  editors  of  newspapers  who  were  at  that  time  elec- 
tors of  the  State;  and  you  now  say  that  you  can  not  give  a single 
instance  in  which  that  would  be  true  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  is  my  position. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  say  this  money  was  paid  for  the  purpose 
of  purchasing  the  editorial  support  of  such  editors,  but  you  have  no 
knowledge  upon  which  to  base  that  statement  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No  personal  knowledge. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  had  none  at  the  time  you  made  it  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No  personal  knowledge. 

The  Chairman.  At  the  time  you  made  it  did  you  have  any  infor- 
mation upon  which  to  base  such  a statement  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No  specific  information. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Ask  him  if  he  had  any  belief.  He  said  he  made 
the  charges  on  information  and  belief. 

The  Chairman.  What  motive  actuated  you  in  making  this  state- 
ment? Was  it  a personal  one? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No,  sir;  a public  duty. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  think  it  was  a public  duty  to  make  a state- 
ment based  upon  the  entire  absence  of  knowledge  of  facts  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I think  it  was  a public  duty  under  all  the  circum- 
stances. 

The  Chairman.  You  thought  it  was  a public  duty  to  make  a direct 
charge  of  the  payment  of  money  as  a bribe  to  parties  to  violate  their 
duty  as  citizens  against  a man  holding  the  position  of  United  States 
Senator,  and  a candidate  for  reelection;  and  you  thought  that  you 
were  justified  in  making  such  a charge,  did  you? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Likewise  holding  the  position  of  State  senator,  it  was 
my  duty,  under  the  circumstances,  to  make  the  charges. 

The  Chairman.  Regardless  of  whether  or  not  you  could  sustain  the 
charge  that  you  made  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I was  not  the  prosecuting  officer.  I did  not  expect 
to  sustain  it  from  my  own  knowledge;  I could  not. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  not  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I did  not  have  the  means  or  the  money  or  the  time 
to  do  it. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  have  any  facts  or  any  knowledge  upon 
which  to  sustain  it  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I had  a strong  belief. 

The  Chairman.  But  it  was  not  based  upon  facts,  according  to  your 
statement  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  It  was  based  upon  public  feeling,  consciousness 

The  Chairman.  Clamor? 

Mr.  Blaine.  The  feeling,  the  reports  that  permeated  the  legisla- 
ture and  the  people  of  the  State.  It  became  a scandal. 

The  Chairman.  If  you  have  facts,  you  can  then  enter  upon  that 
field.  If  you  have  no  facts,  you  may  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I move  that  that  part  of  the  witness’s  answer 
be  struck  out. 

The  Chairman.  The  motion  will  be  entered. 

15235°— VOL  1—11 40 


626 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE. 


We  will  proceed  now  to  the  eleventh  specific  charge: 

That  said  Isaac  Stephenson  did,  prior  to  such  primary,  by  and  through  his  agents 
promise  and  agree  to  pay  to  one  Lester  Tilton,  a then  resident  and  elector  of  this  State, 
and  residing  at  the  city  of  Neillsville,  Wis.,  a sum  in  excess  of  $500  to  procure  or  aid 
in  procuring  the  nomination  of  said  Lester  Tilton  to  the  assembly  of  this  State  from 
Clark  County,  and  did  offer  to  give  to  said  Lester  Tilton  a sum  in  excess  of  $500  if  said 
Lester  Tilton  would  become  a candidate  for  the  assembly  from  said  Clark  County  if 
said  Lester  Tilton  would  support  said  Isaac  Stephenson  for  the  office  of  United  States 
Senator,  all  of  which  is  in  violation  of  sections  45426  and  45436  of  the  statutes. 

Do  you  know,  of  your  own  knowledge,  that  any  sum  of  money  was 
paid  to  Lester  Tilton  for  any  such  purpose  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I do  not. 

The  Chairman.  Upon  what  did  you  base  this  statement? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Upon  the  public  speeches  that  were  made  by  the 
Democratic  candidate  for  governor. 

The  Chairman.  Name  him. 

Mr.  Blaine.  John  A.  Aylward. 

The  Chairman.  When  were  they  made? 

Mr.  Blaine.  During  the  campaign,  after  the  primary,  and  before 
the  election. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  hear  the  speech  you  refer  to? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I did  not;  I am  just  speaking  of  it  from  the  newspaper 
report. 

The  Chairman.  Then  you  based  your  action  upon  a newspaper 
report  of  what  some  other  man  had  said  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Partially. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  had  no  knowledge  yourself? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Mr.  Aylward  also  told  me  about  it;  and  I am  quite 
certain  I saw  a letter  from  Mr.  Tilton  that  said  something  about  it. 
I think  that  letter  is  in  the  record.  I do  not  remember  the  substance 
of  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  is  Mr.  Aylward’s  full  name? 

Mr.  Blaine.  John  A.  Aylward. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Where  does  he  live? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Madison,  Wis. 

The  Chairman.  I see  from  the  index  that  “ Tilton’s  letter,  No. 
199,”  appears  at  page  2771  of  the  joint  investigating  committee 
record.  Do  you  refer  to  Lester  Tilton’s  letter? 

Mr.  Blaine.  To  Mr.  Aylward. 

The  Chairman.  I will  read  this  letter,  found  at  page  2771.  See 
whether  or  not  it  is  the  letter  you  refer  to.  This  is  Exhibit  No.  119. 
Mr.  Ingalls,  a member  of  the  committee,  says: 

I show  you  Exhibit  119,  and  ask  you  whether  that  is  a letter  you  wrote  to  Mr.  Ayl- 
ward? 

Mr.  Ingalls  objects  because  it  is  hearsay.  Senator  Husting  makes 
some  suggestion. 

Q.  Will  you  read  that  letter? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Read  it. — A.  (Reading:)  “As  I talked  to  you  this  evening  over  the  phone” 

Then  there  is  some  interruption.  The  date  is  given  as  January  21. 

I do  not  like  to  get  mixed  in  any  public  matter  of  this  kind,  but  as  I said  to  you 
I will  write  you  the  facts.  A party  came  to  me  and  wanted  me  to  try  for  the  nomina- 
tion in  the  primary  for  assembly.  He  further  stated  that  if  I would  try  with  the 
understanding  that  I would  support  Stephenson  and  the  liquor  interests,  I could 
depend  on  several  hundred  dollars  for  campaign  expenses.  Hoping  this  will  not  be 
used  any  further  than  is  a necessity,  I am,  yours,  respectfully. 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE, 


627 


Mr.  Hambrecht  asks: 

Who  is  it  signed  by? 

The  witness  says: 

Signed  by  myself. 

He  is  asked: 

Q.  What  did  you  mean  by  that  letter? — A.  In  my  talk  to  him — I would  have  to 
state  the  conversation  between  Mr.  Ring  and  myself  to  explain  the  letter,  if  that  is 
permissible. 

Mr.  Ingalls.  Certainly;  go  ahead. 

A.  He  wanted  I should  get  out  and  work  for  Stephenson,  either  whether  I run  for 
the  assembly  or  otherwise;  and  he  said  some  money  could  be  had  for  my  work  if  I 
would  do  that;  but  as  far  as  paying  expenses  of  my  campaign,  there  was  no  such 
offer. 

Q.  He  did  offer  you  money  if  you  would  run  for  the  assembly  and  work  for  Stephen- 
son, did  he  not? — A.  I didn’t  run  for  the  assembly. 

Q.  I say:  He  did  say  to  you  that  if  you  would  run  for  the  assembly  and  work  for 
Stephenson  that  money  could  be  had  for  that  purpose? — A.  I don’t  think  he  stated 
that  I should  necessarily  run  for  the  assembly. 

Q.  What  did  he  say? — A.  He  wanted  I should  get  out  and  hustle  for  Stephenson. 

Q.  And  if  you  would  try  for  the  nomination  there  was  Stephenson  money  to  be  had? 

Mr.  Hambrecht.  Whose  nomination? 

Senator  Husting.  His  nomination. 

A.  I don’t  think  he  stated  that.  I might  have  stated  that  there,  but  should  not 
if  I did. 

Is  that  the  letter  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  is  the  letter. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  hear  that  testimony  given? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  You  were  not  present? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  think  that  upon  that  letter  you  were  justified 
in  making  that  statement,  do  you  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  This  was  Lester  Tilton  who  was  writing  the  letter  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Who  was  Lester  Tilton  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I only  know  him  by  reputation  as  some  one  who  lived 
in  Neills ville  at  that  time.  I understand  since  that  he  is  not  there 
now. 

The  Chairman.  What  does  he  do  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I do  not  know.  I did  not  know  him. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  have  a conference  with  Lester  Tilton 
before  you  made  this  statement  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Where  did  you  get  the  information  upon  which 
you  were  led  to  use  the  statement  contained  in  the  eleventh  specific 
charge  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  In  the  office  of  Mr.  Aylward,  the  night  he  telephoned 
to  Mr.  Tilton;  and  then  also  subsequently,  when  he  showed  me  the 
letter  in  answer  to  that  telephone  message. 

The  Chairman.  The  letter  is  the  one  that  I have  read;  is  it? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know  what  transpired  over  the  tele- 
phone, I suppose? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Only  as  I heard  Mr.  Aylward;  that  is  all. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  Mr.  Aylward  say  over  the  telephone  ? 


628 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE. 


Mr.  Blaine.  He  called  his  attention  to  some  statement  that  Mr. 
Tilton  had  made  to  him  during  the  campaign,  and  wanted  to  know 
if  he  would  confirm  it. 

The  Chairman.  You  were  out  hunting  for  information  upon  which 
to  make  these  charges,  were  you  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I was,  on  that  particular  occasion. 

The  Chairman.  I mean,  at  that  time? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  procured  Mr.  Aylward  to  call  up  Tilton, 
or  Tilton  to  call  up  Aylward,  in  order  to  get  a statement  from  him, 
did  you  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No,  no.  I went  to  Mr.  Aylward  to  inquire  about  a 
suggestion  that  he  had  made  in  some  speech,  and  this  letter  and  tele- 
phone were  the  result  of  that  call. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  any  information  other  than  that  as  to 
the  offer  of  $500  being  made  to  Tilton? 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  is,  I think,  substantially  all. 

The  Chairman.  In  the  absence  of  that  letter,  you  have  no  infor- 
mation, have  you  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Not  other  than  as  I stated — campaign  speeches;  and 
I only  have  a faint  recollection  of  those. 

The  Chairman.  The  twelfth  specific  charge  is: 

That  said  Isaac  Stephenson  did,  by  and  through  his  agents,  give  and  promise  and 
pay  or  agree  to  pay  to  other  electors  of  this  State  sums  of  money  to  procure  or  aid 
m procuring  the  nomination  of  such  electors  to  the  senate  and  assembly  of  this  State 
other  than  those  electors  residing  in  the  district  where  said  Isaac  Stephenson  resides. 

What  do  you  mean  by  that  charge  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  he  had  paid  money  to  candidates  for  the  assem- 
bly and  senate  as  candidates,  in  violation  of  our  particular  law  on 
the  subject. 

The  Chairman.  Very  well.  To  whom  did  he  pay  money  in  viola- 
tion of  that  law,  or  in  violation  of  any  law  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  You  want  just  the  information  I have? 

The  Chairman.  I want  the  information  that  you  had  at  the  time 
you  made  these  charges,  or  that  you  have  now. 

Mr.  Blaine.  Thomas  Reynolds  was  the  only  man  who  told  me 
prior  to  the  filing  of  these  charges. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  did  Thomas  Reynolds  tell  you  Senator 
Stephenson  had  paid  him  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I do  not  recollect  the  amount.  I do  not  know  that 
he  said  any  particular  amount. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  he  tell  you  this  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  The  week  prior  to  the  filing  of  the  charges. 

The  Chairman.  Who  was  he  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  He  was  an  assemblyman  from  Door  County, 

The  Chairman.  How  did  he  come  to  tell  you  this  ? 

Mr  Blaine.  He  told  me  in  some  of  our  conversations  in  reference 
to  the  investigation. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  did  he  say  Senator  Stephenson  paid  him 
the  money  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I do  not  remember  that  he  told  in  particular  about 
that.  My  recollection  is  not  clear  on  that  point  now. 

The  Chairman.  Was  it  to  purchase  land  or  stock  from  him? 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE. 


629 


Mr.  Blaine.  Oh,  no,  no.  It  was  in  reference  to  the  primary  and 
his  election. 

The  Chairman.  Then  what  did  he  tell  you  that  leads  you  or  enables 
you  to  say  that  it  was  in  reference  to  the  primary  election  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Because  that  is  what  we  were  talking  about,  and  that 
is  what  he  mentioned. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  he  say  ? Give  us  the  conversation. 

Mr.  Blaine.  He  was  asking  me  about  the  investigation  and  about 
the  filing  of  charges.  It  was  reported  around  the  legislature  that  I 
would  file  charges.  I suggested  some  of  the  violations  of  law  that 
might  have  ^prevailed  , and  suggested  the  payment,  possibly,  to  mem- 
bers of  the  assembly.  He  told  me  that  he  received  pay,  but  he  did 
not  consider  that  it  was  in  violation  of  any  law — that  is,  that  he 
received  money,  but  not  in  violation  of  any  law. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  he  say  he  had  received  money  for? 

Mr.  Blaine.  To  work  for  Mr.  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  say  so  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Yes;  he  must  have. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  tell  }mu  on  that  occasion  or  on  any  occasion 
that  he  received  money  from  Mr.  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Blaine.  From  Mr.  Stephenson  personally. 

The  Chairman.  In  consideration  of  working  for  him  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  For  working  for  him. 

The  Chairman.  And  that  is  the  item  that  you  have  in  mind,  or  had 
in  mind  when  you  filed  that  specific  charge  No.  12  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  is  the  specific  item. 

The  Chairman.  Is  there  any  other  item  that  you  had  in  mind? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Nothing  at  that  time. 

The  Chairman.  In  connection  with  this  testimony  as  to  the  twelfth 
specific  charge,  we  will  insert  in  the  record  section  311  of  this  compila- 
tion of  the  election  laws,  which  seems  to  be  section  4543b  of  the  stat- 
utes. It  will  be  inserted  at  this  point.  It  is  not  necessary  to  read 
it  in. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Is  that  the  section  you  had  in  mind  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  is  the  section. 

(The  section  referred  to  is  as  follows:) 

No  person  shall,  directly  or  indirectly,  give,  subscribe,  promise  or  pay  or  agree  to 
pay  any  sum  of  money  or  thing  of  value  to  procure  or  aid  in  procuring  the  nomination 
or  election  of  any  person  to  the  senate  or  assembly  of  this  State  unless  the  person  so 
making  such  subscription,  promise,  payment  or  agreement  is  a citizen  or  bona  fide 
resident  of  the  district  in  which  such  other  person  is  or  seeks  to  be  chosen,  voted  for 
or  elected:  Provided , That  this  provision  shall  not  apply  to  the  payment  by  any  person 
participating  in  a campaign  of  his  own  personal  expenses  therein  nor  to  the  promise 
or  pavment,  otherwise  lawful,  of  any  sum  to  any  political  committee  in  the  State  or  in 
any  district  or  region  thereof,  of  which  the  promisor  or  payor  is  a citizen  or  resident, 
tor  general  lawful  purposes  and  without  any  agreement  or  understanding,  express  or 
implied,  that  it  be  used  or  applied  to  the  procuring  of  the  nomination  or  election  of 
any  person  or  persons  in  particular  to  said  senate  or  assembly.  Any  person  offending 
against  the  provisions  of  this  section  shall  be  punished  by  imprisonment  in  the  county 
jail  not  less  than  one  month  nor  more  than  one  year. 

The  Chairman.  Now  we  pass  to  the  thirteenth  specific  charge, 
which  I will  read: 

That  E.  M.  Heyser  and  Max  Sells,  prior  to  said  primary,  being  at  such  time  employees 
of  the  Chicago  & Northwestern  Railway  Company,  a corporation  doing  business  in 
this  State,  did  contribute  and  agree  to  contribute  free  services  as  such  employees  for 
the  purpose  to  defeat  the  candidacy  of  former  assemblyman,  E.  F.  Nelson,  from  the 


630 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE. 


district  embracing  Florence,  Forest,  and  Langlade  Counties,  for  the  nomination  for 
assemblyman  from  said  district,  all  of  which  was  done  with  the  knowledge  and  consent 
and  under  the  direction  of  said  Isaac  Stephenson,  his  agents  and  employees,  contrary 
to  chapter  492,  laws  of  1905, 

Upon  what  facts  was  that  charge  based? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Only  generally  upon  information  that  I received  from 
Mr.  Henry  C.  Campbell,  of  Milwaukee,  in  my  conference  with  him 
on  the  Sunday  preceding  the  filing  of  the  charges. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  investigate  the  facts  to  ascertain  whether 
or  not  they  were  with  foundation  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  whether  or  not  E.  M.  Heyser  or  Max 
Sells,  either  together  or  separately,  did  the  things  charged  in  this 
thirteenth  specific  charge  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I have  no  personal  knowledge. 

The  Chairman.  I will  read  the  fourteenth  specific  charge: 

That  in  further  pursuance  of  the  purposes  and  design  above  set  forth  said  Isaac 
Stephenson,  by  and  through  his  agents,  did,  in  addition  to  paying  certain  sums  as 
above  set  forth,  offer  and  agree  to  pay  to  electors  of  this  State  prior  to  said  primary  a 
premium  or  bonus  to  those  who  in  his  employ  carried  their  respective  precincts  in  such 
primary  for  said  Isaac  Stephenson  as  such  candidate. 

Have  you  knowledge  or  had  you  knowledge  at  the  time  you  made 
that  charge  of  the  facts  therein  set  forth  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No  personal  knowledge. 

The  Chairman.  Upon  what  did  you  make  that  statement  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  My  recollection  is  that  that  was  one  of  the  matters 
that  Mr.  Campbell  talked  over  with  me. 

The  Chairman.  Tell  us,  at  this  point,  who  Mr.  Campbell  is. 

Mr.  Blaine.  Henry  C.  Campbell,  of  the  Milwaukee  Journal. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  in  this  city  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Yes;  in  this  city. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  his  position  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  He  is  with  the  Journal.  I think  he  is  an  associate 
editor,  or  managing  editor,  or  has  some  responsible  position  with  the 
ournal. 

The  Chairman.  And  he  told  you 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  is  my  recollection. 

The  Chairman  (continuing).  He  told  you  the  things  that  you  have 
stated  in  that  fourteenth  specific  charge  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  is  my  recollection.  I think  he  mentioned  the 
third  ward  in  the  city  of  Milwaukee.  I am  not  clear  on  that. 

The  Chairman.  You  have,  personally,  no  knowledge  of  any  facts 
upon  which  that  was  based  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  None  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  proceed,  now,  to  the  fifteenth  specific 
charge,  which  reads : 

That  said  Isaac  Stephenson,  if  claiming  an  election  by  virture  of  receiving  a plurality 
of  votes  at  such  primary,  then  said  Isaac  Stephenson  has  violated  chapter  502  of  the 
laws  of  1905,  by  failing  and  neglecting  to  file  his  expense  account  as  provided  by  said 
chapter. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  is  chapter  562,  in  the  charge  that  I have. 

Mr.  Blaine.  It  should  be  562. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  a misprint  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I think  we  agreed  that  it  was  chapter  502. 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE. 


631 


The  Chairman.  I thinkprobably  502  is  correct. 

Senator  Sutherland.  We  looked  that  up  the  other  day. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Yes;  I think  that  is  right. 

Mr.  Blaine  (after  consulting  papers).  Five  hundred  and  two  is 
correct. 

The  Chairman.  That  you  stated  as  a legal  conclusion,  did  you  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  I knew  he  had  not  filed  his  expense  account? 
I examined  the  secretary  of  state’s  files,  or  had  the  proper  clerk  there 
make  the  examination,  and  found  no  account. 

The  Chairman.  On  what  date  did  you  examine  the  files  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  was  between  the  time  of  the  presentation  of 
the  Husting  resolution  and  the  filing  of  the  charges. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  do  you  mean  by  the  Husting  solution  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  was  the  resolution  providing  for  the  investi- 
gation of  Senator  Stephenson’s  election. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Was  that  the  one  you  refer  to  as  having 
been  defeated  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  As  having  been  defeated.  There  were  no  specific 
charges  under  that  resolution. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  controvert  that  the  date  indorsed 
upon  the  expense  items  is  correct  at  all  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  that  is,  really,  a matter  of  inspection  ? 

Mr.  Blaine  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Take  the  last  one  of  your  specific  charges,  which 
reads : 

Charging  generally,  the  primary  nomination  or  election  of  said  Isaac  Stephenson 
was  obtained  by  the  use  of  large  sums  of  money  corruptly  and  illegally,  by  the  viola- 
tion of  sections  4542b,  4543b,  and  4478  of  the  statutes  relating  to  illegal  voting,  bribery, 
$tnd  corruption  and  other  laws  above  set  forth  relating  to  elections  and  primary  elec- 
tions. 

Senator  Pomerene.  In  this  printed  copy  that  I have  the  section 
is  given  as  4678.  Which  is  correct  ? 

The  Chairman.  I think  these  were  corrected. 

Mr.  Blaine  (after  consulting  papers).  4478  is  correct. 

Senator  Pomerene.  4478  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  4478b  ? 

The  Chairman.  No;  not  “b.” 

Mr.  Blaine.  4478. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  any  knowledge,  or  did  you  have  any  at 
the  time  of  making  and  filing  these  specific  charges,  that  the  primary 
nomination  or  election  of  Senator  Isaac  Stephenson  was  obtained 
by  the  use  of  large  sums  of  money,  corruptly  and  illegally  used  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No  personal  knowledge. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  you  are  not  in  a position  to  give  the 
committee  any  assistance  in  sustaining  the  charges  that  you  made? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Nothing  outside  of  what  I have  stated;  and,  of 
course,  I do  not  know  what  the  committee  has  done,  because  I have 
not  attended  its  hearings,  but  I would  like  to  submit  the  testimony 
taken  before  the  joint  committee  of  the  Wisconsin  legislature,  and 
the  testimony  taken  before  the  senatorial  committee  of  the  legis- 
lature, as  a part  of  the  evidence  in  this  matter. 

The  Chairman.  As  a part  of  your  evidence  ? 


632 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE. 


Mr.  Blaine.  As  part  of  the  reference,  or  part  of  the  evidence 
to  be  referred  to. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  ask  that  that  may  be  taken  as  your 
evidence  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Oh,  no. 

The  Chairman.  The  committee  has  before  it  all  of  the  testimony 
that  was  taken  and  printed  and  referred  by  the  governor  of  the 
State  of  Wisconsin. 

Mr.  Blaine.  I did  not  understand  that. 

The  Chairman.  And  it  has  with  that  a copy  of  the  specific  charges 
which  you  made  against  the  validity  of  Senator  Stephenson’s  nom- 
ination at  the  direct  primaries. 

Mr.  Blaine.  I did  not  understand  that  the  testimony  had  been 
transmitted. 

The  Chairman.  It  has  been  transmitted,  and  the  committee  is 
considering  it. 

Now,  have  you  any  charges  to  make  other  than  those  that  jmu 
made  specifically  as  the  basis  of  the  investigation  by  the  legislative 
committee,  that  are  based  upon  facts  within  your  knowledge  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Not  within  my  personal  knowledge. 

The  Chairman.  Or  that  are  within  the  rules  of  evidence  pertaining 
to  trials  in  courts  of  law? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Excepting  such  as  the  testimony  shows  in  the  legisla- 
tive investigation. 

The  Chairman.  I am  speaking  now  of  your  knowledge. 

Mr.  Blaine.  No;  not  of  my  knowledge. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  no  knowledge  of  any  facts 

Mr.  Blaine.  No  personal  knowledge. 

The  Chairman  (continuing).  That  would  be  pertinent  and  proper 
to  be  admitted  in  a court  of  law  that  affect  the  validity  of  Senator 
Stephenson’s  election  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Not  of  my  own  knowledge;  no.  That  is  correct. 

The  Chairman.  There  were  no  specific  charges  other  than  yours 
filed  or  made  the  basis  of  an  examination  into  the  validity  of  Senator 
Stephenson’s  election,  were  there? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  solely  responsible  for  having  started  that 
investigation  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I am  accused  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  been  pursuing  it  ever  since,  have  you  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No;  I have  not  been  pursuing  it;  no. 

The  Chairman.  What  part  did  you  take  in  securing  a reference  of 
this  matter  to  the  United  States  Senate  by  the  present  Legislature  of 
the  State  of  Wisconsin  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  The  journal  of  the  senate,  probably 

The  Chairman  (interposing).  I ask  you,  now,  to  state  as  a fact. 
We  can  read  the  journal. 

Mr.  Blaine.  I was  going  to  refer  to  that  as  the  documentary  part 
of  it. 

The  Chairman.  State  what  you  did. 

Mr.  Blaine.  Senator  Hus  ting,  of  the  senatorial  committee,  in  the 
session  of  1911,  introduced  in  the  State  senate  a resolution,  a copy  of 
which  I have  not,  but  which  is  among  the  records  of  this  State,  and  it 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE. 


633 


was  submitted  to  the  judiciary  committee  of  the  State  senate.  I 
was  chairman  of  the  judiciary  committee  of  the  State  senate.  That 
resolution  remained  in  the  judiciary  committee’s  hands  for  some  time, 
the  purpose  of  the  chairman  being  that  the  senatorial  investigation 
should  not  interfere  with  general  legislative  action  on  laws;  and  it  was 
within  the  province  of  the  chairman  of  the  judiciary  committee,  until 
otherwise  ordered  by  the  committee,  to  retain  that  resolution  until 
such  time  as  he  thought  best  to  report  it  out.  As  chairman,  I took 
the  matter  of  the  Husting 

The  Chairman  (interposing).  As  chairman  of  what? 

Mr.  Blaine.  As  chairman  of  the  judiciary  committee.  I took  up 
the  matter  of  the  Husting  resolution  with  Senator  Husting,  who  was 
the  author  of  it,  and  pointed  out  to  him  that  the  resolution,  particu- 
larly in  its  preamble,  or  in  its  resolves,  provided  for  directing  the 
attorney  general  of  this  State  to  bring  criminal  actions  against  those 
who  had  committed  perjury,  as  might  be  shown  by  the  testimony 
taken  before  the  joint  committee  of  the  former  legislature;  and  sug- 
gested to  him  that  it  was  not  within  the  province  of  the  attorney  gen- 
eral of  this  State  to  commence  criminal  prosecutions  for  perjury;  that 
that  was  a part  of  the  executive  department  of  our  State;  that  prose- 
cutions were  commenced  by  district  attorneys,  instead  of  the  attorney 
general,  and  the  district  attorneys  would  only  institute  them  upon 
their  own  initiative,  or  upon  direction  from  the  governor  of  the  State; 
and  therefore  that  part  of  the  resolution  should  be  changed,  and  that 
was  agreeable  to  him. 

I looked  over  the  resolution  carefully,  as  to  the  wording  of  it,  and, 
if  I remember  right,  I merely  redrafted  the  substance  of  the  resolu- 
tion, and  put  in  the  resolves  for  the  submission  to  the  United  States 
Senate  of  this  whole  question,  and  also  calling  upon  the  district  attor- 
neys to  bring  criminal  prosecutions. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  you  did,  at  the  last  session  of  the  legisla- 
ture take  up  for  further  consideration  the  charges  you  had  made  at 
the  preceding  session  of  the  legislature,  and  pressed  them  for  action? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No;  that  is  not  correct.  We  considered  only  the 
resolution  of  Senator  Husting,  together  with  the  report  of  the  senate 
committee. 

The  Chairman.  You  must  have  considered  these  specific  charges, 
because  they  came  to  the  United  States  Senate  as  a part  of  the  record. 

Mr.  Blaine.  No;  we  did  not  consider  them.  They  were  not  taken 
into  consideration  in  drafting  my  resolution  that  eventually  went  to 
the  United  States  Senate.  It  was  never  my  idea  or  conception  of  the 
whole  proposition  that  specific  charges  should  be  presented;  and  I 
dismissed  them  entirely  from  my  mind. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Should  be  presented  to  whom  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  To  the  Wisconsin  Legislature,  or  to  any  other  body. 
And  I dismissed  that  entirely  from  my  mind,  from  the  standpoint  of  a 
legislator — not  as  an  individual;  and  took  the  report  of  the  com- 
mittee, and  drafted  the  committee  substitute  to  the  Husting  resolu- 
tion along  the  lines  suggested  by  that  committee. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  at  hand  a copy  of  that  resolution  of 
yours  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I have  not;  no.  I can  procure  that  and  furnish  it  to 
the  committee.  It  is  probably  among  your  documents,  Mr.  Chairman. 


634 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE. 


The  Chairman.  I want  it  as  a matter  of  evidence;  not  as  a matter  of 
record. 

Mr.  Blaine.  No;  I have  no  copy  of  it  with  me. 

The  Chairman.  Will  you  furnish  a copy  of  that  resolution,  to  be 
inserted  in  the  record  at  this  point  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Yes.  I think  I have  a printed  copy  of  the  resolution 
among  my  files,  and  when  I get  home  I will  get  it  out.  If  I have  not, 
I will  obtain  one  from  the  legislative  reference  library  department. 
I will  make  a memorandum  of  that,  so  that  I shall  not  forget  it.  You 
want  a copy  of  the  Husting  resolution  ? 

The  Chairman.  W e want  a copy  of  this  resolution  to  which  you  have 
just  referred,  that  you  say  you  had  redrawn,  or  corrected,  and  which 
became  the  subject  of  the  inquiry. 

Mr.  Blaine.  I shall  endeavor  to  send  both  of  them. 

[The  resolutions  referred  to  were  subsequently  sent  to  the  subcom- 
mittee by  Mr.  Blaine  and  will  be  found  at  the  end  of  his  testimony.] 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  introduce  that  resolution  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  resolution  was  drafted  by  myself,  and  I pre- 
sented it  to  the  committee  late  in  the  session. 

The  Chairman.  What  session  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Of  1911;  and  it  was  brought  out  upon  the  floor  of  the 
senate,  and  was  put  over  from  time  to  time,  upon  my  request,  and 
finally  sent  back  to  our  committee,  I think  upon  my  request. 

The  Chairman.  And  there  has  been  no  investigation  based  upon 
that  resolution  at  all,  has  there? 

Mr.  Blaine.  In  the  State  legislature  ? None  whatever. 

The  Chairman.  No.  That  merely  related  to  the  reference  of  the 
matter  to  the  United  States  Senate  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  is  all. 

The  Chairman.  The  matter  referred  to  the  United  States  Senate 
was  the  specific  charges  against  Senator  Stephenson,  together  with 
the  testimony  taken  by  the  committee  and  the  reports  found  in  the 
end  of  the  volume  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  was  not  my  intention;  and  I do  not  think  the 
resolution  provided  for  that. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  the  way  it  came  to  the  Senate. 

Mr.  Blaine.  I do  not  believe  the  resolution  purports  to  do  that. 

The  Chairman.  The  governor,  perhaps,  may  have  deviated  from 
your  understanding  of  the  resolution.  This  did  not  come  from  the 
legislature.  It  came  from  the  governor  of  the  State. 

Mr.  Blaine.  The  governor  was  never  directed  to  send  it  to  the 
United  States  Senate.  The  secretary  of  state  was  directed  to  send 
certain  documents  to  the  United  States  Senate,  and  the  resolution 
that  I drafted  specifies  those  documents. 

The  Chairman.  The  secretary  of  state  is  not  the  executive  officer  of 
a State,  and  perhaps  would  have  some  difficulty  in  communicating 
with  the  United  States  Senate. 

Mr.  Blaine.  But  he,  and  not  the  governor,  is  the  custodian  of 
those  records. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  leave  that  question  for  subsequent  deter- 
mination. They  came  direct  with  a message  from  the  governor. 

I want  to  know  about  this  resolution  of  yours.  What  was  your 
object  in  preparing  an  additional  resolution,  when  the  matter  was 
already  before  the  legislature  ? 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE. 


635 


Mr.  Blaine.  You  mean  my  substitute? 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  what  was  your  purpose  in  d ing  t at? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Senator  Stephenson  had  been  elected  by  the  legisla- 
ture, and  it  had  gone  beyond  the  jurisdiction  of  the  legislature.  We 
could  not  revoke  his  election. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  propose  to  investigate  things  that  trans- 
pired after  the  filing  of  your  specifications  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  There  were  no  directions  given  by  the  legislature  to 
make  any  such  investigation. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  any  knowledge  of  any  fact  or  facts 
touching  the  nomination  or  election  of  Senator  Stephenson  which 
would  challenge  the  validity  of  either  the  nomination  or  the  election  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No  personal  knowledge,  as  evidence  before  this  Com- 
mittee, no. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  you  have  no  personal  knowledge  of  any 
fact,  or  of  any  facts,  or  of  the  acts  of  any.  person  that  would  affect 
the  validity  of  the  nomination  or  election  of  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No  personal  knowledge,  as  an  individual. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  start  this  machinery  in  motion  at  the 
request  of  any  person,  or  on  your  own  volition? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Absolutely  on  my  own  volition,  without  a suggestion 
or  question  or  direction. 

The  Chairman.  Or  without  any  more  facts  than  you  have  dis- 
closed in  your  examination  to-day  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Without  any  more  specific  instances. 

The  Chairman.  You,  being  a lawyer,  may  be  fairly  presumed  to 
know  what  are  facts  when  the  word  is  used  in  that  sense.  Are  we 
to  understand  that  you  were  being  used  by  any  man  or  organization 
or  combination  of  men  for  the  purpose  of  making  a responsible 
attack  upon  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Absolutely  no — positively.  I confer  with  no  one  on 
public  policies  of  that  kind. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  engaged  in  practicing  law,  are  you? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Anything  else  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  is  my  occupation. 

The  Chairman.  How  long  have  you  been  practicing  law  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Since  September  1,  1896. 

The  Chairman.  Where  have  you  engaged  in  that  profession? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I have  engaged  in  that  profession  in  the  city  of 
Boscobel  since  then,  with  the  exception  of  about  a year.  Prior  to 
that  I practiced  law  in  my  home  town. 

The  Chairman.  All  in  the  State  of  Wisconsin? 

Mr.  Blaine.  All  in  the  State  of  Wisconsin. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  a native  of  this  State? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I am  a native  of  this  State. 

The  Chairman.  Who  besides  you  has  been  instrumental  in  pressing 
the  charges  which  you  made  against  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  The  legislature. 

The  Chairman.  Who  ? What  members  of  the  legislature  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I must  say  all  those  who  voted  for  my  resolution  as 
a substitute  for  the  Husting  resolution  in  the  1909  session. 

The  Chairman.  You  think  all  of  those  men  would  admit  that  they 
had  been  actively  engaged  in  pressing  this  investigation,  do  you  ? 


636 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE. 


Mr.  Blaine.  No;  they  would  not  admit  that  they  were  actively 
engaged. 

The  Chairman.  Then  give  me  the  names  of  those  who  have  been 
actively  engaged. 

Mr.  Blaine.  Senator  Thomas  Morris — now  Lieutenant  Governor — 
La  Crosse,  Wis ; Senator  Spencer  Marsh,  Neills ville,Wis.;  Senator  Paul 
Hus  ting,  of  Mayville,  Wis.  Those  are  the  ones  who  have  been 
actively  pressing  it. 

The  Chairman.  And  those  are  all  that  have  been  actively  pressing 
the  investigation;  are  they? 

Mr.  Blaine.  As  members  of  the  legislature. 

The  Chairman.  Those  were  all  senators;  were  they  not? 

Mr.  Blaine.  They  were  all  senators. 

The  Chairman.  What  members  of  the  assembly  have  been  engaged 
in  pressing  these  charges  against  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I think  Speaker  C.  A.  Ingram,  of  Durand,  Wis., 
though  I can  not  say  that  he  took  any  particularly  active  part.  He 
made  speeches  in  the  assembly. 

The  Chairman.  Name  any  other  members  of  the  assembly. 

Mr.  Blaine.  I would  have  to  name  some  of  the  Republican  mem- 
bers probably,  and  some  of  the  Democratic  members. 

The  Chairman.  I am  not  discriminating.  Name  men,  members 
of  the  legislature,  who  have  actively  engaged  in  pressing  these  charges 
against  Senator  Stephenson. 

Mr.  Blaine.  I do  not  remember  who  voted  for  the  last  resolution 
in  the  assembly. 

The  Chairman.  We  can  ascertain  that.  I want  you  to  state  who 
had  been  active  in  this  propaganda  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I have  given  the  names  of  those  who  have  really  been 
active. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  given  me  the  names  of  all  of  them  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Those  who  have  been  active.  There  are  others  who 
have  been  interested,  no  doubt,  and  active  to  some  degree. 

The  Chairman.  Have  these  men  you  have  named  as  being  active 
conferred  with  you  in  regard  to  what  steps  should  be  taken  to  press 
these  charges  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Senator  Husting  and  Senator  Morris  and  myself, 
Senator  Sanborn,  and  Senator  Kleczka.  Senator  Kleczka  is  a mem- 
ber of  the  committee  that  reported  the  resolution.  I should  add  to 
that  Senator  Linley,  Senator — the  senator  from  Wautoma;  I cannot 
think  of  his  name  just  now — a member  of  the  judiciary  committee. 

The  Chairman.  Have  all  or  part  of  the  number  that  you  have 
named  had  meetings  in  which  you  have  considered  and  planned  as  to 
the  manner  in  which  these  charges  should  be  pressed? 

Mr.  Blaine.  My  conferences  have  been  generally  with  Senator 
Morris  and  Senator  Husting,  because  of  their  familiarity  with  the 
proceeding.  Those  are  about  the  only  ones  who  have  conferred  upon 
this  subject.  I will  say,  however,  that  there  was  a conference  of  a 
number  of  the  senators  the  night  prior  to  the  time  that  I asked  that 
my  substitute  resolution,  sending  the  matter  to  the  United  States 
Senate,  be  returned  to  the  judiciary  committee.  It  was  considered 
there  that  we  had  a lot  of  important  legislation  to  act  upon;  and  I 
explained  the  situation  to  the  conference,  and  that  it  would  probably 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE.  637 

be  best  to  return  the  resolution  to  the  committee  before  it  interfered 
with  any  legislativeprogram. 

The  Chairman.  Was  that  the  last  conference  that  you  had  with 
reference  to  pressing  this  investigation  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  is  the  last  conference.  That  was  not  a conference 
in  reference  to  pressing  the  investigation.  That  was  a conference 
of  the  Republican  members,  taking  up  the  legislative  program.  The 
questions  of  good  roads,  industrial  commission,  income  tax,  and  all 
those  things  were  discussed — what  we  should  act  on. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Mr.  Blaine,  were  you  present  when  Senator 
Stephenson  was  elected  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I was  present  in  the  joint  assembly. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I have  forgotten  what  the  record  shows. 
Did  you  vote  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I voted. 

Senator  Sutherland.  For  whom  did  you  vote? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I do  not  remember  for  whom  I voted  on  the  last 
ballot.  I think  I voted  for  a different  man  each  day. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Were  you  present  during  the  entire  session 
of  the  two  houses  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I think  I was  present  at  every  joint  session.  It  is 
possible  I was  absent  one  or  two  days. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I have  gotten  the  idea  from  something  in 
the  record  that  it  was  claimed  that  certain  Democratic  members  of 
the  legislature  absented  themselves  at  the  time  Senator  Stephenson 
was  elected.  Do  you  recognize  that  there  was  such  a situation 
as  that  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I recognize  that  that  was  the  fact. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  you  know  anything  about  that  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Only  from  what  was  reported  around  the  legislature. 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  members  of  the  legislature  were 
absent  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  The  report  shows  Assemblyman  Towne,  Assembly- 
man  Farrell,  Assemblyman  Ramsey.  They  were  all  Democrats. 

Senator  Sutherland.  They  were  absent  at  the  time  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  They  were  absent  from  the  last  joint  convention. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Had  they  been  absent  from  any  previous 
session  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I can  not  testify  from  memory  about  that. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  their  absence  strike  you  at  the  time  as 
being  significant  in  any  way? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Yes;  it  created  considerable  furore  at  the  time. 

Senator  Sutherland.  For  what  reason  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  It  was  generally  reported  that  three  members  of  the 
assembly  who  were  Democrats  had  walked  out  with  the  intention  of 
making  a sufficient  number  absent  to  give  Senator  Stephenson  the 
election. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  you  know  of  any  reason  for  their  going 
out  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I know  of  no  reason. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I think  it  has  been  claimed  somewhere  that 
they  were  paid  to  absent  themselves.  Did  you  hear  anything  of 
that  sort  ? 


638 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE. 


Mr.  Blaine.  I know  there  was  a rumor;  I have  no  personal  knowl- 
edge of  it. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  you  know  of  any  person  who  has  knowl- 
edge of  that  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No;  I do  not. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Can  you  put  the  subcommittee  in  possession 
of  any  fact  that  would  lead  to  the  development  of  that  question  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I can  not,  in  any  substantial  way. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  ever  make  any  investigation  of  that 
charge  yourself  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No;  not  myself. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Or  did  the  legislature  make  any  investiga- 
tion? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I think  the  committee  did. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Which  committee  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  The  senatorial  committee.  I do  not  know  but  that 
the  joint  committee  did.  I am  not  certain  about  that. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Was  their  investigation  public? 

Mr.  Blaine.  It  was  public. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  whatever  they  did  is  printed  in  the 
record  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  It  is  printed  in  the  record. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Is  there  anything  outside  of  that  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Nothing  that  I know  of. 

Senator  Sutherland.  How  long  was  it  after  Senator  Stephenson 
was  elected  that  that  legislature  adjourned  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  He  was  elected  early  in  March,  I believe. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Give  approximately  the  date  of  adjourn- 
ment. 

Mr.  Blaine.  The  legislature  finally  adjourned  about  June  17. 

Senator  Sutherland.  The  election  was  when? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Early  in  March — the  1st  or  4th. 

Senator  Sutherland.  So  that  that  legislature  was  in  session  sev- 
eral weeks  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Was  any  attempt  made  in  that  legislature, 
after  Senator  Stephenson’s  election,  to  refer  the  matter  to  the  United 
States  Senate  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No.  The  Senate  committee  was  continued  as  a recess 
committee  to  make  its  report  to  the  1911  legislature. 

Senator  Sutherland.  No  resolution  was  introduced  at  that  ses- 
sion? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Not  to  refer  it  to  the  United  States  Senate. 

Senator  Sutherland.  No  attempt  was  made  to  refer  it,  so  far  as 
you  know  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No. 

Senator  Sutherland.  In  these  first  two  charges  of  yours  I observe 
that  you  do  not  characterize  the  expenditure  of  money  as  having  been 
corrupt  or  unlawful. 

Mr.  Blaine.  Not  by  using  the  words. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  you  in  any  way,  except  by  reference  to 
the  section  of  the  statute? 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  is  all. 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE. 


639 


Senator  Sutherland.  But  you  nowhere  say  in  those  charges  that 
the  use  of  money  was  corrupt. 

Mr.  Blaine.  1 do  not  say  it. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  intend  to  charge,  in  those  two  spe- 
cific charges,  that  the  expenditure  of  money  was  corrupt  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Only  so  far  as  I thought  it  violated  the  statutes  re- 
ferred to. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  understand  that  the  statute  required 
that  the  expenditure  should  be  corrupt  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I thought  that  the  violation  of  the  statute  was  cor- 
rupt practice. 

Senator  Sutherland.  No;  did  you  understand  that  the  mere 
payment  of  money  to  an  elector  by  a candidate  for  the  legislature  as 
a consideration  for  some  act  to  be  done  by  the  elector  in  relation  to 
the  primary  election  was  sufficient  to  constitute  a violation  of  the 
statute  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  is  the  way  I construed  the  statute;  yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is,  that  the  mere  act  of  doing  that  was 
a violation  of  the  statute  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  the  payment  of  anything  of  value — money 

Senator  Sutherland.  Whether  it  was  paid  in  good  faith  or  cor- 
ruptly ? 

Mr.  Blaine  (continuing) — should  be  a violation  of  the  statute. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  was  your  understanding  of  the  statute  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  was  my  understanding  of  the  statute. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  that  is  what  you  intended  by  these 
charges  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  is  why  they  were  drafted  just  as  they  are. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I want  to  get  your  view  of  the  statute, 
because  it  may  be  somewhat  important.  The  section  reads : 

Every  person  who,  by  bribery  or  corrupt  or  unlawful  means,  prevents  or  attempts 
to  prevent  any  voter  from  attending  or  voting  at  any  preliminary  meeting  * * * 
or  who  shall  give  or  offer  to  give  any  valuable  thing  or  bribe  to  any  officer,  inspector, 
or  delegate  whose  office  is  therein  created — 

This  is  the  part  I call  your  attention  to  particularly — 

or  who  shall  give  or  offer  to  give  any  valuable  thing  or  bribe  to  an  elector  as  a con- 
sideration for  some  act  to  be  done  in  relation  to  such  preliminary  meeting,  caucus,  or 
convention — 

shall  be  punished  as  provided  in  the  section. 

Is  it  your  understanding  of  that  statute  that  if  the  candidate  shall 
give  or  offer  to  give  any  valuable  thing  to  an  elector  as  a consideration 
for  some  act  to  be  done  by  him  in  relation  to  the  primary,  that, 
nothing  more  appearing,  constitutes  a violation  of  the  statute  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  was  my  opinion  at  the  time;  and  I notice  that 
I haye  a memorandum  to  that  effect.  [Referring  to  a paper  in  the 
witness’s  hand.] 

Senator  Sutherland.  Then  if  a candidate  for  the  United  States 
Senate  should  publish  in  a newspaper  owned  by  an  elector  an  an- 
nouncement of  his  candidacy,  before  the  primary,  under  your  con- 
struction of  the  statute  that  would  be  a violation  of  it,  would  it  not? 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  would  be  putting  it  pretty  broadly. 

Senator  Sutherland.  But  you  put  it  pretty  broadly. 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  is  getting  into  pretty  deep  water  from  a legal 
standpoint. 


640 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE. 


Senator  Sutherland.  That  is  why  I want  to  test  your  view  of  it. 

Mr.  Blaine.  I do  not  know  that  I am  sufficient  of  a lawyer  to  go 
into  that. 

Senator  Sutherland.  If  the  statute  does  not  go  that  far  and  under- 
take to  penalize  the  mere  paying  of  money  for  any  act  which  has  rela- 
tion to  the  primary,  it  is  because  its  exact  language  must  be  in  some 
manner  qualified. 

Mr.  Blaine.  If  you  will  permit  me  to  read  this  statement,  I will 
make  my  construction  of  that  section  clear. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Yes,  we  shall  be  glad  to  hear  you. 

Mr.  Blaine.  I will  not  read  the  preliminary  part.  (Reading:) 

It  is  my  opinion  that  this  provision  of  the  section  is  an  absolute  prohibition  against 
the  employment  of  what  is  usually  known  as  a campaign  manager;  and  that  [in  case 
of]  the  appointment  of  a campaign,  manager  to  conduct  the  campaign  of  a candidate 
for  office  before  the  primary,  if  given  anything  of  value  as  a consideration  for  conduct- 
ing such  campaign  relative  to  such  primary,  then  such  appointment  comes  within  the 
prohibition  of  this  section  and  is  illegal.  The  giving  of  this  construction  to  this  par- 
ticular section  may  be  considered  a broad  construction,  but  there  is  reason  to  sustain 
this  construction  of  this  particular  statute,  which  I shall  not  give  at  length.  It  must 
have  been  in  the  intention  of  the  legislature,  when  passing  tins  act,  that  they  had  in 
mind  the  demoralizing  influence  of  a campaign  manager  having  at  his  command  an 
unlimited  amount  of  funds,  to  be  used  either  in  the  corruption  of  voters  or  as  an  undue 
advantage  over  other  candidates  not  having  large  sums  to  expend  for  campaign  pur- 
poses. I deem  it  a reasonable  construction  under  the  circumstances. 

Senator  Sutherland.  If  the  statute  were  intended  to  forbid  the 
employment  of  a campaign  manager,  why  should  it  not  have  said  so 
in  precise  terms  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I use  the  term  “campaign  manager.”  I referred  to 
this  particular  matter  when  I wrote  it.  I should  say  “to  anyone.” 
Insert  “to  anyone”  instead  of  “campaign  manager” — anyone 
appointed  to  conduct  a campaign,  having  an  unlimited  amount  of 
money  at  his  command — that  would  give  an  undue  advantage  over 
other  candidates,  or  that  would  give  an  opportunity  to  corrupt 
voters. 

Senator  Sutherland.  In  your  view  of  it,  then,  what  character  of 
payments  could  the  candidate  make  to  an  elector  as  a consideration 
for  any  act  to  be  done  in  relation  to  the  primary  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  If  any  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I have  given  it  as  my  opinion  that  he  might  make  the 
payment  of  a sum  not  beyond  that  which  the  man  ordinarily  earns  in 
his  profession  or  calling  or  business.  The  doing  of  actual  work  might 
be  permissible.  But  when  a sum  in  excess  of  that  is  paid,  then  it 
partakes  of  the  nature  of  bribery.  That  is,  it  gets  close  to  the  edge, 
at  least;  because  the  excess  would  not  represent  the  man’s  service, 
but  would  represent  something  else;  and  that  something  else  must 
have  an  influence. 

Senator  Sutherland.  In  your  mind,  the  fact  that  a candidate  had 
paid  somebody  more  than  his  services  were  actually  worth  would  be 
an  indication  of  corruption  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  would  be  an  indication,  and  would  probably  be 
covered  by  the  statute. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  therefore  these  comprehensive  words  of 
the  statute  must  be  qualified  by  the  use  of  the  words  “corrupt  pay- 
ment,” must  not  they? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I doubt  it. 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  do  you  say  about  that  ? 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE. 


641 


Mr.  Blaine.  I doubt  that  very  much. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  doubt  that  they  should  be  qualified  in 
any  way? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Yes.  I think  the  statute  means  just  what  it  says. 

Senator  Sutherland.  But  you  do  qualify  them  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I do;  yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  say  that  if  the  candidate  pays  an 
elector  only  a sum  which  would  measure  the  value  of  his  work  to  do 
something  in  relation  to  the  primary,  that  would  not  be  a violation 
of  the  statute  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I would  have  to  qualify  that:  If  it  were  not  paid  for 
the  purpose  of  obtaining  his  support. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Yes;  that  is  understood. 

Mr.  Blaine.  I mean,  to  go  out  and  get  the  employment  of  that 
person  who  was,  we  will  say,  supporting  the  candidate,  merely 
paying  him  for  his  time — that  may  or  may  not  be.  That  may  be  a 
qualification. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I am  putting  the  case  where  the  elector 
is  paid  by  the  candidate  a sum  which  is  not  disproportionate  to  the 
value  of  the  service  which  he  renders  in  relation  to  the  primary 
election^  and  that  sum  is  paid  in  good  faith.  Then  what  do  you  say  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  And  it  has  not  changed  the  intent  of  that  elector  as 
to  his  vote  ? 

Senator  Sutherland.  I have  said  that  it  was  paid  in  good  faith. 

Mr.  Blaine.  Yes.  I do  not  believe  that  would  be  covered  by  the 
statute.  It  would  be  an  unreasonable  construction. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Then  the  statute  must  be  construed  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Oh,  yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  It  does  not  mean  literally  what  it  says  ? 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  is,  you  apply  the  “rule  of  reason”  as 
laid  down  by  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  Standard  Oil  case  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is  shown,  is  it  not,  by  the  requirement 
in  another  section  that  the  candidate  must  file  a statement  of  his 
expenditures  made  for  the  purpose  of  influencing  the  election  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  But  that  law  was  passed  at  a time  subsequent  to 
the  statute  that  we  are  mentioning ; and  it-  might  not  have  been  the 
intent  of  the  legislature  to  pass  such  a law  subsequently. 

Senator  Sutherland.  No;  I beg  your  pardon.  That  statute  was 
passed  at  the  same  time.  It  is  section  4543c,  which  is  a subsequent 
section  to  that  which  I have  been  referring  to. 

Mr.  Blaine.  It  is  subsequent  in  that  printed  pamphlet  of  election 
laws;  but  that  is  not  the  way  we  section  number  our  laws. 

Senator  Sutherland.  It  is  subsequent,  because  the  section  to 
which  I have  been  calling  attention  is  section  4542b,  and  the  section 
providing  for  the  filing  of  the  account  is  section  4543c. 

Mr.  Blaine.  But  that  is  the  peculiar  method  we  have  of  section 
numbering  our  statutes  so  that  they  will  all  fit  in  when  we  have  a 
revision. 

Senator  Sutherland.  It  is  part  of  the  same  statute. 

Mr.  Blaine.  It  would  really  mean  that  it  was  passed  subsequently. 
4542b,  the  one  you  referred  to,  was  passed  as  section  10,  chapter  312 
of  the  laws  of  1897.  The  one  providing  for  the  filing  of  expense 
accounts  was  not  passed  until  1905.  That  was  eight  years  later. 

15235°— vol  l—ll 41 


642 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE. 


Senator  Sutherland.  Then  the  statute  providing  for  the  filing 
of  the  accounts  was  passed  later  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  was  passed  in  1905. 

Senator  Sutherland.  It  was  passed  later  than  the  bribery  statute  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Yes;  later  than  the  bribery  statute. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Then  it  must  have  been  the  intention  of  the 
legislature,  in  passing  the  later  statute  providing  for  the  accounts,  to 
allow  the  candidate  to  make  expenditures  for  the  purpose  of  influ- 
encing voters  at  primaries,  or  they  would  not  have  provided  for  the 
filing  of  accounts. 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  raises  another  question.  I really  am  not  com- 
petent to  pass  upon  it. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I wanted  to  get  your  point  of  view  in  filing 
these  charges. 

Mr.  Black.  Just  a moment,  Senator.  Section  4543c,  in  relation  to 
the  accounts,  was  originally  enacted  in  1897. 

Senator  Sutherland.  As  I read  them,  they  are  parts  of  the  same 
statute. 

Mr.  Blaine.  They  are  amendments. 

Mr.  Black.  It  was  amended  later,  but  it  was  originally  enacted  in 
1897,  at  the  same  time  with  the  other  two  sections  referred  to. 

Senator  Sutherland.  They  appear  to  me  to  be  construed  together. 
However,  that  is  all  I want  to  ask  about  that. 

Y ou  have  said,  in  relation  to  one  or  two  of  these  charges,  that  you 
made  them  not  upon  specific  information  which  you  received,  but 
upon  the  public  feeling  in  the  matter  at  that  time.  Do  you  mean 
by  that,  public  sentiment  or  public  prejudice?  Do  you  mean  that 
you  made  them  in  response  to  some  public  prejudice? 

Mr.  Blaine.  There  was  a strong  public  demand  for  an  investiga- 
tion. 

Senator  Sutherland.  But  I am  speaking  now  of  your  specific 
charges.  You  make  certain  charges  in  which  you  say  that  certain 
sums  of  money  were  paid  to  certain  persons,  and  you  answered  with 
relation  to  at  least  one  of  those  that  it  was  not  based  upon  any  spe- 
cific information  which  you  had,  but  upon  the  public  feeling.  I ask 
you  whether  you  mean,  by  1 ‘public  feeling,”  a public  prejudice  with 
reference  to  the  matter  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No;  not  a public  prejudice. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Then  it  was  a public  belief  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Public  report — public  belief;  yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  It  was  a public  belief  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  It  would  be  a public  belief. 

Senator  Sutherland.  A public  belief  of  what  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Of  the  general  charges,  taken  as  a whole,  that  the 
election  was  obtained  by  the  methods  set  forth  in  the  charges — not 
one,  but  all. 

Senator  Sutherland.  As  to  the  tenth  charge,  which  is  with  refer- 
ence to  an  offer  to  pay  to  Edward  Pollock  and  to  other  editors  of 
newspapers  certain  sums  of  money,  you  answered  that  you  knew 
nothing  about  any  other  editors  of  newspapers;  that  you  had  no 
specific  information  upon  that  point,  but  that  you  made  the  charge 
based  upon  public  feeling. 

Mr.  Blaine.  It  was  charged  in  the  public  press  and  on  the  plat- 
form and  in  grocery  stores  and  on  street  corners  and  among  the  leg- 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE.  643 

islators  and  almost  anywhere  you  went;  it  was  generally  talked  of 
and  charged. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  that  general  talk  or  general  feeling  take 
the  direction  of  pointing  out  specifically  what  editors  had  received 
money  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No,  no,  no. 

Senator  Sutherland.  It  was  just  general  talk  to  the  effect  that 
there  were  editors  who  had  received  money  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  General  feeling. 

Senator  Sutherland.  But  it  did  not  reach  the  point  where  it 
specifically  indicated  any  particular  editor? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No;  no  particular  editor. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Or  any  particular  paper? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  have  answered  that  you  got  some 
information  from  Henry  C.  Campbell  with  reference  to  three  of  these 
charges,  and  perhaps  more.  That  was  so  with  reference  to  the  thir- 
teenth charge,  which  has  reference  to  the  attempt  of  E.  M.  Heyzer 
and  Max  Sells  to  bring  about  the  defeat  of  a candidate  by  the  name 
of  Nelson.  As  I understand  you,  what  information  you  have  with 
reference  to  that  charge  came  from  Mr.  Campbell  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Yes;  that  came  from  Mr.  Campbell. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  Mr.  Campbell  claim  to  know  the  facts 
about  it  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No;  he  did  not. 

Senator  Sutherland.  He  had  heard  it  from  somebody  else  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  is  the  way  I understood  it. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  he  tell  you  from  whom  he  heard  it  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  My  recollection  is  that  he  said  W.  D.  Connor  had 
given  him  that  information.  I am  not  certain  that  he  said  he  gave 
it  to  him;  but  Mr.  Connor’s  name  was  mentioned  in  connection  with 
this  charge. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Who  is  W.  D.  Connor  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  His  home  is  in  Marshfield,  Wis.,  I think. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  you  know  him  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I have  met  the  gentleman. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  you  know  whether  W.  D.  Connor  claims 
to  know  the  facts  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I do  not  know. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Or  whether  he  had  heard  it  from  somebody 
else  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I do  not  know. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Perhaps  the  chairman  has  asked  you  this 
question ; but  I want  to  put  it  to  you  again,  even  if  he  has  done  so. 
Have  you  any  knowledge  with  reference  to  these  charges  or  to  any 
facts  which  in  your  opinion  will  affect  the  validity  of  Senator  Stephen- 
son’s election  other  tnan  that  which  you  have  stated  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No  personal  knowledge,  except  the  failure  to  file  an 
expense  account,  as  provided  by  law. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  have  stated  that  in  your  charges. 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  charge  is  different  from  the  charge  that  could 
now  be  made. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  has  reference  to  the  character  of  the 
account  ? 


644 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE. 


Mr.  Blaine.  The  form  and  character;  the  specifications. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Those  facts  are  before  the  committee.  Do 
you  know  of  anything  else  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Not  personally. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Can  you  give  the  committee  any  informa- 
tion which  would  lead  the  committee  to  any  fact  affecting  the  election 
of  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No  personal  knowledge. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  know  of  no  place  where  we  can  go  for 
any  other  facts  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No  personal  knowledge;  no,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  When  you  were  going  about  attempting  to 
get  information  before  drawing  your  charges,  were  you  undertaking 
to  get  evidence  to  substantiate  the  charges  or  only  to  enable  you  to 
make  them  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Just  to  enable  me  to  meet  the  demands  of  the  legis 
iature  that  there  should  be  some  specific  charges  made. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is,  you  mean  by  that  that  the  legisla- 
ture had  declined  to  make  an  investigation  unless  specific  charges 
were  made  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  They  had  declined  to  make  any  investigation  and 
the  feeling  around  the  legislature  was  that  if  there  were  specific 
charges  made  they  would  then  go  into  an  investigation. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  you  simply  wanted  to  prepare  charges 
in  order  that  that  excuse,  as  you  deemed  it,  might  be  done  away  with  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  So  that  the  investigation  could  be  accomplished. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  you  made  your  charges  irrespective 
of  whether  or  not  you  had  sufficient  evidence  to  sustain  them  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Yes;  irrespective  of  that. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Wholly  with  the  object  of  forcing  the  legis- 
lature to  make  an  investigation  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  And  having  an  investigation. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  was  the  purpose  of  it  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  was  the  purpose  of  filing  charges. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Has  there  been  any  judicial  construction  of 
this  statute  in  the  State  by  the  local  courts? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Of  the  first  statute  that  I have  mentioned — 4542d  ? 

Senator  Pomerene.  Make  your  answer  apply  to  any  of  these 
sections. 

Mr.  Blaine.  I can  not  state  positively.  I have  not  gone  into  that. 
I could  obtain  that  information,  possibly,  and  submit  it  to  the 
committee. 

Senator  Pomerene.  If  you  have  any  information  on  that  subject, 
I think  the  committee  would  be  glad  to  have  it ; that  is,  as  to  whether 
there  has  been  any  judicial  construction  of  the  statute. 

The  Chairman.  I have  made  some  examination  in  respect  to  it. 
I have  consulted  with  some  lawyers  in  practice  and  I do  not  find 
that  there  has  been  any.  Perhaps  you  can  tell  us  about  that,  Mr. 
Black. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  has  been  my  information,  but  I thought 
possibly  the  Senator  would  be  able  to  tell  us. 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE. 


645 


Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  being  familiar  with  this  subject  matter, 
he  might  be  able  to  give  us  some  information  that  the  rest  of  us  have 
not. 

The  Chairman.  There  is  not  any  reported  case.  I have  been 
through  the  adjudicated  cases  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  and 
I find  no  reported  case  where  there  is  a judicial  interpretation. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Brother  Black’s  office  agrees  with  the  chair- 
man’s investigation. 

The  Chairman.  I have  made  considerable  inquiry  and  I am  pretty 
well  satisfied  that  the  question  has  not  been  raised. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I think  the  chairman  is  right. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  all  with  this  witness,  unless  counsel  desires 
to  examine  him.  Of  course,  I do  not  wish  to  suggest  any  limitation 
to  the  examination  of  counsel;  but  I will  ask  whether  we  may  go 
upon  the  assumption  that  the  witness  will  be  disposed  of  this  evening  ? 
The  question  goes  to  the  matter  of  when  we  shall  adjourn. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Mr.  Chairman,  we  feel  that  the  witness  has  ren- 
dered us  very  valuable  service  to-day;  and  I propose,  so  far  as  I am 
concerned,  to  do  the  best  I can  to  accommodate  him  and  allow  him 
to  go  to-night.  I shall  not  be  very  long;  but  there  are  a few  subjects 
that  I desire  to  go  over. 

Mr.  Blaine.  I desire  to  get  away  at  5.20. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  It  is  now  15  minutes  of  5,  and  I can  assure  you 
that  I will  give  you  15  minutes  in  which  to  reach  the  train. 

You  filed  a return,  I suppose,  as  a candidate  in  1898? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Generally  speaking,  how  much  money  did  that 
show  that  you  disbursed  in  the  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  In  the  primary  contest? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes. 

Mr.  Blaine.  I disbursed  very  little  in  the  primaries. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Roughly  speaking,  how  much  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I do  not  remember.  Just  a few  dollars. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Any? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Yes;  it  was  some. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  pay  it  out  to  any  elector  in  consideration 
for  something  to  be  done  before  the  primaries  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I do  not  remember  anything. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  do  not  remember  what  you  paid  it  for? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I think  it  was  postage  stamps.  I had  no  opposition 
in  the  primaries. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Mr.  Eastman,  of  whom  you  have  spoken,  you 
know  well  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  have  known  him  for  a long  time? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  long  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Oh,  the  greater  part  of  my  life. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  live  in  his  family? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Does  he  live  in  your  vicinity  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  far  does  he  live  from  you? 

Mr.  Blaine.  It  must  be  about  45  miles. 


646 


JOHN  J.  BLAJNE. 


Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  he  a man  of  character  and  standing  in  his 
community  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Why,  I could  give  him  no  other  record. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  so  understand  it  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I think  he  is,  generally  speaking. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  long  have  you  known  Mr.  Stevens  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I have  known  Mr.  Stevens  since  early  in  the  nineties. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  he  a man  of  character  and  standing  in  his 
community  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I think,  generally  speaking,  he  is. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  so  understand  him  to  be  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I do. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  consider  them  both  to  be  men  of  truth 
and  veracity? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Well,  I would  not  want  to  impeach  them. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  understand  the  question;  do  you  not? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  understand  that  they  are  men  who  have 
a good  reputation  for  truth  and  veracity  in  the  communities  where 
they  live? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I could  not  say  that  of  Mr.  Eastman. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  do  you  say  about  Mr.  Stevens? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I should  have  to  qualify  it  as  to  Mr.  Stevens. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Then  you  will  not  say  it  as  to  either  one  of  them  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No,  sir. 

The  Chaikman.  I would  suggest  that  this  witness  has  charged 
them  both  with  bribery,  or  attempted  bribery,  in  buying  votes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  may  be,  but  I desire  to  call  his  attention 
to  this  fact.  Is  it  not  a fact,  Mr.  Blaine,  that  both  Mr.  Stevens  and 
Mr.  Eastman  specifically  deny  testimony  that  you  have  given  here 
and  that  you  gave  before  the  legislative  committee;  and  does  not 
that  fact  have  something  to  do  with  your  opinion  as  to  their  repu- 
tation for  truth  and  veracity? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Mr.  Stevens  admitted  that  he  received  $728. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  he  not  deny,  and  does  he  not  deny  now,  all 
that  you  have  said?  Do  you  mean  to  say  to  this  committee  that 
Mr.  Stevens  did  not  specifically  deny  the  testimony  that  you  gave 
before  the  joint  committee? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I do  not  know  how  much  he  denied.  I did  not  read 
his  testimony. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  do  not  know  whether  he  did  or  not? 

Mr.  Blaine.  He  received  $728. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I did  not  ask  you  that.  I asked  you  if  he  did 
not  deny  before  the  joint  committee  the  testimony  that  you  gave, 
and  which  you  substantially  repeat  here  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I do  not  know.  I did  not  read  his  testimony. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  know  that  Mr.  Eastman  did  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I did  not  read  his  testimony. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  know  that  Mr.  Edmonds  did  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I did  not  read  all  of  his  testimony.  I understand  he 
denied 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  rather  lost  your  interest  when  you  testified 
in  support  of  your  charges  ? 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE.  647 

Mr.  Blaine.  Oh,  there  are  too  many  thousand  pages  of  testimony 
to  read. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  So  that  you  did  not  have  time  to  read  them. 

I should  like  to  know  when  you  sent  the  Stone  letter  to  the  com- 
mittee. 

Mr.  Blaine.  The  original? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes. 

Mr.  Blaine.  I do  not  remember.  My  recollection  is  that  I handed 
it  to  the  chairman. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  handed  it  to  the  chairman? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  In  Madison  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Have  you  seen  it  since  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  At  the  time  you  handed  it  to  the  chairman,  did 
it  have  the  date  upon  it  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  So  far  as  you  know,  it  is  now  in  the  possession 
of  Mr.  Morris — was  he  the  chairman  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No;  Mr.  Marsh  was  the  chairman. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  So  far  as  you  know,  it  is  now  in  the  possession 
of  Mr.  Marsh  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I do  not  know.  I do  not  remember  whether  it  was 
handed  t®  Mr.  Marsh  individually,  as  the  chairman  of  the  committee, 
or  to  the  committee. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Has  it  been  returned  to  you  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  It  has  never  been  returned  to  me. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  So  far  as  you  know,  it  is  in  the  possession  of  the 
committee  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  It  must  be. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  the  Milwaukee  Journal  a newspaper  vigor- 
ously opposed  to  Senator  Stephenson  in  the  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  the  paper  of  which  Mr.  Campbell  is  the 
editor  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Would  it  be  unfair  to  say  that  they  were  unfairly 
opposed  to  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  would  be  hardly  fair. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Vigorously,  then? 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  do  you  mean — that  it  was  unfair? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I will  say  “bitterly.” 

Senator  Pomerene.  Your  (question  was  open,  perhaps,  to  two 
constructions. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  They  were  vigorously  opposed  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  They  were  vigorously  opposed. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Where  did  you  draw  up  your  charges  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I drew  them  up  in  my  room  in  the  city  of  Madison. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  After  your  return  from  your  visit  to  Milwaukee  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  remember  testifying  that  you  had  a 
mass  of  papers  under  lock  and  key  when  you  were  before  the  joint 
committee  ? 


648 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE. 


Mr.  Blaine.  I testified  I had  some  letters  and  some  statements. 
I denominated  them  as  written  documents. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  declined  to  furnish  all  the  information  in 
your  possession,  at  any  rate  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  By  reason  of  the  fact  that  it  was  under  lock  and 
key  elsewhere  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  It  was  at  home. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  At  your  home  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  At  my  home  town,  in  my  office  safe. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Have  you  given  the  committee  everything  that 
was  in  the  office  safe  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I gave  them  everything. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  you  state  here  to-day  comprises  all  of  the 
papers  that  you  then  had  under  lock  and  key  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Yes.  They  are  introduced  as  exhibits  and  marked  as 
exhibits. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  were  those  important  papers  that  you  had 
under  lock  and  key?  Just  specify  them. 

Mr.  Blaine.  A letter  from  Mr.  Stone  that  I have  mentioned  and 
the  data  that  I refer  to,  where  I took  down  the  statements  of  the 
parties. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  your  own  memorandum  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  consisted  of  probably  six  or  seven  pages,  and  I 
guess  the  Teller  editorial  should  have  been  in  there,  but  I did  not 
notice  that  it  was  marked  as  an  exhibit. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Those  were  the  papers  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Those  constituted  the  papers. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  you  had  in  mind  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Those  were  the  papers. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  that  is  all  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  did  Mr.  Stone  come  to  write  you  this  letter 
that  you  have  introduced  and  relied  upon? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I do  not  know. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  ever  have  any  conversation  with  him 
before  he  wrote  it  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  ever  see  him  before  he  wrote  it  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  know  him  before  he  wrote  it  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  Yes;  I am  well  acquainted  with  Mr.  Stone. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  had  not  seen  him  in  relation  to  this  matter 
before  he  wrote  it  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  ever  have  any  conversation  with  him  in 
relation  to  the  subject  matter  of  these  charges  before  he  wrote  the 
letter  to  you  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  ever  talk  with  him  over  the  phone 
about  these  charges  before  he  wrote  the  letter  to  you  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  ever  send  any  word  to  him  by  anyone 
before  he  wrote  the  letter  ? 


JOHN  .J.  BLAINE. 


649 


Mr.  Blaine.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I have  but  one  further  question.  It  appears 
from  your  testimony  here  that  you  had  little  information  at  first- 
hand with  reference  to  the  truth  of  these  charges.  What  was  your 
purpose  in  filing  the  charges  ? 

Mr.  Blaine.  I will  answer  that  in  a general  way.  Immediately 
following  the  primary  and  during  the  election  campaign  a United 
States  Senator  had  made  the  declaration  that  grave  charges  had  been 
made,  and  asserted  that  it  was  the  duty  of  the  legislature  to  investi- 
gate those  charges.  The  Democratic  candidate  for  governor  had 
spoken  about  it.  Other  speakers  throughout  the  campaign  had 
referred  to  it.  The  newspapers  were  daily  referring  to  it.  When  I 
arrived  in  the  city  of  Madison,  it  was  the  talk  among  the  legislators. 
It  was  so  generally  stated  that  while  I did  not  take  any  judicial  view 
of  the  rumors  and  declarations  and  the  sentiment  of  the  people  and 
the  general  feeling,  yet,  as  a member  of  the  State  legislature,  under 
oath  to  obey  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  State  of  Wisconsin  and  the  laws  of  our  State,  and  to  per- 
form my  duties  as  a State  senator,  I took  a legislative  view  of  the 
situation  and  deemed  that  it  was  my  absolute  duty — not  so  far  as 
Senator  Stephenson  was  concerned,  but  an  absolute  duty  toward  the 
public,  toward  the  State — to  see  that  this  matter  was  investigated. 
I felt  that  if  Senator  Stephenson  was  not  guilty  as  generally  charged, 
which  charges  were  generally  made,  that  fact  should  be  shown.  1 
merely  put  them  into  these  specific  charges,  as  stated  to  the  com- 
mittee, m order  that  the  resolution  for  an  investigation  might  be 
adopted.  I took  that  view  of  it  as  a public  duty  that  I owed  as  a 
member  of  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin,  not  as  an  indi- 
vidual. I considered  it  a grave  situation  and  a grave  duty  that  I 
had  to  perform.  That  is  the  basis  of  my  activity  to  initiate  the 
investigation. 

The  Chairman.  The  witness  is  excused. 

Before  adjournment  I will  make  this  announcement:  The  wit- 
nesses summoned  for  to-morrow  will  be  S.  L.  Perrin,  C.  C.  Wayland, 
Henry  Overbeck,  O.  E.  Riordan,  J.  W.  Stone,  J.  J.  McGillivray,  and 
J.  E.  Thomas.  Those  witnesses  will  be  in  attendance.  The  com- 
mittee will  now  stand  adjourned. 

(At  5 o'clock  p.  m.  the  subcommittee  adjourned  until  to-morrow, 
Wednesday,  Oct.  11,  1911,  at  10  o'clock  a.  m.) 

The  resolutions  referred  to  on  page  207  were  subsequently  sent  to 
the  subcommittee  by  Mr.  Blaine,  with  a letter  of  transmittal.  The 
letter  and  resolutions  are  as  follows: 

Wisconsin  Legislature, 

Senate  Chamber,  October  12,  1911. 

Hon.  W.  B.  Heyburn, 

Chairman  Investigating  Committee, 

Federal  Building , Milwaukee,  Wis. 

Dear  Sir:  I inclose  herewith  my  copy,  taken  from  my  files,  of  joint  resolution  No. 
10  S.,  introduced  by  Senator  Husting,  and  substitute  amendment  No.  1 S.  thereto, 
introduced  by  the  judiciary  committee  of  the  State  senate,  in  accordance  with  the 
request  of  your  committee  made  last  Tuesday.  I desire  to  call  the  committee’s  atten- 
tion to  the  first  preamble,  which  recites  the  filing  with  the  governor  of  the  proceedings 
of  the  legislative  committees  in  accordance  with  the  resolution  adopted  for  that  pur- 
pose and  has  no  reference  to  any  “specific  charges,”  but  in  line  4 the  words  “is 
claimed  ” are  used  and  are  general  in  their  meaning. 


650 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE. 


The  second  paragraph  of  the  preamble,  beginning  with  line  13,  recites  what  the 
investigating  committee  found,  but  does  not  refer  to  any  specific  charges  theretofore 
made.  The  third  paragraph  of  the  preamble  recites  the  formal  transmission  by  the 
governor,  of  the  report  of  the  committees,  and  the  testimony  taken  by  both  of  said 
committees. 

The  first  section  of  the  resolution  making  “resolves”  is  a concurrence  by  the  legis- 
lature in  the  findings  and  recommendation  of  the  senate  committee  as  members  of  the 
joint  committee  and  of  the  separate  senate  committee.  The  second  paragraph  of 
section  1 of  the  resolution,  beginning  with  line  6,  on  page  2,  provides  for  the  sending 
of  a copy  of  the  report  and  appendices  of  the  senate  members  of  the  joint  committee 
and  of  the  senate  investigation  committee,  together  with  a copy  of  the  resolution 
embracing  the  preamble  and  section  1,  which  was  to  be  certified  by  the  secretary  of 
state  to  the  United  States  Senate  for  its  action  thereon  and  by  such  resolution  the 
United  States  Senate  is  requested  to  investigate  the  manner,  means,  and  methods  by 
and  through  which  Isaac  Stephenson  secured  his  election  to  the  United  States  Senate. 

Section  2 of  the  resolution  is  no  part  of  the  record  intended  for  the  United  States 
Senate,  as  it  plainly  speaks  for  itself. 

Coming  at  the  close  of  my  examination,  the  suggestion  from  a member  of  your  com- 
mittee that  the  governor  had  transmitted  to  the  United  States  Senate  a copy  of  the 
charges  filed  by  me  and  that  the  resolution  asked  the  United  States  Senate  to  investi- 
gate those  charges,  I deem  it  proper  to  transmit  to  your  committee  joint  resolution 
No.  10  S,  and  the  substitute  amendment  No.  1 S,  which  controverts  any  such  sugges- 
tion. I am  not  advised  that  your  committee  so  understood  the  matter,  but  that  the 
record  may  be  made  plain  I beg  leave  to  submit  the  joint  resolution  finally  adopted 
by  our  legislature,  being  substitute  amendment  No.  1 S to  joint  resolution  No.  10  S, 
with  my  statement  in  explanation  transmitted  herewith  to  be  a part  of  your  record. 
I have  endeavored  to  make  my  statement  conform  to  the  record  and  without  making 
comments  aside  from  what  appears  plainly  upon  the  face  of  the  resolution  and  the 
substitute  amendment  thereto. 

Yours,  very  truly,  John  J.  Blaine. 

[State  of  Wisconsin  in  Senate.  Substitute  amendment  No.  IS,  to  joint  resolution  No.  10  S.] 

Joint  resolution  relating  to  the  investigation  of  the  primary  and  general  election  of 

1908  and  the  election  of  United  States  Senator  in  1909. 

Whereas  the  senate  committee  members  of  the  joint  investigation  committee,  and 
the  senate  investigation  committee  appointed  to  investigate  the  manner,  means,  and 
methods  by  which  the  primary  campaign  and  election  of  the  year  1908  is  claimed  to 
have  been  corruptly  and  unlawfully  conducted,  and  to  fully,  fairly,  and  thoroughly 
investigate  the  campaign  and  election  of  Isaac  Stephenson  to  the  United  States 
Senate,  and  the  campaign  of  the  primary  and  general  election,  and  the  primary 
election  and  election  of  the  members  of  the  last  legislature,  so  far  as  the  same  in  any 
way  pertained  to  or  affected  the  election  of  Isaac  Stephenson  to  the  United  States 
Senate,  have,  in  accordance  with  the  resolutions  adopted  for  said  purposes,  made  and 
filed  their  report  with  the  governor  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin;  and 

Whereas  the  senate  committee  members  of  the  joint  senatorial  primary  investiga- 
tion committee  and  the  senate  investigation  committee  have  in  said  report  found 
that  Isaac  Stephenson  did  commit  acts  of  bribery  and  attempted  bribery,  and  did 
commit  other  acts  in  violation  of  the  corrupt  practices  laws  of  Wisconsin  relating  to 
said  matters;  and  further,  that  the  managers  and  agents  of  Isaac  Stephenson  in  said 
primary  campaign  and  election  and  general  election  and  senatorial  election  did,  by 
acts  of  bribery  and  attempted  bribery  and  other  acts  in  violation  of  the  corrupt  prac- 
tices laws  and  penal  statutes  of  Wisconsin  relating  to  said  matters  obtain  for  the  said 
Isaac  Stephenson  votes  without  which  he  would  not  have  been  elected,  and  that  for 
such  reason  the  election  of  said  Isaac  Stephenson  to  the  United  States  Senate  was 
null  and  void,  and  such  election  of  the  said  Isaac  Stephenson  to  the  United  States 
Senate  should  be  annulled  by  the  United  States  Senate. 

Whereas  his  excellency,  Gov.  Francis  B.  McGovern,  on  the  17th  day  of  January, 
1911,  transmitted  to  the  consideration  of  the  Legislature  of  Wisconsin  such  report  and 
the  appendices  accompanying  the  same,  together  with  a report  of  a majority  of  the 
assembly  members  of  said  joint  senatorial  primary  investigation  committee,  together 
with  the  testimony  taken  by  both  of  said  committees. 

Section  1.  Therefore  he  it  resolved  by  the  senate  ( the  assembly  concurring ),  That  the 
senate  and  assembly  concur  in  the  findings  and  recommendations  of  said  senate  com- 
mittee members  of  the  joint  senatorial  primary  investigation  committee  and  the 
senatorial  primary  investigation  committee  as  by  them  found  and  recommended  and 
as  above  recited:  Be  it  further 


JOHN  J.  BLAINE. 


651 


Resolved , That  a copy  of  the  report  and  appendices  of  said  senate  committee  mem- 
bers of  the  joint  senatorial  investigation  committee  and  of  the  senate  primary  investi- 
gation committee,  together  with  a copy  of  this  resolution  embracing  the  preamble 
and  section  1 of  this  resolution  be  certified  by  the  secretary  of  state  to  the  United 
States  Senate  for  its  action  thereon.  And  the  United  States  Senate  is  hereby  requested 
to  investigate  the  manner,  means,  and  methods  by  and  through  which  Isaac  Steph- 
enson secured  his  election  to  the  United  States  Senate. 

Section  2.  Be  it  further  resolved , That  a copy  of  the  report  of  the  senate  committee 
members  of  the  joint  senatorial  primary  investigation  committee  and  the  senate 
primary  investigation  committee,  and  its  appendices,  together  with  a copy  of  this 
resolution  be  certified  by  the  secretary  of  state  to  the  district  attorney  of  Dane  County 
with  recommendation  from  the  senate  and  assembly  that  prosecution  be  commenced 
against  all  persons  shown  by  the  evidence  in  said  investigation  to  have  committed 
perjury. 

And  it  is  further  recommended  by  the  senate  and  assembly  that  prosecution  be 
commenced  in  the  proper  counties  of  the  State  by  the  prosecuting  officers  thereof 
against  all  persons  shown  by  the  evidence  in  the  said  investigation  to  have  been 
guilty  of  a violation  of  the  corrupt  practices  or  bribery  statute,  or  other  penal  statutes 
relating  to  the  matters  referred  to  herein. 

[State  of  Wisconsin,  in  senate  joint  resolution  No.  10S,  Introduced  by  Senator  Husting.] 

Joint  resolution  relating  to  the  investigation  of  the  primary  election  of  1908. 

Whereas  the  senate  members  of  the  joint  investigation  committees  and  the  senate 
members  of  the  senate  committee  appointed  to  investigate  the  manner,  means,  and 
methods  by  which  the  primary  campaign  of  the  year  1908  is  claimed  to  have  been 
corruptly  or  unlawfully  conducted,  and  to  fully,  fairly,  and  thoroughly  investigate 
the  campaign  and  election  of  Isaac  Stephenson  to  the  United  States  Senate,  and  the 
campaign  and  election  of  the  members  of  the  last  legislature  so  far  as  their  election 
in  any  way  pertained  to  or  affected  the  election  of  Isaac  Stephenson  to  the  United 
States  Senate,  have,  in  accordance  with  said  resolution,  made  and  filed  their  report 
with  the  governor  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin;  and 

Whereas  the  senate  members  of  the  joint  senatorial  primary  investigation  com- 
mittee and  members  of  the  senate  investigation  committee  have  in  said  report  found 
that  Isaac  Stephenson  did  commit  acts  of  bribery  and  attempted  bribery,  and  did 
commit  other  acts  in  violation  of  the  corrupt  practice  laws  of  Wisconsin;  and  further, 
that  the  managers,  agents,  and  workers  of  Isaac  Stephenson,  in  said  primary  campaign, 
did,  by  acts  of  bribery  and  attempted  bribery,  and  other  acts  in  violation  of  the  cor- 
rupt practice  laws  of  Wisconsin  in  conducting  his  campaign,  obtain  for  the  said  Isaac 
Stephenson  votes  without  which  he  would  not  have  been  elected,  and  that  for  such 
reason  the  election  of  the  said  Isaac  Stephenson  to  the  United  States  Senate  should 
be  annulled ; a»id 

Whereas  his  excellency,  Gov.  Francis  E.  McGovern,  on  the  17th  day  of  January, 
1911,  transmitted  to  the  consideration  of  the  Legislature  of  Wisconsin  such  report  and 
appendices,  together  with  a report  of  a majority  of  the  assembly  members  of  the  joint 
senatorial  primary  investigation  committee,  and  together  with  the  testimony  taken 
by  both  of  said  committees:  Therefore  be  it 

Resolved  by  the  senate  ( the  assembly  concurring ),  That  the  senate  and  assembly  concur 
in  the  findings  and  recommendations  of  the  said  senate  members  of  the  joint  senatorial 
primary  investigation  committee  and  the  members  of  the  senate  primary  investigation 
committee:  And  be  it  further 

Resolved , That  a copy  of  the  report  of  said  senate  members  of  the  joint  senatorial 
investigation  committee  and  the  members  of  the  senate  primary  investigation  com- 
mittee, together  with  a copy  of  this  resolution,  be  certified  to  the  United  States  Senate 
for  its  action  thereon,  with  the  request  that  that  body  investigate  the  manner  and 
means  by  and  through  which  Isaac  Stephenson  secured  his  election  to  the  United 
States  Senate:  And  be  it  further 

Resolved , That  a copy  of  the  above  and  foregoing  report,  together  with  a copy  of 
this  resolution  be  certified  to  the  district  attorney  of  Dane  County  with  the  recom- 
mendation that  prosecution  be  commenced  against  all  persons  shown  by  the  evidence 
to  have  committed  perjury  in  said  investigation,  and  that  a like  copy  be  certified  to 
the  attorney  general  directing  that  he  cause  to  be  commenced  in  the  proper  counties 
of  the  State  prosecution  against  all  persons  shown  by  the  evidence  to  have  been 
guilty  of  corrupt  practices  or  bribery  m the  campaign  investigated. 


652 


SOLON  L.  PERRIN. 


WEDNESDAY,  OCTOBER  11,  1911. 

Federal  Building, 

Milwaukee,  Wis. 

The  subcommittee  met  at  10  o’clock  a.  m. 

Present:  Senators  Heyburn  (chairman),  Sutherland,  and  Pomerene. 

Present  also:  Mr.  C.  E.  Littlefield, Mr.  W.  E.  Black,  and  Mr.  H.  H.  J. 
Upham,  counsel  for  Senator  Isaac  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  The  following  witnesses  summoned  to  appear  this 
morning  will  come  forward  as  their  names  are  called:  Levi  H.  Ban- 
croft, M.  C.  Ring,  Rev.  F.  J.  Eppling,  C.  E.  Brady,  and  William  L. 
Essman. 

(Mr.  Bancroft,  Mr.  Brady,  and  Mr.  Eppling  responded  to  their 
names  and  the  oath  was  administered  to  them  by  the  chairman.) 

The  Chairman.  You  will  remain  in  attendance.  Mr.  S.  L.  Perrin 
will  take  the  stand. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Mr.  Chairman,  Mr.  Bancroft,  who  has  just  been 
sworn,  is  the  present  attorney  general.  I think  he  would  like  to  make 
some  suggestion  to  the  committee  with  reference  to  the  question  of 
his  attendance. 

The  Chairman.  The  committee  will  be  very  glad  to  hear  the  attor- 
ney general. 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Gentlemen,  the  only  suggestion  I wish  to  make  is 
this : I can  remain  in  attendance  to-day  and  to-morrow,  but  it  would 
seriously  conflict  with  my  business  engagements  if  I were  detained 
longer.  I can  attend  at  any  time  to  suit  the  convenience  of  the  com- 
mittee if  you  can  not  reach  me  before  then;  but  I should  like  to  be 
excused  in  order  to  attend  to  other  matters. 

The  Chairman.  The  committee  will  so  arrange  that  you  may  be 
heard  to-day  or  to-morrow,  if  that  will  be  convenient  to  you. 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Thank  you. 

TESTIMONY  OF  SOLON  L.  PERRIN. 

Solon  L.  Perrin,  having  been  previously  sworn,  was  examined  and 
testified  as  follows: 

The  Chairman.  What  is  your  occupation? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Attorney  at  law. 

The  Chairman.  Where  do  you  reside  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Superior. 

The  Chairman.  How  long  have  you  resided  there  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Sixteen  years. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  take  an  active  part  in  the  primary  cam- 
paign of  1908,  at  which  Senator  Stephenson  was  a candidate  for 
nomination  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Somewhat  active. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  carry  that  forward  to  the  campaign  before 
the  legislature  after  it  was  elected  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Whatever  you  had  to  do  with  it  was  during  the 
primary,  was  it  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Entirely. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  support  Senator  Stephenson  at  that 
primary? 


SOLON  L.  PERRIN. 


653 


Mr.  Perrin.  I did. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  well  acquainted  with  him? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Not  very  well  acquainted  with  him  prior  to  his 
election  to  the  Senate  the  first  time.  I had  known  of  him  for  a great 
many  years. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  receive  any  money  from  Senator  Stephen- 
son, or  from  those  who  were  acting  for  him  as  his  campaign  managers, 
during  that  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  1 did. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  $5,000. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  receive  that  amount  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  It  was  paid  to  me  at  three  different  times,  as  I remem- 
ber it  now.  The  first  payment,  I think 

The  Chairman.  Was  it  July  30  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I think  that  was  the  date. 

The  Chairman.  From  whom  did  you  receive  it  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  From  Mr.  Edmonds. 

The  Chairman.  In  what  form? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Either  a check  or  a draft. 

The  Chairman.  You  cashed  it,  did  you  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes;  I had  it  cashed. 

The  Chairman.  And  disbursed  or  used  the  proceeds  of  it  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I did. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  $1,000? 

Mr.  Perrin.  That  was  the  first. 

The  Chairman.  On  August  4 did  you  receive  another  sum  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  About  that  time,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  By  draft  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  was  the  first  date  that  the  chairman  gave  ? 

The  Chairman.  July  30. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  find  that  in  Exhibit  49  ? 

The  Chairman.  I get  it  from  pages  1918  and  1919  of  the  testimony. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Oh,  yes;  that  is  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Perrin 
before  the  legislative  committee  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes.  I have  that  before  me. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  There  is  so  much  of  this  matter  that  we  had  an 
abstract  made;  and  our  abstract  is  shy  $1,000  on  the  amount  paid 
Mr.  Perrin,  as  I find  when  I come  to  look  it  up. 

The  Chairman.  There  are  three  items.  I will  disclose  them  in  a 
moment. 

You  say  that  on  August  4 you  received  $1,000  from  Mr.  Edmonds 
by  draft  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  On  August  15  did  you  receive  $3,000  by  check 
from  Mr.  Edmonds  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Check  or  draft;  I am  not  sure  which. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  say  the  second  item  was  $1,000  ? 

The  Chairman.  The  second  item  was  $1,000;  the  third  item  was 
$3,000.  You  will  find  them  on  pages  1918  and  1919. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Yes;  I have  them. 

The  Chairman.  I refer  to  the  pages  of  the  testimony  because  they 
are  officially  before  us.  For  what  purpose  was  the  first  sum  of  $1,000 
given  to  you  by  Mr.  Edmonds  ? 


654 


SOLO  1ST  L.  PERRIN. 


Mr.  Perrin.  To  electioneer  for  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  What  do  you  mean  by  the  word  “ electioneer”  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I mean  furthering  his  cause. 

The  Chairman.  What  acts  did  you  do  that  furthered  his  cause  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I procured  assistance  to  disseminate  information  in 
regard  to  the  reasons  why  we  thought  he  should  be  returned  to  the 
Senate. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  retain  all  of  that  money,  or  pay  out  part 
of  it  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Are  you  speaking  of  the  first  thousand  dollars  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Perrin.  I paid  that  all  out. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  file  a statement  showing  the  manner  of 
the  disbursement  of  that  money  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I presented  a statement  to  the  joint  investigating 
committee  of  the  legislature,  showing  the  disbursement  of  that  money 
so  far  as  I was  able  to  at  that  time. 

The  Chairman.  I want  to  turn  to  your  statement,  Exhibit  107, 
page  1923,  and  extending  over  to  page  1924.  I find  in  this  testimony 
a statement  marked  “Exhibit  107”  which  undertakes  to  account  for 
$4,508.25  of  the  amount.  How  do  you  account  for  the  unexpended 
balance  ? Did  you  keep  that  for  your  own  services  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I did. 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  familiar  with  this  statement  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  transfer  it  to  this  testimony. 

(The  statement  referred  to  is  as  follows:) 


No. 

Date. 

Amount. 

To  whom. 

Indorsed. 

2fin  

July  17 
July  25 
July  30 
Aug.  1 
Aug.  1 
Aug.  1 

Aug.  4 
Aug.  5 
Aug.  6 
Aug.  6 
Aug.  7 
Aug.  7 
Aug.  7 
Aug.  8 
Aug.  8 
Aug.  8 
Aug.  8 
Aug.  8 
Aug.  14 
Aug.  14 
Aug.  14 
Aug.  14 
Aug.  14 
Aug.  14 
Aug.  18 
Aug.  18 
Aug.  19 
Aug.  21 
Aug.  21 
Aug.  21 
Aug.  22 
Aug.  22 
Aug.  22 
Aug.  22 
Aug.  24 
Aug.  25 
Aug.  26 

$100. 00 

Cash 

265 

25.00 

W.  W.  Savage 

W.  W.  Savage. 

270 

25.00 

Cash 

276  . 

300.00 

C.  R.  Fridley 

C.  R.  Fridley. 

277  

125.00 

Cash 

278 

25.00 

Cash 

Columbia  Clothing  Co., 
H.  R.  Grochau,  agent. 

281 

15.00 

Cash 

283 

200.00 

Cash 

289 

25.00 

Cash 

290  

200. 00 

Cash 

292  

100.00 

Cash 

293 

75.00 

Cash 

294  

50.00 

Cash 

297 

50.00 

Cash 

298 

50.00 

Cash 

299 

50. 00 

Cash 

300 

50. 00 

Cash 

W.  W.  Savage. 
James  Glynn. 

301 

50. 00 

Cash 

305 

250. 00 

Cash 

306 

25.00 

Cash 

307 

5.00 

R.  J.  Shields 

R.  J.  Shields. 

308 

50.00 

Cash 

C.  R.  Fridley. 

309 

50.00 

Cash 

310 

50.00 

Cash 

C.  R.  Fridley. 
H.  L.  Dresser. 

312 

10.00 

H.  L.  Dresser 

313 

50.00 

Cash 

315 

25. 00 

W.  W.  Savage 

W.  W.  Savage. 

317  . 

200.00 

Cash 

319 

100.00 

Cash 

320 

40.00 

Cash 

L.  D.  Balmat  & Co. 

322 

100. 00 

Cash 

323 

25.00 

Cash 

324 

6. 25 

Lamere  & Hamilton 

Lamere  & Hamilton. 

325 

100.00 

J.  W.  Wilson 

J.  W.  Wilson. 

326 

250. 00 

T.  S.  Whitten 

T.  S.  Whitten. 

328 

75.00 

R.  J.  Shields * 

R.  J.  Shields. 

329 

25.00 

W.  W.  Savage 

W.  W.  Savage. 

SOLON  L.  PERRIN. 


655 


No. 

Date. 

Amount. 

To  whom. 

Indorsed. 

331.  . . 

Aug.  26 
Aug.  26 
Aug.  26 
Aug.  26 
Aug.  27 
Aug.  27 
Aug.  27 
Aug.  28 
Aug.  28 
Aug.  28 
Aug.  29 
Aug.  29 
Aug.  29 
Aug.  28 
Aug.  31 
Aug.  31 
Aug.  31 
Sept.  5 
Sept.  9 
Sept.  9 
Sept.  10 
Sept.  12 
Sept.  15 
Sept.  28 

$50.00 

50.00 

Cash 

332 

Cash 

R.  J.  Agen,  secretary. 

330 

50.00 

Cash 

333 

50. 00 

Cash 

C.  R.  Fridley. 
J.  W.  Wilson. 

336 

10. 00 

J.  W.  Wilson 

337 

10.00 

L.  H.  Mead 

L.  H.  Mead. 

338 

10. 00 

Robert  Inglis 

Robert  Inglis. 

339.. 

50. 00 

Cash 

340.. 

50. 00 

Cash 

341 

25.00 

D.  M.  Maxcy 

D.  M.  Maxcy. 

342 

150. 00 

Cash 

344 

45.00 

T.  W.  McManus 

T.  W.  McManus. 

345 

10. 00 

Cash 

G.  H.  Kirk. 

435 A... 

40.00 

News  Tribune,  Duluth 

News  Tribune,  Duluth. 

346. 

300. 00 

Cash 

347.. 

25.00 

Cash 

348.. 

15.00 

Cash 

James  Worrell. 

352 

25.00 

Cash 

358 

25.00 

D.  M.  Maxcy 

D.  M.  Maxcy. 
Nels  Nelson. 

359 

27.00 

Nels  Nelson 

364 

150.00 

Cash 

367. 

25.00 

Cash 

G.  H.  Kirk. 

369 

25.00 

Bayfield  Press 

Bayfield  Press. 

380. 

25.00 

Cash 

Telegraph,  telephone,  and 
stamp  bills,  in  all.  about. 

45.00 

Total 

4, 258.425 

250. 00 

R.  J.  Shields  

4,508. 25 

The  Chairman.  The  first  item  is  No.  260,  date  July  17,  amount 
SI 00,  cash.  That  was  money  you  drew  against  what — a deposit? 

Mr.  Perrin.  That  was  my  own  money  that  I expended  before  I 
received  any  check  from  Mr.  Edmonds,  if  I remember  correctly. 

The  Chairman*  You  received  tfie  first  check  July  30  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  And  this  is  July  17? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  In  the  case  of  check  No.  265,  on  July  25 — that 
is  five  days  before  }mu  received  the  first  $1,000 — we  find  the  amount 
is  $25,  payable  to  W.  W.  Savage,  and  indorsed  by  him.  For  what 
was  that  paid  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  That  was  probably  money  that  we  had  used  before  j 
got  any  money  from  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  I will  mal^e  this  suggestion  for  the  examination: 
Instead  of  saying  that  it  was  “probably”  money  paid  for  a certain 
purpose,  if  you  have  a recollection,  give  it;  if  you  have  none,  state 
that  fact. 

Mr.  Perrin.  I am  obliged  to  you,  Senator. 

The  Chairman.  I will  ask  the  question  again:  For  what  was  the 
$25  paid  W.  W.  Savage  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I have  not  any  recollection,  definitely. 

The  Chairman.  Who  was  W.  W.  Savage? 

Mr.  Perrin.  My  clerk. 

The  Chairman.  Your  clerk? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  In  your  law  office? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Again,  on  July  30,  the  day  upon  which  you 
received  the  $1,000  from  Mr.  Edmonds,  there  is  an  item  of  $25  cash. 
For  what  was  that  money  paid  ? 


656 


SOLON  L.  PERRIN. 


Mr.  Perrin.  I can  not  recollect. 

The  Chairman.  Check  276,  on  August  1:  At  that  time  you  had 
received  only  $1,000.  There  is  an  item  of  $300  to  C.  R.  Fridley, 
indorsed  by  him? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  was  that  money  paid  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  That  was  paid  to  Air.  Fridley  to  aid  in  electioneering 
in  Superior  and  in  Douglas  County. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  “to  aid.”  What  was  he  to  do? 

Mr.  Perrin.  He  was  to  put  out  information,  and  arrange  to  hire 
workers,  and  in  every  way  to  further  the  interests  of  Senator  Stephen- 
son in  that  campaign. 

The  Chairman.  “In  every  way”  is  a pretty  general  term.  It 
might  include  legal  and  illegal  ways.  Being  a lawyer,  you  can  readily 
sift  that  out. 

Mr.  Perrin.  Every  legal  way. 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  but  what  were  those  ways? 

Air.  Perrin.  In  order  to  make  an  effective  campaign  in  Superior 
and  in  Douglas  County,  it  was  necessary  to  have  a good  many  work- 
ers. He  had  been  in  politics  for  a good  many  years.  He  knew  a 
great  many  men.  He  knew  to  whom  to  go  to  get  the  necessary 
assistance  to  work  up  the  sentiment  necessary  to  get  out  the  vote 
for  the  Senator. 

The  Chairman.  How  did  he  work  up  that  sentiment? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Well,  Senator,  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  an  answer,  if  you  do  not  know.  It  is 
important,  however,  to  inquire  as  to  the  acts  that  constituted  “work- 
ing up  a sentiment,”  because  it  might  be  done  in  a legal  or  in  an 
illegal  way. 

Do  you  know  how  he  expended  the  money?  Did  he  render  a 
statement  to  you  ? 

Air.  Perrin.  No;  he  did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Then  do  you  know  how  he  expended  this  money, 
all  or  part  of  it,  in  specific  terms  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Not  in  specific  terms. 

The  Chairman.  Who  is  C.  R.  Fridley? 

Air.  Perrin.  He  is  an  attorney  at  Superior. 

The  Chairman.  Is  he  an  old  resident  ? 

Air.  Perrin.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Is  he  an  old  man  or  a young  man  ? 

Air.  Perrin.  He  is  a man  of  42  or  43  ^ears  of  age. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  support  Senator  Stephenson  for  nomination 
at  the  primaries  and  before  the  primaries  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Was  he  in  public  life  in  any  capacity? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No. 

The  Chairman.  He  was  what  you  call  a political  worker,  was  he  ? 

Air.  Perrin.  No.  He  was  a practicing  lawyer. 

The  Chairman.  He  was  actively  engaged  in  the  practice  of  law  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  never  asked  him  for  any  accounting  as  to  the 
expense  he  had  incurred  ? 

Air.  Perrin.  I did  not. 


SOLON  L.  PERRIN. 


657 


The  Chairman.  Pass  that  item,  for  the  present,  and  take  another 
one,  on  the  same  day,  of  $125  cash.  For  what  was  that  cash  ex- 
pended by  you  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I have  no  recollection. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  any  recollection  as  to  where  it  was 
expended  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No,  sir.  I can  not  tell  whether  that  was  expended 
in  Douglas  County  or  one  of  the  other  counties. 

The  Chairman.  Does  that  represent  money  paid  out  by  you  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  No  part  of  it  was  compensation  to  you  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  any  recollection  of  the  persons  to  whom 
you  paid  it  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  name  any  one  person  to  whom  you  paid  it  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  One  moment,  if  the  chairman  pleases:  I simply 
wish  to  ask  the  chairman  about  this,  because  I do  not  think  it  has 
appeared  in  the  examination.  I will  see  what  the  fact  is.  Do  I 
understand  that  this  column  headed  “number”  indicates  the  numbers 
of  Mr.  Perrin’s  own  checks  ? 

The  Chairman.  I had  rather  assumed  that  it  does,  inasmuch  as  the 
word  “endorsed”  appears,  in  some  instances. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  is  the  fact  about  that,  Mr.  Perrin  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  That  is  my  understanding  of  it,  yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  say  that  is  your  understanding.  Do  you 
not  know  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I thought  we  might  just  as  well  have  that 
explained. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I did  not  know  what  it  meant.  (Exhibiting  paper 
to  the  witness.)  You  are  looking  at  Exhibit  157,  and  the  question 
is,  Mr.  Perrin,  whether  this  column  headed  “number”  indicates  the 
number  of  your  own  individual  checks. 

The  Chairman.  He  says  so  on  the  preceding  page,  1922.  He 
says  “I  have  those  checks  now.” 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  but  that  did  not  appear  in  the  exami- 
nation here,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  No. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  I thought  we  had  better  have  it  appear  in 
the  record  here. 

The  Chairman.  Certainly.  There  is  no  objection  to  its  appearing. 
I used  the  term  “check  number”  in  the  first  instance. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I noticed  that  you  did. 

Mr.  Perrin.  I understood  it. 

The  Chairman.  And  I did  it  because  of  the  statement  on  the  prece- 
ding page,  that  he  had  his  checks  there,  and  was  enumerating  these 
items  from  the  checks. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  This  account,  as  I understand,  is  simply  a 
list  of  the  checks.  It  is  not  an  account  that  you  kept  of  your  expendi- 
tures, as  you  went  along? 

15235°— vol  1—11 42 


658 


SOLON  L.  PERRIN. 


Mr.  Perrin.  No.  I made  this  statement  up  after  I had  been 
subpoenaed  to  appear  before  the  Joint  Investigating  Committee  at 
Madison. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  your  checks  are,  really,  the  best  evi- 
dence ; and  this  is  a transcript  of  the  checks  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  This  Exhibit  107  was  made  up  from  the  checks. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Yes;  not  an  account  which  you  kept  at  the 
time  of  making  the  disbursements  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is  what  I understood. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  my  intention,  without  breaking  in  on  him  any 
more  than  is  necessary,  to  then  call  attention  to  the  testimony 
wherein  he  says  that  he  has  these  checks,  which  reads  as  follows  : 

Q.  Have  you  those  checks  now? — A.  Yes;  I have  them  with  me. 

Q.  Would  you  just  give  those  checks,  and  the  amounts? — A.  I have  a statement 
here,  typewritten  statement,  made  from  the  checks  which  is  complete  except  as  to  one 
item,  $250,  which  doesn’t  show  on  that. 

I have  drawn  off  here  all  of  this  testimony,  with  the  references  to  it, 
for  the  purpose  of  making  this  examination.  I did  not  want  to  break 
in  upon  this  categorical  table  more  than  was  necessary. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I beg  the  chairman’s  pardon. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  all  right.  There  is  no  harm  done. 

Now,  Mr.  Perrin,  we  come  to  the  item;  No.  278,  August  1,  $25 
cash;  Columbia  Clothing  Co. — “Clo.”  I suppose,  means  clothing? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  that  item  for  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I have  no  recollection,  Senator,  as  to  what  that  was 
for.  It  did  not  go  to  the  Columbia  Clothing  Co. 

The  Chairman.  It  did  not  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No.  It  was  cashed  in  their  store. 

The  Chairman.  It  was  a check  given  out  of  hours,  and  cashed  in 
their  store  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  It  was  presumably  given  out  of  hours.  I can  not 
remember  definitely  about  that,  of  course. 

The  Chairman.  The  next  item  is  check  No.  281,  August  4,  $15 
cash,  H.  It.  Grochau,  agent.  For  what  was  that  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not  remember.  He  did  not  get  the  money. 
That  was  cashed  in  his  office. 

The  Chairman.  He  was  what  kind  of  an  agent  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  He  was  the  agent  of  the  Omaha  Railroad,  and  got  the 
check  cashed  at  his  office. 

The  Chairman.  On  August  5,  $200  cash.  For  what  was  that  cash 
expended,  and  by  whom  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I have  no  recollection. 

The  Chairman.  August  6,  $25  cash.  What  do  you  say  as  to  that  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I have  no  recollection. 

The  Chairman.  August  6,  $200.  What  have  you  to  say  as  to  that 
item  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not  remember  it. 

The  Chairman.  When  you  say  you  do  not  remember,  you  mean 

Mr.  Perrin.  I have  no  recollection. 

The  Chairman.  That  you  have  no  information  to  give  in  regard 
to  it,  based  upon  your  recollection  ? 


SOLON  L.  PERRIN. 


659 


Mr.  Perrin.  None  whatever. 

The  Chairman.  On  August  7,  $100  cash.  Have  you  any  recollec- 
tion as  to  the  purpose  for  which  that  was  expended  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  on  August  7,  again,  $75;  and  on  August  7, 
again,  $50;  that  is  $225  on  August  7.  Have  you  any  knowledge  as 
to  what  that  was  used  for? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Those  items  are  all  “cash”? 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  they  are  all  cash. 

Mr.  Perrin.  No;  I have  no  recollection. 

The  Chairman.  On  the  8th  we  have  cash  items  of  $50,  $50,  $50, 
$50,  and  $50 — $250;  do  you  know  the  purpose  for  which  that  money 
or  any  part  of  it  was  expended  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Those  are  cash  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  cash  items. 

Mr.  Perrin.  No;  I have  no  recollection. 

The  Chairman.  One  of  those  is  indorsed  by  W.  W.  Savage. 

Mr.  Perrin.  That  is  the  same  W.  W.  Savage  who  was  referred  to  a 
few  moments  ago. 

The  Chairman.  And  the  other  by  James  Glynn. 

Mr.  Perrin.  He  did  not  get  the  money  on  that.  That  was  cashed 
in  his  place  of  business. 

The  Chairman.  What  does  he  do  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  He  is  a saloon  keeper. 

The  Chairman.  What  does  Savage  do? 

Mr.  Perrin.  He  is  my  clerk.  He  is  a clerk  in  my  office. 

The  Chairman.  And  James  Glynn  is  a saloon  keeper? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Was  that  money  expended  in  the  saloon? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No. 

The  Chairman.  The  check  was  cashed  there  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes.  We  get  checks  cashed  after  hours  wherever  we 
can  get  the  money. 

The  Chairman.  On  August  14,  $250  cash.  Who  got  that  money? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I have  no  recollection,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  any  recollection  of  the  purpose  for 
which  it  was  paid  out  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No. 

The  Chairman.  This  is  all  drawn  against  the  $5,000 — the  thousand 
dollars  and  the  other  items  that  were  paid  you  by  Mr.  Edmonds  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  We  have  now  passed  August  4,  on  which  you 
received  the  second  thousand  dollars? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  no  recollection,  you  say,  as  to  the  $250 
item  on  August  14? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  On  that  day  you  paid  out  six  items  of  expenditure, 
being  $250,  $25,  $5,  $50,  $50,  and  $50.  Those  items  are  all  cash 
except  one  of  $5  to  R.  J.  Shields.  Who  is  R.  J.  Shields? 

Mr.  Perrin.  He  is  an  insurance  agent  at  Superior. 

The  Chairman.  How  long  has  he  resided  there? 

Mr.  Perrin.  More  than  20  years. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  pay  him  the  money  for? 


660 


SOLON  L.  PERRTN. 


Mr.  Perrin.  I have  forgotten.  I remember  his  coming  in  there 
and  asking  me  for  $5.  I have  forgotten  what  that  was  for. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  he  is  an  insurance  agent.  Does  he  engage 
in  any  other  business  than  that  of  an  insurance  agent  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes.  He  is  engaged  in  real  estate,  to  a certain 
extent,  and  I think  they  have  some  collections  in  their  office. 

The  Chairman.  Is  he  a detective  ? 

Mr.  Perrin  No. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  ever  engage  in  the  detective  business? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Not  to  my  knowledge;  except,  perhaps,  that  he  may 
have  been  a deputy  sheriff  at  one  time,  early  in  the  history  of  the  city. 

The  Chairman.  Is  he  the  same  Shields  who  testified  in  the  Lorimer 
case,  before  the  legislative  examining  committee,  two  years  ago  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  He  is  the  same  Shields  who  has  been  referred  to  in  the 
Lorimer  case. 

The  Chairman.  He  is  the  same  one  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes.  But  whether  he  was  examined  down  there  or 
not,  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  what  I wanted  to  ascertain;  whether  he 
was  the  same  man. 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes;  he  is  the  man. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  he  professing  to  do  as  a consideration 
for  this  money  which  you  paid  him?  I ask  that  because  there  are 
some  other  items  in  this  account  stated  to  have  been  paid  to  him. 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes.  As  to  that  particular  $5,  there  was  some 
specific  purpose  for  which  he  wanted  that,  and  which  I can  not  recall. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  cooperating  with  Mr.  Shields  in  forward- 
ing the  Stephenson  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  He  was  supporting  Senator  Stephenson  and  he  had 
some  of  this  money  to  be  used  for  electioneering  purposes. 

The  Chairman.  Was  this  $5  given  him  for  that  purpose? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes.  It  is  a part  of  the  Stephenson  propaganda. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  account  for  any  of  the  money,  other  than 
the  $5  given  to  Mr.  Shields,  that  you  paid  out  on  August  14  ? The 
items  are  marked  cash  items,  and  I will  enumerate  them  a little  more 
particularly.  The  $250  item  on  the  14th  of  August  is  cash.  Can  you 
account  for  any  part  of  that  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I have  no  recollection. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  any  memorandum  from  which  you 
might  refresh  your  memory  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I have  not. 

The  Chairman.  Is  there  any  source  to  which  you  could  appeal  to 
refresh  your  memory  in  regard  to  that  item  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  None  whatever. 

The  Chairman.  As  to  the  next  item  of  $25  cash,  can  you  account 
for  that  or  any  part  of  it  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No. 

The  Chairman.  The  Shields  item  is  the  next  one,  and  you  have 
made  a statement  in  regard  to  it. 

The  next  item  on  that  day  is  $50  cash;  and  it  was  indorsed  by 
C.  It.  Fridley.  What  have  you  to  say  about  that  ? Can  you  account 
for  any  part  of  that  money  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  That  was  turned  over  to  him,  to  be  used  for  election- 
eering purposes,  and  I never  asked  him  for  any  statement  of  account. 


SOLON  l.  perrtn. 


661 


The  Chairman.  What  is  Mr.  Fridley’s  business,  you  say? 

Mr.  Perrin.  He  is  an  attorney. 

The  Chairman.  The  next  item  is  $10  to  H.  L.  Dresser.  Who  is 
H.  L.  Dresser? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Mr.  Dresser  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  campaign, 
and  does  not  live  in  the  State.  I was  in  Duluth  and  somebody  made 
application  to  me  for  money,  and  I had  to  go  to  him  and  borrow  it, 
and  gave  him  my  check  to  reimburse  him.  It  was  money  expended 
in  the  campaign. 

The  Chairman.  He  lived  in  Duluth  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  He  lived  in  Duluth  when  this  application  was  made 
to  me. 

The  Chairman.  You  drew  this  money  for  your  own  expenditure, 
or  to  be  paid  out  by  you  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I drew  that  money  to  be  paid  to  some  one  in  the 
Stephenson  campaign. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  say  to  whom  you  paid  it  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I can  not. 

The  Chairman.  We  go  to  the  next  item  of  $50  cash.  Can  you 
account  for  any  part  of  it  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I have  no  recollection  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  The  last  item  I inquired  about,  of  $10  to  Dresser, 
was  on  the  18th  of  August. 

Mr,  Perrin.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  another  item  the  same  day,  the  18th,  is  $50 
cash.  You  say  you  can  not  account  for  that  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No. 

The  Chairman.  At  that  time  you  had  received  the  $3,000.  You 
received  it  on  the  15th.  So  you  had  all  of  this  $5,000  then  available  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  on  the  19th  you  drew  a check  to  W.  W.  Sav- 
age for  $25,  and  he  indorsed  it.  What  was  that  for  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I am  not  sure  about  that.  I sent  him  out  two  or 
three  times,  I do  not  remember  when,  to  get  information  to  enable  us 
to  carry  on  this  work. 

The  Chairman.  He  was  your  clerk? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  On  the  21st  you  paid  out  $200  cash.  Can  you  ac- 
count for  any  part  of  that? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I have  no  recollection  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  On  the  same  day  you  paid  out  $100  cash.  Can 
you  account  for  any  part  of  that  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I have  no  distinct  recollection. 

The  Chairman.  Again  on  the  same  day,  $40  cash.  Can  you  ac- 
count for  that  or  any  part  of  it  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not  recollect  that. 

The  Chairman.  Was  it  money  expended  in  the  city  of  Superior? 

Mr.  Perrin.  This  money  was  expended  in  four  counties — Douglas, 
Bayfield,  Sawyer,  and  Washburn. 

The  Chairman.  Are  they  the  northern  counties  in  the  State  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  The  most  northern  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 


662 


SOLON  L.  PERRIN. 


The  Chairman.  And  it  is  in  one  of  these  counties  that  the  city  of 
Superior  is  located  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  What  other  large  city  is  there  in  any  one  of  those 
counties  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Washburn,  in  the  county  of  Bayfield,  is  a city  of  about 
6,000  inhabitants.  I think  there  is  no  other  large  city  in  the  four 
counties. 

The  Chairman.  Where  were  you  during  this  time,  say  from  the  1st 
to  the  21st  of  August? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I was  almost  all  of  the  time  somewhere  in  those  four 
counties— the  larger  part  of  the  time,  perhaps,  at  home;  but  I think 
I was  here  two  or  three  times. 

The  Chairman.  How  many  days  were  you  at  home  during  that 
time  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I did  not  keep  any  record  of  that.  I can  not  re- 
member. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  cast  your  mind  back  now  and  give  us 
some  idea  of  how  much  you  were  at  home — whether  the  greater  part 
of  the  time  or  otherwise? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Well,  more  than  half. 

The  Chairman.  You  mean,  by  “at  home/’  in  Superior? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  your  office  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Jn  the  office,  or  about. 

The  Chairman.  You  were  practicing  law  during  this  time,  I sup- 
pose, were  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I tried  to  practice  law  a little,  but  I did  not  practice 
law  as  much  as  I did  politics  during  that  time. 

The  Chairman.  The  last  item  about  which  I inquired  was  a check 
for  $40,  drawn  to  L.  D.  Balmat  & Co.,  at  least,  indorsed  by  them,  and 
I presume  drawn  to  their  order. 

Mr.  Perrin.  They  did  not  get  the  money  on  that.  That  was  cashed 
in  their  place,  a restaurant. 

The  Chairman.  August  22,  $100  cash.  Can  you  account  for  any 
part  of  that  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not  recollect  that. 

The  Chairman.  August  22,  again,  $25.  Can  you  account  for  that 
or  any  part  of  it  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I have  no  distinct  recollection. 

The  Chairman.  On  the  same  day  there  is  a check  for  $6.25  to 
Lamere  & Hamilton,  drawn  to  their  order  and  indorsed  by  them. 
What  was  that  for  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Bill  posting  in  Washburn,  Bayfield  County. 

The  Chairman.  You  paid  that  out  in  cash? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I sent  them  my  check,  I think. 

The  Chairman.  On  the  same  day,  $100  to  J.  W.  Wilson. 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes,  I recollect  that. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  that  for  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  That  was  paid  to  Wilson  to  electioneer  for  Senator 
Stephenson  in  Washburn  County. 

The  Chairman.  What  use  did  he  make  of  it  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  He  told  me  that  he  paid  it  all  out. 


SOLON  L.  PERRIN. 


663 


The  Chairman.  He  told  you  he  paid  it  out;  but  did  he  tell  you 
what  he  had  paid  it  out  for? 

Mr.  Perrin.  He  told  me  he  had  been  hiring  men  to  send  throughout 
the  county. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  his  business  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  A locomotive  engineer. 

The  Chairman.  We  come  now  to  an  item  on  August  24,  $250  to 
T.  S.  Whitten.  What  was  his  business  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Mr.  Whitten  is  manager  of  the  North  Wisconsin  Lum- 
ber & Manufacturing  Co.,  at  Hayward,  in  Sawyer  County. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  he  do  with  the  money  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I am  not  sure  that  I ever  asked  him  what  he  did 
with  it. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  ever  tell  you  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I would  not  want  to  testify  that  he  did.  I know  that 
the  work  was  done  down  there.  I heard  of  that  in  different  ways. 

The  Chairman.  What  work  was  done  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  He  employed  men  to  placard  some  different  parts  of 
the  county,  and  to  work  at  the  polls. 

The  Chairman.  To  do  what  work  at  the  polls  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  To  pass  out  Stephenson  cards  at  the  time  of  the 
primary. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  of  that  money  did  he  spend  in  saloons 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not  know  that  he  expended  any  of  it  in  saloons. 
I do  not  think  he  did. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  no  knowledge  on  the  subject? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Knowing  the  man,  I should  say  that  he  did  not. 

The  Chairman.  We  come  now  to  R.  J.  Shields,  August  25,  $75.  For 
what  did  you  pay  that  to  R.  J.  Shields  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Electioneering  purposes. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  a very  general  term.  What  constitutes 
“ electioneering  purposes”  with  Mr.  Shields  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Just  the  same  as  would  constitute  electioneering 
purposes  with  me  or  any  other  man  who  was  engaged  in  furthering 
the  cause  of  a candidate. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  do  exactly  the  things  that  you  would  have 
done  with  that  money  ? That  is  what  your  answer  would  imply. 

Mr.  Perrin.  He  did  things  that  I could  not  do,  or  I would  not 
have  had  him  do  them. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  he  do  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I could  not  specify  in  detail,  except 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  of  any  item  for  which  he  expended 
that  sum  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Not  any  specific  item;  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  of  any  act  or  thing  which  he  did 
because  of  the  receipt  of  that  money  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I know  that  some  people  were  active  for  the  Senator 
after  I gave  him  the  money  that  were  not  before — that  is,  a certain 
class. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  that  class  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  It  would  be  mostly  members  of  the  Catholic  Church. 

The  Chairman.  Then  that  influence,  you  think,  went  in  that 
direction  ? 


664 


SOLON  L.  PERRIN. 


Mr.  Perrin.  I think  so. 

The  Chairman.  W.  W.  Savage,  125,  on  August  26.  Do  you  know 
what  was  done  with  that  money  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not  remember  what  he  did  with  that.  He  was 
working  for  me. 

The  Chairman.  Who  disbursed  that  money — Mr.  Savage,  or  you  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I am  not  sure.  He  may  have  drawn  that  money  for 
me,  or  he  may  have  expended  it  himself  under  my  direction. 

The  Chairman.  Was  he  authorized  to  sign  your  name  to  checks? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  On  the  same  day,  the  26th,  we  have  items  of  cash, 
$50,  $50,  $50,  $50.  They  are  all  on  August  26.  Who  got  that 
money  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  They  are  all  cash  items  ? 

The  Chairman.  They  are  cash  items ; but  one  of  them  is  indorsed 
by  "R.  J.  Agen,  Sec’y.” 

Mr.  Perrin.  He  did  not  have  the  money.  I think  that  was  cash. 

The  Chairman.  And  C.  R.  Fridley.  Did  Mr.  Fridley  have  the 
money  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  He  had  the  money  where  his  name  appears. 

The  Chairman.  Who  is  Mr.  Fridley  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  He  is  the  attorney  to  whom  I referred  a few  moments 
ago. 

The  Chairman.  I want  the  facts  to  appear  in  connection  with 
each  item. 

Mr.  Perrin.  He  is  an  attorney  at  law,  and  was  employed. 

The  Chairman.  Another  item  is  J.  W.  Wilson,  $10.  Who  is  Mr. 
Wilson  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  He  is  a locomotive  engineer. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  not  under  date  of  the  26th. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  under  date  of  the  27th.  We  will  proceed 
to  the  27th.  We  have  three  items  on  the  27th  of  $10  each — one  to 
J.  W.  Wilson,  one  to  L.  H.  Mead,  and  one  to  Robert  Inglis.  Were 
those  sums  paid  to  those  men  for  their  use  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  To  be  used  by  them  in  this  campaign. 

The  Chairman.  Did  they  use  those  sums  of  money? 

Mr.  Perrin.  So  far  as  I am  advised. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  for  what  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Were  they  compensation  to  those  men  personally, 
or  to  be  expended  by  them  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  To  be  expended. 

The  Chairman.  All  of  them? 

Mr.  Perrin.  So  far  as  I can  recollect  now. 

The  Chairman.  On  the  28th  we  have  three  items — two  of  cash, 
$50  and  $50,  and  one  of  $25  to  D.  M.  Maxcy,  and  indorsed  by  him. 
Can  you  account  for  the  cash  items  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  account  for  the  Maxcy  item? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes.  That  is,  it  was  sent  to  him  to  be  paid  to  men  to 
attend  the  polling  places  on  primary  day  in  the  interest  of  Senator 
Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  To  attend  the  polling  places  for  what  ? 


SOLON  L.  PERRIN. 


665 


Mr.  Perrin.  For  the  purpose  of  disseminating  information  in 
regard  to  Senator  Stephenson’s  qualifications. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  ever  present  when  any  of  these  men 
were  disseminating  information  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  no  idea  as  to  the  manner  in  which  they 
disseminated  it,  or  of  the  substance  of  the  information? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Certainly  not;  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  We  come  now  to  the  29th.  There  are  three  items 
on  the  29th:  $150  cash — can  you  account  for  that  or  any  part  of  it  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not  remember. 

The  Chairman.  $45  to  T.  W.  McManus.  What  was  that  for? 

Mr.  Perrin.  May  I look  at  that  item? 

The  Chairman.  Certainly. 

Mr.  Perrin.  That  was  for  advertisement  of  Senator  Stephenson’s 
candidacy  in  some  publication  that  he  was  in  charge  of,  gotten  out,  I 
think,  for  use  on  Labor  Day. 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  a labor  paper  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  It  was  not  a paper  m that  sense.  It  was,  I think, 
simply  a program  with  advertisements. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  take  the  next  item  on  the  same  day — one 
of  $10,  indorsed  by  G.  H.  Kirk. 

Mr.  Perrin.  Mr.  Kirk  never  had  that  money.  He  was  the  agent 
of  one  of  the  railroad  companies,  and  cashed  that  check  for  some 
of  us. 

The  Chairman.  On  August  28  there  is  a $40  item  to  the  Duluth 
News  Tribune.  What  was  that  for  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  That  was  for  advertising. 

The  Chairman.  What  kind  of  advertising  would  be  inserted  in  the 
Duluth  News  Tribune  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  The  Duluth  News-Tribune  has  a Superior  depart- 
ment and  a Superior  page,  and  is  circulated  very  generally  throughout 
Superior.  It  is  a morning  paper.  There  is  no  morning  paper  in 
Superior. 

The  Chairman.  On  the  31st  there  is  an  item  of  $300  cash.  Can 
you  account  for  that  or  any  part  Of  it  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not  remember. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  received  by  you  ? All  of  these  cash 
items  were  received  by  you,  were  they  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes.  I do  not  know  that  I went  to  the  bank  and  got 
them  myself. 

The  Chairman.  Is  it  the  fact  that  the  checks  were  drawn  payable 
to  “cash”  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  As  men  ordinarily  do  against  their  own  accounts  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  And  the  money  was  paid  to  you  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  On  the  same  day,  $25  cash.  Can  you  account  for 
that  or  any  part  of  it  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not  remember  that. 

The  Chairman.  On  the  31st  again,  $15  cash,  indorsed  by  James 
Worrell. 


666 


SOLON  L.  PERRTN. 


Mr.  Perrim.  I never  paid  him  any  money.  He  cashed  that  check 

for  somebody. 

The  Chairman.  On  September  5,  $25  cash.  Can  you  account  for 
that  ? That  is  four  days  after  the  election. 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not  remember  what  that  was  for. 

The  Chairman.  On  September  9,  $25  to  D.  M.  Maxcy.  Is  that  the 

same  Maxcy  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  D.  M.  Maxcy — yes,  sir;  the  same  man. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  did  you  pay  him  that? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I think  that  was  to  keep  my  arrangement  for  the  pay- 
ment that  he  was  to  make  to  workers  over  there,  as  I described  before. 

The  Chairman.  With  regard  to  obtaining  men  to  work  at  the  polls  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  The  next  is  on  the  9th  of  September,  $27,  Nels 
Nelson,  and  indorsed  by  Nels  Nelson.  What  was  that  for*? 

Mr.  Perrin.  That  was  to  pay  for  workers  at  the  polls,  the  same  as 
in  the  Maxcy  case. 

The  Chairman.  On  the  10th  of  September,  $150  cash.  What  was 
that  paid  for  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I have  not  any  distinct  recollection,  except  to  close 
up  the  accounts  as  far  as  we  could. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  not  a closing  item.  You  have  that  later. 

Mr.  Perrin.  Well,  I do  not  remember. 

The  Chairman.  $25  on  the  12th  of  September,  cash.  What  was 
that  for  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not  remember. 

The  Chairman.  $25  cash  to  the  Bayfield  Press  on  the  15th  of  Sep- 
tember. What  was  that  for  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  That  was  for  printing. 

The  Chairman.  The  printing  of  what  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not  remember. 

The  Chairman.  Was  it  in  connection  with  the  Stephenson  cam- 
paign ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Certainly. 

The  Chairman.  On  the  28th  of  September,  $25  cash.  What  was 
that  cash  for  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not  remember. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  an  item  of  “telegraph  and  telephone 
and  stamp  bills,  in  all  about  $45.”  For  whom  was  that  money 
expended  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  For  Mr.  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  Was  that  money  expended  in  the  interest  of  Mr. 
Stephenson’s  campaign  for  Senator  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes;  solely. 

The  Chairman.  R.  J.  Shields,  $250:  That  is  without  any  date. 

Mr.  Perrin.  That  $250  to  R.  J.  Shields  was  paid  to  him  out  of  the 
first  check  that  I received  from  Mr.  Edmonds. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  in  regard  to  that  item,  on  page  1922, 
that  you  have  the  checks  for  all  except  that  item,  and  it  does  not 
show  on  its  face.  Is  that  the  item  that  you  refer  to  now  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes.  When  I got  that  check  I indorsed  it  over  to 
him;  and  he  gave  me  back  his  check,  as  I remember  it  now,  for  $750. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Shields  did  ? 


SOLON  L.  PERRIN. 


667 


Mr.  Perrin.  Yes.  So  that  that  payment  to  him  was  not  covered 
by  a check. 

The  Chairman.  Then  he  really  received  the  whole  thousand-dollar 
check,  the  first  check  that  you  received  from  Edmonds? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No;  he  received  $250. 

The  Chairman.  I mean  to  say,  he  received  the  physical  check  ? 
Mr.  Perrin.  He  received  the  paper;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  check  would  bear  Mr.  Shields’s  indorse- 
ment, would  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I presume  he  indorsed  it  after  my  indorsement. 
Senator  Pomerene.  Who  issued  the  check?  Who  signed  it? 

Mr.  Perrin.  The  one  that  was  given  to  me  ? 

Senator  Pomerene.  Yes. 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not  remember. 

The  Chairman.  He  says  here  that  Edmonds  signed  it. 

Mr.  Perrin.  Oh,  I do  not  want  to  be  understood  as  saying  that 
Edmonds  signed  any  check  he  gave  me.  I do  not  remember. 

The  Chairman.  I presume  it  will  be  found  among  Mr.  Edmonds’s 
checks  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not  know  about  that. 

The  Chairman.  I merely  wanted  to  identify  the  check  as  one  you 
turned  over  to  Shields,  and  Mr.  Shields  gave  you  his  check  in  exchange. 
Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  And  Mr.  Shields  got  $250  out  of  that  check? 

Mr.  Perrin.  That  is  the  fact. 

The  Chairman.  He  received  that  sum  in  addition  to  the  other 
two  sums  to  which  attention  has  been  called  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  That  is  the  fact. 

The  Chairman.  One  of  which  was  for  $75  and  one  for  $5? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  he  received  $330? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I have  not  added  it  up. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  did  you  pay  that  money  to  Mr.  Shields? 
Mr.  Perrin.  For  use  in  Mr.  Stephenson’s  campaign. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  have  him  account  to  you  for  it? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not  think  he  ever  did. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  ask  him  to  account? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I did.  He  said  he  had  expended  it  for  Mr.  Stephenson. 
The  Chairman.  Did  you  ask  for  an  itemized  statement  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  he  never  rendered  any  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know  what  he  expended  it  for? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  I want  to  know  a little  more  about  Shields. 
You  must  have  been  very  well  acquainted  with  him. 

Mr.  Perrin.  Certainly. 

The  Chairman.  In  that  you  handed  him  over  that  check,  and  gave 
him  $250  out  of  it. 

Mr.  Perrin.  I am  very  well  acquainted  with  him. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  have  a conversation  with  him  at  the 
time  you  handed  it  over  to  him? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 


668 


SOLON  L.  PERRIN. 


The  Chairman.  Tell  us  the  conversation — what  he  said  to  you 
and  what  you  said  to  him  that  resulted  in  the  handing  over  of  that 
check. 

Mr.  Perrin.  I can  not  remember  the  details. 

The  Chairman.  Give  us  the  substance. 

Mr.  Perrin.  The  substance  of  it  was  that  I went  to  him  and  asked 
him  if  he  would  put  in  some  time  in  the  Stephenson  campaign.  He 
said  he  would  do  what  he  could.  I asked  him  how  much  money  he 
thought  he  would  need  at  that  time,  and  he  said  that  he  ought  to 
have  $250. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  tell  him  that  you  were  disbursing  Ste- 
phenson money  at  that  time  ? You  told  him  you  had  received  this 
thousand  dollars,  did  you? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  And  he  told  you  he  could  be  of  some  use  to  Senator 
Stephenson,  did  he  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  How  did  he  tell  you  he  could  be  of  use  to  Senator 
Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I guess  I knew  as  much  about  that  as  he  did.  I do 
not  know  that  he  expressed  himself  in  specific  terms  as  to  what  he 
could  do,  or  would  do. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  he  do  for  Senator  Stephenson’s  cam- 
paign ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  you  knew  what  he  could  do  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I knew  wliat  he  could  do;  certainly. 

The  Chairman.  Was  that  to  be  taken  as  a criterion  of  what  he 
did  do  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  It  was  by  me. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  he  do  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Taking  that  as  a criterion,  he  could,  and  I believe  he 
did,  get  men  interested  for  Senator  Stephenson  that  neither  Senator 
Stephenson,  Mr.  Edmonds  nor  I could  otherwise  get. 

The  Chairman.  Get  men -that  you  could  not  get? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  How  would  he  get  them  interested?  What 
would  he  do  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I think  he  would  mostly  talk. 

The  Chairman.  What  would  he  say  to  them? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I am  sure  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  What  would  be  the  nature  of  the  conversation? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I would  not  undertake  to  say. 

The  Chairman.  How  do  you  know  it  is  not  just  exactly  the  con- 
versation you  or  Mr.  Edmonds  would  have  had  with  these  people  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Because  I know  that  I could  not  talk  to  some  of  those 
people  the  way  Mr.  Shields  could. 

The  Chairman.  If  you  do  not  know  what  he  said  to  them,  how  do 
you  know  that  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  There  are  things,  you  know,  that  we  know  without 
being  able  to  explain  or  express  after  long  years  of  acquaintance  with 
a man,  that  no  man  living  can  sit  on  the  witness  stand  and  detail. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Shields  had  something  over  $300  as  compen- 
sation— either  he  for  talking,  or  those  to  whom  he  talked  for  listening. 
How  was  it  expended? 


SOLON  L.  PERRIN. 


669 


Mr.  Perrin.  Or  for  those  to  whom  he  talked,  to  talk  also. 

The  Chairman.  Then  do  you  think  they  shared  in  the  $300 — the 
listener  and  the  speaker? 

Mr.  Perrin.  And  the  other  listeners.  I carry  that  further  than 
the  one  step.  I think  these  men  to  whom  he  talked  talked  to  a 
great  many  other  people. 

The  Chairman.  It  was  a sort  of  endless  chain — talking  to  one  man, 
and  he  to  somebody  else,  and  that  man  in  turn  to  somebody  else  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I hoped  it  would  be  so. 

The  Chairman.  “ Sending  it  down  the  line?” 

Mr.  Perrin.  That  expresses  it  thoroughly. 

The  Chairman,  Where  did  the  money  stop?  How  far  did  the 
money  follow  that  conversation  down  the  line? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Oh,  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  not  any  idea? 

Mr.  Perrin.  It  is  impossible  to  trace  that  money  to  the  ultimate 
consumer. 

The  Chairman.  Then  why  do  you  say  that  you  could  not  have 
talked  to  these  same  men  ? You  are  a good  talker. 

Mr.  Perrin.  Oh,  no;  I am  not  a politician. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  a pretty  good  political  worker. 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not  think  I am. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  think  you  are  worth  the  $3,000  that  Mr. 
Stephenson  gave  you  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Oh,  I know  I am  worth  that. 

The  Chairman.  It  takes  a pretty  good  political  talker  to  get  that 
amount  of  money. 

Mr.  Perrin.  I did  not  have  to  talk  any  to  get  it. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  of  this  money  indicated  by  the  cash 
items  or  the  checks  remained  in  your  hands? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Not  a cent. 

The  Chairman.  And  yet  you  can  not  account  for  a cent  of  it  that 
you  paid  out? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I can  not  in  detail;  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Not  a single  item  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Not  one. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  rather  a spectacular  campaign  in  some 
respects,  was  it  not,  with  money  flowing  out  freely  in  those  amounts  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  To  speak  in  the  vernacular,  I guess  we  got  them 
_ “ going  some.” 

The  Chairman.  You  can  not  remember  a single  instance  that  hap- 
pened in  that  exciting  time  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not  remember  the  people  to  whom  I paid  the 
money. 

The  Chairman.  Not  one? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Not  one. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  not  disburse  that  in  the  saloons  that 
you  speak  of  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I am  rather  inclined  to  think  that  sometimes,  in  order 
to  get  a man  in  a receptive  mood,  I might  possibly  have  bought  him 
a drink. 

The  Chairman.  How  often  ? 


670 


SOLON  L.  PERRTN. 


Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not  know.  I never  cared  to  test  my  capacity 
up  to  that  point.  Not  very  often. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  try  to  test  his  capacity  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No;  I would  not  undertake  to  do  that. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  give  any  approximate  estimate  of  the 
amount  of  money  represented  by  cash  items  that  was  expended  in 
saloons  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Oh,  no,  sir.  I do  not  think  very  much  of  that  money 
was  spent  in  saloons. 

The  Chairman.  “Very  much”  is  a comparative  statement.  Take 
the  cash  items  here,  which  amount  to  the  greater  part  of  this  sum  of 
$3,000;  how  much  of  that  sum  was  spent  in  saloons? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Do  you  mean  by  me  ? 

The  Chairman.  No.  How  much  of  that  money  went  over  the  bar  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  There  is  no  man  in  this  world  who  can  tell. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  not  willing  to  place  a limitation  upon  it 
even  in  the  interests  of  establishing  a minimum ; are  you  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No,  sir.  We  have  about  160  saloons  in  Superior. 

The  Chairman.  Did  they  all  share  in  this  fund  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not  know.  There  is  one  thing  certain,  however, 
that  they  would  be  around  where  it  was  if  they  knew  it  was  there. 

The  Chairman.  You  had  no  other  bank  account  except  this  against 
which  you  drew  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No;  this  was  the  only  one. 

The  Chairman.  This  account  (just  looking  at  it  casually,  without 
adding  the  figures)  would  seem  to  indicate  that  out  of  the  $3,000  a 
little  over  $2,000  is  unaccounted  for.  Senator  Pomerene  suggests 
to  me  that  $1,247  comprise  the  items  accounted  for.  Of  the  balance 
of  that  $3,000,  unaccounted  for,  how  much  was  expended  in  saloons? 

Mr.  Perrin.  It  is  utterly  impossible  for  me  to  estimate  that — 
utterly  impossible. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  in  a measure  responsible  for  the  manner 
of  the  expenditure  of  this  money,  because,  of  course,  you  knew  the 
law  in  regard  to  that  matter.  Did  it  not  impress  you  as  being  neces- 
sary that  you  should  remember  and  keep  some  account  of  it  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Are  you  referring  to  the  statute  ? 

The  Chairman.  I refer  to  your  act  in  the  expenditure  of  this  money 
and  being  unable  to  account  for  it. 

Mr.  Perrin.  I am  not  aware  that  any  duty  devolved  upon  me  to 
follow  this  money  to  see  where  it  was  expended,  Senator.  I say  that 
with  all  due  deference. 

The  Chairman.  With  this  class  of  expenditure  the  motive  does  cut 
some  figure.  You  were  representing  a candidate  for  office,  under  the 
laws  of  a State;  and  you  were  not  spending  your  money,  but  his. 
Did  it  not  occur  to  you  that  he  would  be  responsible  for  the  manner 
of  your  expenditure,  and  that  incidental  to  that  you  would  have 
some  responsibility  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not  believe  I quite  get  the  drift  of  your  question. 
If  you  are  referring  to  the  statute 

The  Chairman.  I am  leaving  aside  the  statute. 

Mr.  Perrin.  You  are  speaking  along  general  grounds? 

The  Chairman.  Yes.  Pesponsibilitv  may  exist  under  a statute, 
or  it  may  exist  under  an  accepted  moral  law  that  goes  to  the  question 
of  the  manner  and  validity  of  an  election. 


SOLON  L.  PERRIN. 


671 


Mr.  Perrin.  Yes,  sir.  Now,  what  is  the  question,  please? 

The  Chairman.  The  question  will  be  read. 

The  reporter  read  as  follows : 

The  Chairman.  With  this  class  of  expenditure  the  motive  does  cut  some  figure. 
You  were  representing  a candidate  for  office,  under  the  laws  of  a State;  and  you  were 
not  spending  your  money,  but  his.  Did  it  not  occur  to  you  that  he  would  be  respon- 
sible for  the  manner  of  your  expenditure,  and  that  incidentally  to  that  you  would 
have  some  responsibility? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No. 

The  Chairman.  It  did  not  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  not  feel  that  you  were  under  any  respon- 
sibility to  any  person  or  any  law  for  the  manner  of  the  expenditure 
of  this  money  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not  think  I said  that. 

The  Chairman.  I asked  you.  It  is  a question  I am  asking  you. 

Mr.  Perrin.  Just  read  the  question,  please. 

The  reporter  read  as  follows : 

The  Chairman.  You  did  not  feel  that  you  were  under  any  responsibility  to  any 
person  or  any  law  for  the  manner  of  the  expenditure  of  this  money? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I felt  that  I was  responsible  to  Senator  Stephenson 
for  the  expenditure  of  the  money  that  he  put  in  my  hands. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  mean  the  manner  of  the  expenditure? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No;  I do  not  think  so,  entirely.  I think  I was 
selected  to  exercise  an  independent  judgment  upon  the  manner  in 
which  his  candidacy  should  be  furthered  in  that  particular. 

The  Chairman.  And  leave  the  responsibility  upon  Senator  Stephen- 
son ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  May  I inquire — responsibility  for  what? 

The  Chairman.  The  manner  in  which  you  expended  it;  were  you 
going  to  let  him  take  chances  on  that  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not  think  the  Senator  was  taking  any  chances 
on  that. 

The  Chairman.  To  return  to  Mr.  Shields:  You  have  not  been  able 
to  account  for  any  item  of  expenditure  by  Mr.  Shields;  so  that  we 
shall  have  to  rely  upon  Mr.  Shields,  shall  we,  for  that  information  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I presume  he  can  give  you  some  idea  as  to  what  he 
did  with  that  money.  I should  like  to  say,  if  I may,  that  of  these 
cash  items  I think  Mr.  Fridley  had  more  than  appears  to  have  given 
him  upon  checks  drawn  to  his  order. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  he  appears  to  have  received  more? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I say  I think  I gave  him  currency  several  times  out 
of  some  of  these  cash  items;  but  the  amount  of  that  I can  not  state. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  Mr.  Fridley’s  business  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  He  is  an  attorney-at-law.  He  is  the  same  Fridley 
who  has  already  been  mentioned  in  this  proceeding. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  do  you  think  you  gave  him? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I could  not  estimate  that  now. 

The  Chairman.  A thousand  dollars  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I should  think  so.  I rather  think  I did. 

The  Chairman.  Then  do  you  undertake  to  swear  that  you  gave 
Mr.  Fridley  as  much  as  a thousand  dollars  out  of  the  cash  items  that 
are  chargeable  against  you  here  ? 


672 


SOLON  L.  PERRIN. 


Mr.  Perrin.  No;  I do  not  swear  to  that. 

The  Chairman.  What  amount  will  you  swear  to  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I will  not  swear  to  any  definite  amount. 

The  Chairman.  Is  Mr.  Fridley  living? 

Mr.  Perrin.  At  Superior,  now. 

The  Chairman.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  he  will  probably  testify  as 
to  how  much  money  he  received,  what  sum  do  you  say  that  you  gave 
him  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I can  not  say,  Senator,  how  much  I gave  him. 

The  Chairman.  Suppose  he  said  you  did  not  give  him  over  a hun- 
dred dollars;  would  you  then  accept  his  memory  rather  than  yours? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Entirely;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  it  will  rest  upon  what  he  recollects  rather 
than  your  recollection  ? Your  recollection  is  not  sufficiently  definite 
to  make  you  willing  to  back  it  with  an  oath  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  out  of  the  $5,000  that  you  received  you 
have  undertaken  to  account  in  this  statement  for  $4,508.25.  What 
became  of  the  balance  of  that  money  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I kept  that  for  my  services. 

The  Chairman.  For  your  services  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  particular  class  of  services  did  you  keep 
that  money  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  For  all  the  services  that  I performed. 

The  Chairman.  But  name  them. 

Mr.  Perrin.  I tried  to  keep  in  pretty  fair  touch  with  the  situation 
in  Douglas  County.  I went  several  times  to  Bayfield  County,  Sawyer 
County,  Washburn  County 

The  Chairman.  How  often? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Oh,  I do  not  know.  I think  I went  over  there  three 
or  four  times. 

The  Chairman.  How  far  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  It  is  75  miles. 

The  Chairman.  You  went  there  specially  on  Stephenson’s  busi- 
ness ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Entirely  so. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  do  when  you  were  there  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I tried  to  get  people  to  work  for  him. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  do  in  the  process  of  trying  to  get 
them  to  work  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I tried  to  find  out  who,  in  the  particular  neighborhood 
in  which  I happened  to  be,  were  supporting  him. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  making  a list  of  them? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not  think  I made  any  list  of  them;  no.  I was 
looking  out  for  men  who  could  get  out  and  do  the  work — who  could 
get  out  and  see  the  people. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  disbursing  money  to  those  men  who 
could  get  out  and  do  the  work  and  see  the  people  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  When  you  say  “do  the  work,”  to  what  work  do 
you  refer  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  To  electioneering. 


SOLON  L.  PERRIN.  673 

The  Chairman.  Will  you  give  us  the  definition  of  the  word  “ elec- 
tioneer.” 

Mr.  Perrin.  To  electioneer  is  to  further  the  interests  of  a candi- 
date. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  a conclusion? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No;  that  is  a definition. 

The  Chairman.  I want  the  process  of  electioneering. 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not  know  that  I can  make  an  abstract  statement 
as  to  what  it  is  to  electioneer. 

The  Chairman.  Just  put  yourself  in  the  position  of  electioneering. 
I do  not  want  to  be  personal;  but  suppose  you  were  electioneering, 
now,  with  any  gentleman  sitting  in  this  audience.  Just  go  through 
the  performance  of  electioneering,  if  you  can. 

Mr.  Perrin.  I could  not  do  it  here  in  the  court  room,  Senator. 

The  Chairman.  Where  could  you  do  it? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I could  do  it  better  over  in  town  somewhere. 

The  Chairman.  What  part  of  the  town? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Oh,  I would  say  the  lobby  of  the  Pfister  Hotel. 

The  Chairman.  The  lobby  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  would  you  say  to  a man  with  whom  you 
were-  going  to  electioneer  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  That  would  depend  on  the  man. 

The  Chairman.  Select  a man,  a type  of  man.  This  term  has 
been — I will  not  say  “ juggled  with,”  but  it  has  been  used  so  much  in 
this  investigation  that  I want  to  find  somebody  who  can  give  a 
definition  for  it. 

Mr.  Perrin.  I really  think,  Senator,  that  you  ought  to  ask  some 
of  these  politicians  that  question. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  money  does  a man  have  to  spend  in  a 
campaign  in  the  interests  of  a candidate  to  be  a politician? 

Mr.  Perrin.  It  is  not  a question  of  the  money  that  a man  spends 
as  to  whether  or  not  he  is  a politician. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  money  does  he  have  to  receive  in  a 
campaign  to  be  a politician,  then  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  That  depends  entirely  on  the  man. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  not  willing  to  more  clearly  define  the 
process  of  “ electioneering  ” as  you  use  that  term  when  you  say  you 
spent  these  large  sums  of  money  for  electioneering  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I use  that  term  because  that  is  the  dictionary  term. 

The  Chairman.  Oh!  Do  you  use  it  in  the  sense  that  it  is  used  in 
the  dictionary  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  What  dictionary? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Well,  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Dr.  Johnson’s  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I think  I would  submit  that,  probably,  to  Webster. 

The  Chairman.  Would  you  take  Dr.  Johnson’s  definition  of  it? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not  know  that  I ever  saw  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Dr.  Johnson’s  definitions  varied,  you  will 
remember,  Mr.  Chairman,  with  the  point  of  view. 

The  Chairman.  I remember.  You  would  be  interested  to  see  the 
definition.  I am  merely  giving  you  an  opportunity  here  to  protect 
yourself.  I say  this  to  you  in  all  candor.  I am  giving  you  an  oppor- 

15235°— VOL  1—11 43 


674 


SOLON  L.  PERRIN. 


tunity  here  to  explain  your  testimony  as  to  how  you  expended  this 
money,  and  it  would  be  better  to  devote  your  mind  to  that  than  to 
not  doing  it. 

Mr.  Perrin.  In  response  to  that — if  I may  state 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Perrin.  There  is  a district  up  there  consisting  of  four  counties, 
containing  an  aggregate  area  of  at  least  5,000  square  miles.  I think 
I heard  somebody  say  that  it  was  as  large  as  the  State  of  Con- 
necticut. 

The  Chairman.  It  must  be  pretty  large. 

Mr.  Perrin.  I think  I am  within  bounds  in  making  the  statement. 
I was  asked  to  take  charge  of  Mr.  Stephenson’s  interests  in  those 
four  counties.  I did  not  want  to  do  it,  but  I finally  consented  to. 
There  was  a population  at  that  time  of  probably  75,000  or  80,000 
people.  My  recollection  is  that  the  vote  for  President  in  1908  was 
not  far  from  12,000  votes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  In  the  four  counties? 

Mr.  Perrin.  In  the  four  counties.  I think  the  vote  at  the  pri- 
mary in  those  four  counties  was  not  far  from  somewhere  between 
8,000  and  9,000  votes.  There  were  four  candidates  for  the  United 
States  Senate — three  of  them  trained  politicians,  and  Senator 
Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  include  him  in  the  class  of  trained 
politicians  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not  think  he  is  a trained  politician,  by  any 
means.  Mr.  Stephenson’s  candidacy  was  announced  very  late. 
The  work  that  had  to  be  done  for  him  in  that  territory  was  work 
that  you  might  call  in  the  enemy’s  country. 

The  Chairman.  Let  us  pause  here  and  get  those  counties.  What 
are  their  names  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Alphabetically,  Bayfield,  Douglas,  Sawyer,  and 
Washburn. 

The  Chairman.  Which  of  those  is  the  principal  county? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Douglas. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  take  Bayfield,  to  begin  with,  it  being  the 
first  alphabetically.  It  appears  that  Senator  Stephenson  received 
810  votes  in  that  county. 

Mr.  Perrin.  I can  give  you  the  detail  of  that,  if  you  care  to  have  it. 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  I shall  probably  call  on  you  to  verify  it, 
but  I want  to  inquire:  It  seems  that  the  primary  vote  for  all  parties 
was  1,998.  He  did  not  receive  a majority,  then,  in  that  county,  did 
he? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Are  you  looking  at  Bayfield  County?  I beg  your 
pardon. 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  Bayfield  County.  I am  reading  from  the 
Fourteenth  Biennial  Report  of  the  Bureau  of  Labor  and  Industrial 
Statistics  of  this  State. 

Mr.  Perrin.  I took  these  figures  from  that.  No;  he  did  not  get 
a majority. 

The  Chairman.  The  next  county  that  you  speak  of  is  Douglas. 
I will  turn  to  Douglas  County.  The  total  vote  of  all  candidates  for 
the  United  States  Senate  was  4,380,  of  which  Isaac  Stephenson 
received  only  1,125. 

Mr.  Perrin.  That  is  as  I have  it. 


SOLON  L.  PERRIN. 


675 


The  Chairman.  What  other  county  was  there  in  that  district? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Sawyer. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  a very  small  county,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Small  in  population,  but  large  in  area. 

The  Chairman.  It  appears  that  Stephenson  received  there  380 
votes,  and  that  the  vote  cast  for  United  States  senatorial  candidates 
was  719;  so  that  he  did  receive  a majority  of  that  vote. 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  A small  majority. 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  name  more  than  three  counties  that  you 
had  charge  of  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes — Washburn. 

The  Chairman.  In  Washburn  County  the  total  vote  on  the  sena- 
torial question  at  the  primaries  was  1,157,  of  which  Isaac  Stephenson 
received  598,  just  about  half  the  vote.  That  includes  all  of  the 
counties  of  which  you  had  charge  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  There  are  some  other  statistics  that  we  may  put 
in  there.  You  may  proceed  with  the  statement  that  you  were  mak- 
ing as  to  the  conditions  in  those  counties. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Read  the  last  part  of  his  answer. 

The  reporter  read  as  follows : 

Mr.  Perrin.  I was  asked  to  take  charge  of  Mr.  Stephenson’s  interests  in  those  four 
counties.  I did  not  want  to  do  it,  but  I finally  consented  to.  There  was  a population 
at  that  time  of  probably  75,000  or  80,000  people.  My  recollection  is  that  the  vote  for 
President  in  1908  was  not  far  from  12,000  votes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  In  the  four  counties  ? 

Mr.  Perrin  . In  the  four  counties.  I think  the  vote  at  the  primary  in  those  four  coun- 
ties was  not  far  from  somewhere  between  8,000  and  9,000  votes.  There  were  four  can- 
didates for  the  United  States  Senate — three  of  them  trained  politicians,  and  Senator 
Stephenson. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  desire  to  add  anything  to  that  state- 
ment? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  I led  you  off  into  the  details  from  the  records. 
Now  you  can  go  back  to  your  general  statement,  if  you  desire  to  add 
to  it. 

Mr.  Perrin.  There  are,  if  I remember  correctly,  about  80  pre- 
cincts in  the  four  counties.  The  counties  are  new,  comparatively 
speaking. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  not  true  of  the  county  in  which  Superior  is  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  It  is  true  to  this  extent,  that  up  to  about  1887  or  1888 
there  were  very  few  people  in  Douglas  County.  I do  not  believe  that 
up  to  1885  or  1886  there  were  more  than  about  a thousand  people  in 
Douglas  County. 

The  Chairman.  In  Superior? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes,  in  Superior.  The  first  time  I ever  went  there,  in 
1881,  I do  not  think  there  were  500  people  in  Superior.  The  people 
in  these  counties  did  not  know  Senator  Stephenson.  He  never  had 
been  in  politics  within  their  recollection.  Many  of  them  had  come 
into  the  State  from  other  States.  The  other  candidates  for  United 
States  Senator,  Mr.  Hatton,  Mr.  Cook,  and  Mr.  McGovern,  had  been 
more  or  less  in  politics  within  the  last  10  years. 


676 


SOLON  L.  PERRIN. 


The  Chairman.  When  was  Senator  Stephenson  in  Congress  last  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I am  not  able  to  say  offhand.  He  never  was  in 
Congress  from  that  district. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Would  you  like  to  get  that  date,  Mr.  Chairman? 

Mr.  Black.  Senator  Stephenson  says  he  was  in  Congress  from  1883 
to  1889. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  hear  of  Senator  Stephenson  while  he 
was  in  Congress  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Oh,  I have  heard  of  Senator  Stephenson  ever  since  I 
was  a child.  I was  raised  in  the  State. 

The  Chairman.  He  was  pretty  well  known  all  over  the  State,  was 
he  not,  when  he  went  to  Congress  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  He  was  not  so  well  known  up  in  that  newly  settled 
country,  Senator,  as  he  was  to  us  who  were  raised  in  a little  older 
section. 

The  Chairman.  Proceed. 

Mr.  Perrin.  In  order  to  get  Senator  Stephenson’s  claims  and  his 
candidacy  before  the  voters  of  those  four  counties  in  the  short  space 
of  time  that  was  given  to  his  campaign  managers  and  workers,  it  was 
necessary  to  actively  engage  as  many  people  as  it  was  possible  for  us 
to  get,  to  get  about  and  present  his  claims.  So  far  as  I am  able  to  see 
and  so  far  as  I was  able  to  observe,  the  candidacy  of  Senator  Stephen- 
son was  put  forward  upon  the  usual,  practical  political  lines,  so  far  as 
I know,  all  within  the  law. 

The  Chairman.  In  order  that  we  may  not  be  wasting  ammunition, 
I will  direct  your  attention  to  the  provisions  of  the  section  of  the  stat- 
ute under  which  most  of  these  specific  charges  are  made — that  is 
section  4542b,  printed  in  this  compilation  of  Election  Laws  of  Wiscon- 
sin as  section  338.  I am  going  to  ask  you  to  look  at  this  section  of 
the  statute,  and  especially  at  the  words — 

who  shall  give  or  offer  to  give  any  valuable  thing  * * * to  an  elector  as  a consid- 
eration for  some  act  to  be  done  in  relation  to  such  preliminary  meeting,  caucus,  or 
convention. 

I have  purposely  omitted  the  two  words  “or  bribe.”  As  a lawyer, 
charged  with  a responsible  duty,  did  you  interpret  this  section  in  such 
manner  as  in  your  judgment  would  make  the  payment  of  money  to  an 
elector  as  a consideration  for  something  to  be  done  in  relation  to  such 
preliminary  meeting,  etc.,  without  regard  to  the  character  of  the  act 
or  thing  to  be  done,  as  an  offense  under  this  law  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  May  I have  the  question  read? 

The  Chairman.  Read  it. 

(The  reporter  read  the  question.) 

Mr.  Perrin.  If  I understand  that  question,  I say  no. 

The  Chairman.  The  interpretation  placed  upon  that  section  yes- 
terday by  Mr.  Blaine,  who  made  the  specific  charges  upon  which  this 
investigation  is  based — and  if  I misstate  it  I will  cheerfully  submit 
to  a correction — was  that  under  that  section  and  its  prohibitions  it 
was  unlawful  to  give  anything  to  an  elector  to  procure  any  act  to  be 
done,  irrespective  of  whether  that  act  was  lawful  or  unlawful;  that 
the  very  giving  made  it  unlawful.  Do  you  agree  with  that  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not. 

The  Chairman.  Much  testimony  here  and  much  of  the  examination 
of  certain  witnesses  have  been  in  regard  to  acts  performed  by  a can- 


SOLON  L.  PERRIN. 


677 


didate,  or  those  representing  him,  in  the  way  of  giving  things  to 
electors,  regardless  of  whether  or  not  it  was  done  for  corrupt  pur- 
poses, upon  the  hypothesis  that  the  giving  itself  was  a corrupt  act.  I 
want  to  know  whether  or  not,  in  disbursing  this  money  as  you  have 
testified,  you  took  into  consideration  that  section  of  the  statute  and 
its  prohibitions  as  governing  you  in  disbursing  the  money  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not  know  that  my  attention  was  called  to  that 
statute  at  that  time.  I did  not  have  it  particularly  in  mind.  If  I had, 
I would  not  have  given  it  the  interpretation  which  I understand  it 
has  received. 

The  Chairman.  I ask  you  these  questions  in  order  that  the  motive 
which  governed  you  may  appear  in  connection  with  your  testimony. 

Mr.  Perrin.  I appreciate  that. 

The  Chairman.  This  section  provides  in  terms  that  the  giving  or 
offering  to  give  any  valuable  thing  “to  an  elector  as  a consideration 
for  some  act  to  be  done,”  without  defining  the  act,  shall  be  unlawful. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I submit  to  the  chairman  that  the  suggestion 
inadvertently  made  in  the  question  rather  assumes  the  construc- 
tion— 

The  Chairman.  I am  just  going  to  state  the  construction  of 
this 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  chairman  had  not  finished?  I beg  your 
pardon. 

The  Chairman  (continuing).  Because  I think  the  time  has  arrived 
when,  in  the  interest  of  a candid  understanding  between  the  subcom- 
mittee and  the  witness,  it  is  fair  to  the  witness  and  due  to  the  sub- 
committee that  an  interpretation  should  be  placed  upon  this — at 
least  the  individual  judgment  of  the  member  of  the  subcommittee 
expressing  it.  I do  not  care  to  spend  days  in  going  over  testimony 
that  becomes  parrotlike,  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  an  imaginary 
principle  of  law.  The  chairman  will  say,  speaking  for  himself  only, 
as  a member  of  the  committee,  that  in  his  judgment  this  act  can  not 
be  so  interpreted  without  destroying  its  vitality;  that  it  is  not  com- 
petent for  the  legislature  of  a State,  in  view  of  the  right  of  every 
elector  to  participate  in  the  selection  of  those  who  shall  represent 
him  in  the  making  or  executing  of  laws,  to  say  that  the  giving  of 
anything,  regardless  of  the  motive  actuating  it,  shall  be  unlawful. 
We  do  not  need,  however,  at  this  time,  to  apply  this  rule  to  the 
testimony.  I state  it  only  as  a reason,  so  far  as  I am  concerned,  for 
curtailing  testimony  upon  this  subject. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  I get  the  chairman’s  intimation.  As  I 
understand  it,  it  is  that  in  order  to  make  the  act  unlawful  it  must  be 
predicated  upon  a corrupt  or  unlawful  purpose. 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  it  must  not  violate  the  natural  right  of  a 
citizen. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  his  right  in  a legitimate  and  proper  way  to 
promote  his  interests  in  connection  with  a campaign.  Otherwise,  the 
exercise  of  the  franchise  would  be  almost  a nullity. 

The  Chairman.  This  statement  is  made  as  a suggestion  to  the 
witnesses — especially  those  who  are  learned  in  the  law — as  well  as  an 
intimation  of  the  views  of  one  member  of  the  committee.  [To  Mr. 
Perrin].  Did  you  make  any  expenditure  or  pay  out  any  money  on 
behalf  of  Senator  Stephenson,  out  of  the  fund  that  you  have  testi- 


678 


SOLON  L.  PERRIN. 


fied  to  as  having  been  received  by  you,  for  any  corrupt  purpose,  or 
with  any  corrupt  purpose  on  your  part  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  give  instructions  to  those  whom  you 
authorized  to  distribute  or  to  disburse  any  part  of  the  money  which 
you  gave  them  as  to  the  manner  of  the  use  to  be  made  of  that  money 
by  them  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not  now  recollect  that  I did. 

The  Chairman.  Did  it  occur  to  you  that  you  should  have  done  so  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  It  did  not. 

The  Chairman.  You  were  thoroughly  familiar  with  the  laws  of  the 
State,  were  you,  in  regard  to  the  matter  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I suppose  I had  seen  that  statute  before,  but  I did 
not  have  it  in  my  mind  at  the  time  this  campaign  was  going  on.  That 
statute  had 

The  Chairman.  Then  you  made  no  special  effort  to  keep  within 
the  statute,  inasmuch  as  you  did  not  know  it,  did  you  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Senator,  it  was  not  my  intention  that  any  of  this 
money  of  Senator  Stephenson’s  should  be  used  for  bribery  or  cor- 
ruption in  any  way,  shape,  manner,  or  form. 

The  Chairman.  That  being  your  intention,  that  it  should  not  be, 
did  you  take  any  steps  toward  making  your  intention  effective  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No;  1 did  not  think  it  was  necessary  to  tell  these 
men  with  whom  I was  dealing  that  they  should  not  buy  a vote  I 
had  no  idea  that  one  of  them  would  try  to  buy  a vote,  and  I do  not 
believe  he  did. 

The  Chairman.  What  do  you  mean  by  “buying  a vote”  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I mean  just  what  I say:  Obtaining  it  corruptly  in  any 
way. 

The  Chairman.  What  do  you  consider  “buying  votes'?” 

Mr.  Perrin.  I consider  buying  votes  is  to  go  out  and  pay  men  for 
voting  for  a particular  candidate  when  they  are  opposed  to  the 
candidate. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  limit  the  corrupt  practice  to  the  actual 
paying  for  a specific  vote  3 

Mr.  Perrin.  I was  only  answering  as  to  buying  votes.  I think 
votes  may  be  obtained  corruptly  without,  perhaps,  paying  money  for 
them. 

The  Chairman.  Let  us,  then,  take  the  term  “obtaining  votes  cor- 
ruptly,” which  is  really  the  charge — that  is,  obtaining  the  election 
corruptly  through  the  means  of  obtaining  the  votes.  Just  give  us 
some  idea  of  your  understanding  of  what  would  constitute  obtaining 
votes  corruptly. 

Mr.  Perrin.  I should  think  obtaining  votes  corruptly  would  arise 
where  there  is  money  or  something  of  value  paid  to  an  elector  to  vote 
for  a candidate  to  whom  he  is  opposed. 

The  Chairman.  You  mean  the  passing  of  an  actual  consideration  3 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Would  you  consider  it  obtaining  a vote  corruptly 
for  a person  acting  on  behalf  of  a candidate,  having  in  his  possession 
the  money  of  the  candidate,  to  treat  and  entertain  an  elector  for  the 
purpose  of  making  him  friendly  to  the  party  whom  he  represented  3 

Mr.  Perrin.  No. 

The  Chairman.  That  would  not  be  “corruptly”  3 


SOLON  L.  PERRIN.  679 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not  think  so.  It  never  has  been  so  considered  in 
the  country  in  which  I live. 

The  Chairman.  Would  you  consider  it  obtaining  a vote  corruptly, 
or  by  corrupt  practice,  to  enter  into  a conversation  with  a person 
known  to  be  antagonistic  to  your  principal  and,  as  a part  of  that 
conversation  or  connected  with  it,  to  take  him  away  and  entertain 
him  with  meals  and  drinks  and  carriage  rides  ? Would  you  consider 
that  corrupt  practice  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No. 

The  Chairman.  You  think  it  is  legitimate  to  thus  change  the  mind 
of  an  elector  from  an  antagonistic  position  to  a friendly  one,  do  you, 
through  the  use  of  the  money  of  the  candidate  which  you  are  dis- 
bursing ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I think  that  is  proper. 

The  Chairman.  You  think  that  is  proper  ? I merely  want  a test 
of  your  criterion,  in  order  that  we  may  weigh  your  testimony  by  that 
test. 

Mr.  Perrin.  I would  like  to  say 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  a fair  test,  now,  as  I have  stated  it  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield  (to  Mr.  Perrin).  You  say  you  “would  like  to 
say”  what? 

The  Chairman.  Yes.  Have  you  finished  the  other,  first  ? I do 
not  want  to  leave  that  subject. 

Mr.  Perrin.  This  is  a part  of  my  answer. 

The  Chairman.  Very  well. 

Mr.  Perrin.  This  statute  has  never  received  in  practical  operation, 
by  anybody  that  I know  of  in  the  State  of  Wisconsin,  the  construc- 
tion which  has  been  suggested  here.  It  is  the  common,  ordinary 
thing  throughout  northern  Wisconsin  to  take  a man  to  the  theater  or 
take  him  to  lunch,  not  necessarily  to  corrupt  his  mind,  but  to  enlighten 
him.  You  do  these  things  to  get  a man’s  mind  in  a receptive  mood. 
You  can  not  go  after  him,  Senator,  you  know,  with  an  ax  and  beat 
an  idea  into  him.  It  has  got  to  be  worked  out  along  practical  lines. 
It  seems  foolish  for  me  to  sit  here  and  talk  to  you  gentlemen  about 
this  thing,  because  you  know  so  much  more  about  it  than  I do. 

The  Chairman.  Our  examination  here  is  not  so  much  for  our 
entertainment  as  to  make  a record. 

Mr.  Perrin.  I beg  your  pardon.  I apologize. 

The  Chairman.  You  need  make  no  apology.  This  is  to  be  taken 
as  a test  of  your  meaning  of  “electioneering,”  then,  is  it? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I think  that  is  a fair  test  of  the  meaning  of  ninety- 
nine  men  out  of  a hundred  who  conduct  politics. 

The  Chairman.  Of  “electioneering?” 

Mr.  Perrin.  “Electioneering.” 

The  Chairman.  You  think  that  comes  within  the  definition  of 
“electioneering  ? ” 

Mr.  Perrin.  I certainly  do. 

The  Chairman.  And  when  you  speak  of  having  expended  money 
in  electioneering,  either  by  you  or  by  those  whom  you  employed,  you 
include  that  land  of  proceeding  under  the  head  “electioneering?” 

Mr.  Perrin.  It  may  be  included. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  think  it  is  as  legitimate  to  reach  a man 
through  his  appetite  as  it  is  through  his  intellect  ? 


680 


SOLON  L.  PERRIN. 


Mr.  Perrin.  I think  oftentimes  you  never  get  to  his  intellect  until 
you  have  got  his  stomach  full. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I want  to  ask  you  one  or  two  questions,  Mr. 
Perrin.  Who  were  the  candidates  for  members  of  the  legislature  on 
the  Republican  ticket  in  these  four  counties — do  you  remember  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I think  I can  tell  you.  In  the  first  district  of  Douglas 
County,  A.  W.  Durley,  James  S.  Bach,  and  H.  E.  Ticknor.  In  the 
second  district  of  Douglas  County,  It.  J.  Nye  and  W.  D.  Egan.  In  the 
assembly  district,  comprising  the  counties  of  Bayfield,  Sawyer,  and 
Washburn,  Frank  Hamil,  and — I think  the  other  man’s  name  was 
Barker;  but  I can  refresh  my  memory  as  to  that  in  some  way. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Were  they  all  elected? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No;  only  three. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Only  three  out  of  how  many — three  out  of 
seven  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Only  three  were  elected? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  The  other  four  elected  were  Democrats  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  There  were  only  three  assembly  districts  in  the  four 
counties. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  have  given  seven  Republican  candi- 
dates. 

Mr.  Perrin.  They  were  candidates  before  the  primary. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Oh.  Before  the  primary? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Three  of  those  became  candidates  on  the 
Republican  ticket  in  the  general  election? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  that  was  the  quota  of  the  four  coun- 
ties ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  talk  with  any  of  these  candidates 
prior  to  the  holding  of  the  primary  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I talked  with  some  of  them. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  talk  with  them  about  Mr.  Stephen- 
son’s candidacy  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not  think  I did  specifically.  If  I may  say  so,  my 
inquiry  of  them  was  as  to  whether  or  not  they  would  support  the 
nominee  of  the  primary. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Whether  or  not  they  would,  in  the  legis- 
lature, support  the  nominee  for  United  States  Senator  in  the  primary  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  ask  any  of  them  to  support  Senator 
Stephenson. 

Mr.  Perrin.  No. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  pay  to  any  of  them  any  money  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No. 

Senator  Sutherland.  For  any  purpose  whatever  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  offer  to  pay  any  of  them  any 

money  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No. 


SOLON  L.  PERRIN. 


681 


Senator  Sutherland.  Do  you  know  of  any  of  the  money  which 
you  handled  beiAg  paid  to  them  by  anybody  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not. 

Senator  Sutherland.  In  handing  over  sums  of  money  to  people 
that  you  employed  in  Senator  Stephenson’s  interest,  did  you  give 
any  of  them  any  instructions  whatever  as  to  what  they  should  do  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  If  I thought  it  was  necessary  when  I gave  the  man 
money  to  tell  him  what  to  do,  I have  no  doubt  I did. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not  remember. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  do  not  recall  having  given  anybody 
any  instructions  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No;  I do  not  recall  it.  I know  there  were  some  in- 
stances where  I said  to  some  man,  or  some  men,  that  we  would  look 
to  him  or  them  to  provide  workers  at  the  polls,  for  instance,  or  teams 
to  get  voters  out.  But  that  was  all  in  the  most  general  way. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  gave  them  no  specific  instructions  that 
you  recall  as  to  what  they  should  do  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not  recall  now;  no.  I do  not  recall  now  that  I 
did. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Can  you  approximate  in  any  way  the  num- 
ber of  people  to  whom  you  paid  money,  irrespective  of  the  amount  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No,  sir;  no,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Would  it  go  up  into  the  hundreds  of  peo- 
ple— less  than  100,  or  more  than  100  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I should  think  less  than  100. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Less  than  100? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I rather  think  so.  I do  not  want  to  be  understood  as 
swearing  positively  to  that. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  paid  them  amounts  ranging  from  what 
to  what  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Oh,  from  $5  to  sometimes  as  high  as  $150,  depending 
upon  what  I expected  the  man  to  do,  where  he  could  work,  and  what 
he  could  accomplish. 

Senator  Sutherland.  When  you  drew  out  money  upon  your  check 
and  put  it  into  your  own  pocket  for  the  purpose  of  using  it  in  the 
campaign,  what  did  you  do  with  that  money  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I paid  it  to  men  to  electioneer  for  Senator  Stephenson. 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  would  you  do — just  go  along  the 
street  and  take  the  first  man  you  met  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Oh,  no — oh,  no,  Senator;  of  course  I did  not  do  that. 
The  men  were  selected,  I think,  with  a view  to  what  they  could 
accomplish.  We  did  not  pay  money  to  men  indiscriminately  to 
carry  on  this  campaign. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I want  to  get  at  your  process,  if  I can. 
When  you  would  meet  a man  who  you  thought  would  be  a good 
man  to  employ  in  Senator  Stephenson’s  behalf,  and  ascertained  from 
him  that  he  was  willing  to  go  to  work,  would  you  put  your  hand  in 
your  pocket  and  hand  him  some  amount  of  money  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Well  yes;  but  that  does  not  answer  the  question. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Then  answer  it  as  fully  as  you  can.  That  is 
what  the  Senator  wants,  as  I understand. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  can  make  any  other  statement  you 
please. 


682 


SOLON  L.  PERRIN. 


Mr.  Littlefield.  Make  the  answer  as  full  as  you  like. 

Mr.  Perrin.  If  I had  the  money  in  my  pocket,  necessarily  I would 
put  my  hand  in  there  and  pay  him.  But  I did  not  pay  a man  money 
until  I knew,  or  was  satisfied  in  my  own  mind,  that  he  was  worth  it. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is  exactly  what  I am  trying  to  get  at. 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Tell  us  what  you  did — what  inquiries  you 
made  of  him  and  how  you  talked  with  him. 

Mr.  Perrin.  Very  many  of  them  I knew  personally.  Those  that 
I did  not  know  came  to  me  recommended  by  men  that  I did  know. 
Men  who  knew  that  I was  looking  after  Senator  Stephenson’s  interests 
in  that  territory  would  send  to  me  men  that  they  knew  would  be 
effective  in  certain  localities.  If  I concluded  that  the  information 
was  correct — and  oftentimes  I would  rely  entirely  upon  the  man  who 
sent  the  man  to  me — then  I would  make  an  arrangement  with  him 
and  give  him  the  money. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  take  any  pains  to  ascertain,  before 
you  paid  the  individual  money,  whether  or  not  he  was  friendly  to 
Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Always;  always. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Why  did  you  do  that  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I did  not  want  anybody  working  for  us  that  was  not 
friendly  to  Senator  Stephenson.  I did  not  want  Senator  Stephen- 
son’s money  to  get  intotne  camp  of  the  other  candidates — any  of  them. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Was  that  your  only  object? 

Mr.  Perrin.  In  finding  out  what  they  were  ? 

Senator  Sutherland.  Yes;  whether  they  were  friendly  or  not. 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not  happen  to  think  of  anything  else. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  it  occur  to  you  that  there  would  be  any 
impropriety  in  finding  a voter  who  was  opposed  to  Senator  Stephen- 
son and  paying  him  money  to  advocate  his  election  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not  think  I had  that  statute  in  mind  at  that  time. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I am  not  asking  you  about  the  statute  at  all. 
I am  asking  you  whether  it  occurred  to  you  that  there  would  be  any 
impropriety  in  that  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Oh.  If  you  speak  of  the  impropriety  of  it,  of  course 
I think  it  is  entirely  improper. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Why  ? WThy  did  it  occur  to  you  as  being 
improper  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I think  that  is  a good  deal  like  buying  a man’s 
influence  or  vote.  If  a man  comes  to  me  and  says  that  he  is  a Hatton 
man,  but  he  will  take  our  money  and  vote  our  ticket,  I do  not  have 
any  transaction  with  him,  of  course. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Are  you  able  to  say  to  the  committee  that 
in  every  instance  where  you  paid  a man  money  to  interest  himself 
in  Senator  Stephenson’s  campaign  you  ascertained  in  advance  that 
he  was  friendly  to  Senator  Stephenson’s  interests  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  If  I did  not  know  it,  I always  inquired.  I knew  it 
before  the  money  was  paid,  in  every  instance,  I believe. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is,  do  you  mean  by  that  that  you  did 
not  pay  any  man  money  who  would  not  have  voluntarily  supported 
Senator  Stephenson’s  candidacy  to  the  extent  of  voting  for  him  in 
the  primaries  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  That  is  right. 


SOLON  L.  PEER  IN. 


683 


Senator  Sutherland.  That  is  correct,  is  it  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes,  si£. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Among  these  items  in  your  account  I 
observe  that  more  than  one-half  were  drawn  out  under  the  name  of 
“cash.” 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Were  all  of  those  sums  expended  by  you 
personally  in  this  way,  or  did  you  pay  out  some  of  the  entire  amount 
drawn  out  through  some  other  individual  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I have  already  stated  that  I paid  to  Mr.  Fridley  some 
of  the  money  that  was  drawn  out  on  cash  items  to  be  used  in  Douglas 
County. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Perhaps  I can  get  at  it  in  another  way. 
How  much  of  this  $5,000  did  you  draw  out  in  the  shape  of  cash,  put 
into  your  pocket,  and  distribute  among  various  persons  whom  you 
employed — more  than  half  of  it  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not  know  that  I ever  made  that  computation. 
Perhaps  three-fifths  of  it. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Perhaps  three-fifths  of  it  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Perhaps  so.  I should  not  want  to  be  positive.  I 
think  that  is  a matter  of  computation. 

Senator  Sutherland.  About  $3,000  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I should  rather  guess  that  now.  It  is  a guess. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  it  occur  to  you  during  the  campaign 
that  you  ought  to  keep  an  account  of  who  you  were  paying  money  to  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Can  you  give  the  name  of  a single  indi- 
vidual, outside  of  those  who  are  named  in  this  account,  to  whom  you 
paid  money  as  you  went  along  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Not  now. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Not  a single  individual  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not  think  I could  give  the  name  of  one  man.  I 
should  be  afraid  to  try  to  give  the  name  of  a man  for  fear  I might 
give  the  name  of  the  wrong  man. 

Senator  Sutherland.  In  these  several  weeks  of  distributing  money 
you  must  have  paid  money  to  a great  many  people  you  knew  per- 
sonally. 

Mr.  Perrin.  Without  a doubt. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Can  you  not  recall  the  name  of  a single  one 
of  them? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No;  I can  not,  now.  You  see,  Senator,  when  this 
thing  was  over  I dropped  the  entire  subject  and  went  about  some- 
thing else.  I dismissed  it  as  I would  dismiss  a lawsuit  after  I had 
finished  trying  it. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I notice  in  the  account  filed  by  Mr.  Sacket 
(perhaps  it  may  have  been  explained,  and  has  escaped  my  attention) 
that  you  are  charged  with  having  received  $4,000 — one  item  of 
$1,000  and  another  item  of  $3,000.  How  did  you  receive  this 
$5,000? 

Mr.  Perrin.  In  three  payments,  drafts  or  checks — one  for  $1,000, 
another  for  $1,000,  and  one  for  $3,000. 

Senator  Sutherland.  There  were  two  items  of  $1,000  each? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is  all  I have  to  ask. 


684 


SOLON  L.  PERRIN. 


Senator  Pomerene.  Mr.  Perrin,  you  are  a practicing  lawyer? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  keep  books  of  account,  do  you  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes;  after  a fashion. 

Senator  Pomerene.  With  your  clients  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I book  the  charges  that  I make  against  my  clients. 

Senator  Pomerene.  As  you  collect  money  or  receive  money  from 
them,  do  you  keep  an  account  of  that  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  It  all  goes  into  one  bank  account. 

Senator  Pomerene.  But  on  your  private  books  do  you  keep  an 
account  of  moneys  that  you  receive  and  disburse  for  clients  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I guess  only  so  far  as  the  bank  book  would  show. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Do  you  have  only  one  bank  account? 

Mr.  Perrin.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  received  here  three  items — two  of  $1,000 
each,  and  one  of  $3,000.  Did  it  not  occur  to  you  to  keep  an  account 
of  your  receipts  and  expenditures  of  that  sum? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Why? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not  know  why.  It  simply  did  not. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  are  a lawyer.  You  were  familiar  with 
this  statute  which  required  a candidate  to  file  his  account,  setting 
out,  among  other  things,  the  dates  when  money  was  paid,  the  persons 
to  whom  it  was  paid,  and  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  paid? 

Mr.  Perrin.  1 presume  I had  heard  of  that  statute  before  this 
primary.  I do  not  remember  ever  to  have  read  it.  It  was  not  called 
to  my  attention.  Nothing  was  said  to  me  about  furnishing  data 
from  which  to  make  up  an  account,  and  I thought  nothing  of  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Your  local  candidates  for  some  years  had  been 
filing  accounts  showing  their  expenditures  in  their  campaigns,  had 
they  not  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I presume  they  had. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  notices  of  these  expenditures  were  pub- 
lished in  your  local  press  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Very  likely. 

Senator  Pomerene.  So  that  by  that  means,  if  by  no  other,  you 
were  advised  of  the  requirement  of  the  law  on  this  subject? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I did  not  happen  to  think  of  it  at  that  time. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Senator  Stephenson  was  not  in  your  county, 
or  any  one  of  these  four  counties,  with  you  on  any  day  when  you 
were  disbursing  any  of  this  money? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No. 

Senator  Pomerene.  He  could  not  know  how  you  were  disbursing 
it  unless  you  advised  him  of  the  fact  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  He  certainly  could  not  know  unless  I advised  him. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  you  could  not  advise  him  unless  you 
kept  an  account — that  is,  you  could  not  advise  him  correctly  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I presume  that  about  the  time  of  the  close  of  the 
primary  I probably  could  have  done  it,  but  at  any  time  after  that  I 
could  not. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  ever  attempt  to  make  any  account 
of  your  disbursements  to  Senator  Stephenson,  or  to  Mr.  Edmonds,  or 
to  Mr.  Sacket,  or  to  anyone  else  for  Senator  Stephenson  ? 


SOLON  L.  PERRIN. 


685 


Mr.  Perrin.  No;  I never  was  asked  for  it,  and  never  made  the 
attempt. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You,  as  a lawyer,  knew  that  that  ought  to  be 
done  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not  think  that  as  a lawyer  I knew  that  it  ought 
to  be  done,  and  I do  not  think  I know  now  that  it  ought  to  be  done, 
Senator;  excuse  me. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  regarded  yourself  as  the  agent  of  Senator 
Stephenson,  did  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I suppose  that  that  perhaps  would  be  the  legal  effect 
of  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  as  a lawyer  you  know  that  he,  at  least  in 
a civil  way,  would  be  held  responsible  for  the  acts  of  his  agents? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not  believe  I understand  your  question. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  knew  that  Senator  Stephenson  would  be 
held  responsible  for  the  acts  of  his  agents  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I understand  the  rule. 

Senator  Pomerene.  There  is  not  any  reason  why  the  rule  in  this 
case  should  be  different  from  any  other,  is  there  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  If  Senator  Stephenson  has  any  fault  to  find  with 
the  manner  in  which  I conducted  his  campaign  for  him  of  course  I 
shall  be  obliged  to  answer  to  him  at  any  time  that  he  asks  me  to. 

Senator  Pomerene.  The  laws  of  the  State  required  certain  things 
to  be  done? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Perhaps  they  are  certain,  and  perhaps  not,  Senator. 

Senator  Pomerene.  They  certainly  required  an  account  to  be 
filed? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Howt  would  you  expect  Senator  Stephenson 
to  comply  with  the  law  if  he  did  not  have  detailed  information  from 
you  and  the  other  men  who  were  disbursing  his  funds  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I expected  him  to  account  under  that;  statute  in  just 
the  way  that  that  statute  has  been  interpreted  by  all  the  candidates 
for  all  the  offices  that  I have  known  anything  about  since  the  statute 
was  passed. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Do  you  mean  by  those  who  were  seeking 
to  evade  the  law? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No;  by  those  who  were  seeking  to  comply  with  the 
law. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Do  you  think  this  law  was  intended  to  be 
evaded  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Certainly  not. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  have  said  in  answer  to  Senator  Suther- 
land— I want  to  quote  you  correctly,  and  if  I do  not  you  will  correct 
me — that  you  probably  paid  money  to  100  different  persons,  though 
you  were  not  definite  as  to  your  statement. 

Mr.  Perrin,  No;  I can  not  be. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I understand  that.  You  also  said  to  him 
again  in  your  examination  that  you  knew  personally  very  many  of 
the  men  that  }rou  employed. 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 


686 


SOLON  L.  PERRIN. 


Senator  Pomerene.  Do  you  mean  to  tell  the  committee  that  you 
do  not  now  remember  any  of  the  men  to  whom  you  paid  this  money, 
outside  of  the  few  names  that  you  gave  to  Senator  Hey  burn? 

Mr.  Perrin.  That  is  just  exactly  what  I mean  to  say. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Not  one  of  them? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Not  one  of  them. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I think  I gave  Senator  Heyburn  a wrong  sum 
total  of  certain  expenditures  here.  In  going  over  in  detail  this 
account,  which  you  filed  with  the  committee,  you  gave  the  following 
sums  as  having  been  paid  to  Fridley : $300,  $50,  $50,  and  $50;  to  R.  J. 
Shields,  $5,  $75,  ana  $250;  to  Savage,  $25,  $50,  $25,  and  $25;  to 
Lamere  and  Hamilton,  $6.25;  to  J.  W.  Wilson,  $100  and  $10;  to 
D.  M.  Maxcy,  $25  and  $25;  to  T.  W.  McManus,  $45;  to  the  Duluth 
News-Tribune,  $40;  to  Nelson,  $27;  to  the  Bayfield  Press,  $25;  and 
for  telegraph,  telephone,  etc.,  $45,  making  a total,  if  my  footings  are 
correct,  of  $1,503.25.  Do  you  mean  to  tell  us  that  out  of  the  sum 
of  $5,000  furnished  you,  that  is  all  that  you  can  account  for  so  far  as 
the  names  of  the  payees  are  concerned  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes,  except  this:  I stated  on  my  examination  that  I 
had  given  Mr.  Fridley  more  money,  as  I remembered,  than  appears 
there;  and  I think  I gave  Mr.  Wilson  more  money,  but  I am  not 
sure  about  that. 

Senator  Pomerene.  How  much  did  you  keep  for  your  own  com- 
pensation ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  A little  less  than  $500. 

Senator  Pomerene.  How  did  you  determine  that? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I had  that  when  I got  through.  I paid  up  all  of  the 
bills,  and  I had  that  much  when  I got  through. 

Senator  Pomerene.  How  do  you  mean  you  had  that — where  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  In  the  bank. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  check  up  this  matter  after  the 
campaign  was  over  to  see  what  you  had  in  fact  expended  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No;  I checked  it  up  when  I was  subpoenaed  to  go 
before  the  joint  committee  at  Madison. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  not  know  before  that  what  you  were 
going  to  keep  for  your  own  compensation  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No,  no. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  are  a man  of  family,  are  you  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  had  family  expenses  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  were  paying  them  out  of  this  same 
account  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I paid  everything  out  of  my  one  bank  account. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  when  you  would  have  occasion  to  draw 
a check  on  your  bank  account  for  family  expenses,  would  you  draw 
that  payable  to  “cash?” 

Mr.  Perrin.  No,  no;  that  would  ordinarily  be  paid  to  the  party 
rendering  the  bill. 

Senator  Pomerene.  But  you  would  occasionally  furnish  cash  to 
members  of  your  family? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I did  not  draw  “cash”  checks  for  that. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  paid  that  out  of  your  pocket,  did  you  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 


SOLON  L.  PERPJN.  687 

Senator  Pomerene.  Out  of  moneys  that  you  had  drawn  from  the 
bank  for  campaign  expenses  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  attempt  to  keep  your  personal  funds 
which  you  might  have  in  your  pocket  separate  from  campaign  funds 
which  you  had  in  your  pocket? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I always  did  keep  them  separate,  sir. 

Sentaor  Pemerene.  How  would  you  do  that  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I would  have  my  money  for  my  own  use  in  one 
pocket,  and  Mr.  Stephenson’s  money  in  another. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  is  the  way  you  kept  it  during  this  entire 
campaign  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  All  the  time. 

Senator  Pomerene.  With  whom  did  you  first  talk  about  your 
employment  in  this  campaign? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Mr.  Edmonds,  I think. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Where  ?. 

Mr.  Perrin.  In  Milwaukee. 

Sentator  Pomerene.  How  did  you  happen  to  be  here  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  My  recollection  is — I am  not  sure  now — that  he  sent 
for  me  to  come  down  here  to  talk  it  over. 

Senator  Pomerene.  In  any  event,  you  met  him  here  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  was  your  conversation  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Mr.  Edmonds  asked  me  what  could  be  done  for  Mr. 
Stephenson  in  the  eleventh  congressional  district.  We  talked  the 
situation  over.  He  spoke  at  one  time  about  asking  me  to  take 
charge  of  the  district.  I did  not  want  to  do  that.  We  talked  the 
matter  over,  and  tried  to  figure  out  who  could  handle  it,  and  we 
left  it  without  its  being  determined  at  all. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Who  could  handle  what? 

Mr.  Perrin.  The  eleventh  congressional  district. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  these  four  counties  constitute  the  eleventh 
congressional  district  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No;  there  are  12  counties  in  that  district. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Oh,  I see.  Is  that  Judge  Jenkins’s  old  district? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes;  the  thing  ran  along  for  several  days,  and  he 
either  sent  for  me  or  I happened  to  be  here,  and  I met  him  again  and 
we  talked  about  it.  I do  not  think  that  even  then  it  was  determined 
how  that  district  should  be  handled.  I think  I was  here  three  times, 
when  he  finally  decided  that  he  would  ask  me  to  look  after  those  four 
counties. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  further  was  said  as  to  how  you  should 
do  it  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not  think  anything  was  said  as  to  how  it  should 
be  done. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  was  said  as  to  the  means  with  which 
to  handle  it  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  He  said  that  they  would  provide  the  money. 

Senator  Pomerene.  How  much  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  He  did  not  say. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  say  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No. 


688 


SOLON  L.  PERRIN. 


Senator  Pomerene.  Was  anything  said  on  the  subject  as  to  the 
amount  that  would  be  required  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes.  We  talked  about  how  much  it  would  require, 
but  it  was  not  determined. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  was  said  on  that  subject  as  to  what 
it  would  require  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I said  I thought  it  would  take  $5,000. 

Senator  Pomerene.  For  the  four  counties  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  did  he  say  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  He  said  he  did  not  know  whether  he  could  get  that 
much  money  or  not.  He  did  not  know,  at  that  time,  how  vigorous 
and  careful  a campaign  Senator  Stephenson  would  put  up. 

Senator  Pomerene.  When  was  that — about  the  time  of  the  pay- 
ment of  the  first  $1,000  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  It  was  before  that. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I say,  about  that  time — how  long  before  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Oh,  I think  the  first  talk  I had  with  Mr.  Edmonds 
was  early  in  July. 

Senator  Pomerene.  The  first  $1,000  was  paid  to  you,  I believe 
you  said,  on  July  30  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  That  is  what  appears  on  the  record  there. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  say,  with  reference  to  that,  that  it  was 
early  in  July? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I think  the  first  talk  we  had  was — well,  the  first  or 
second  week  in  July. 

Senator  Pomerene.  When  did  you  have  your  next  conversation 
with  him  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Probably  a week  after  or  10  days  after  that. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Where  was  that  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Here. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  was  said  at  that  time  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  As  I said  before,  we  were  talking  then  about  how  the 
work  for  Senator  Stephenson  should  be  done  in  the  eleventh  congres- 
sional district. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Was  anything  else  said? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not  remember  anything  else  now. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Was  anything  said  at  that  time  with  refer- 
ence to  the  amount  that  was  to  be  expended  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Nothing  definite.  If  it  was  mentioned  at  all,  there 
was  not  anything  definite  said. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  he  say  to  you  that  you  should  keep  an 
account  of  your  expenditures  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  say  anything  to  him  on  that  subject  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Was  anything  said  to  the  effect  that  it  was 
not  necessary  to  keep  an  account  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  have  a conversation  with  him  later  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  At  the  time  you  received  the  first  $1,000,  was 
it  determined  that  $5,000  should  be  expended  in  these  four  counties  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No. 


SOLON  L.  PERRIN. 


689 


Senator  Pomerene.  How  did  you  plan  to  expend  this  $1,000 — - 
that  is,  with  reference  to  the  territory  ? I mean  as  to  the  distribution 
of  it? 

Mr.  Perrin.  The  first  $1,000  ? 

Senator  Pomerene.  Yes. 

Mr.  Perrin.  I planned  that  we  would  take  the  first  $1,000  and 
get  hold  of  as  many  of  the  men  who  were  accustomed  to  doing  politi- 
cal work  in  that  territory  as  we  could  get  hold  of  with  that  money, 
laying  the  foundation  for  a further  and  more  extensive  electioneering 
organization  if  the  money  was  forthcoming. 

Senator  Pomerene.  At  that  time  did  you  know  whether  or  not  you 
were  going  to  receive  further  sums  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I think  at  that  time  I knew  I would  get  another 

$1,000. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  you  got  that  on  August  4 ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Where  did  you  receive  that  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I am  not  able  to  say  whether  that  was  handed  to 
me  here  in  Milwaukee  or  whether  it  was  sent  to  me  by  mail. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  have  a talk  with  Edmonds  about  that 
time? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not  recall  whether  I saw  Edmonds  at  that  time 
or  not.  I am  rather  inclined  to  think  that  I did  not. 

Senator  Pomerene.  When  did  you  learn  that  you  would  receive 
another  sum  of  $3,000  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  About  the  time  it  was  paid. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  where  did  you  get  that  information? 

Mr.  Perrin.  From  Mr.  Edmonds. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Here  in  the  city  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  From  him  orally  or  by  letter? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Orally. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  have  any  correspondence  with  him 
on  this  subject? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I think  not.  I do  not  think  any  correspondence 
passed  between  us  at  all. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Was  there  any  telephoning? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not  remember;  not  as  to  the  subject  of  money. 
If  there  was  any  telephoning,  he  might  have  called  up  to  inquire  how 
things  looked  up  there,  or  something  of  that  land — general  informa- 
tion. There  was  no  telephoning  as  to  the  amount  of  money  that 
should  be  expended. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Then,  as  I understand  you,  you  never  made 
or  attempted  to  make  any  account  of  any  of  this  money,  either  to 
Senator  Stephenson  or  to  anyone  for  him,  or  any  account  whatsoever 
to  anybody,  until  you  first  prepared  this  account  for  submission  to 
the  legislative  committee  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  That  is  the  fact. 

Senator  Pomerene.  When  you  would  draw  funds  out  of  the  bank, 
you  said  that  if  the  money  was  for  campaign  purposes  you  put  it  in 
one  pocket  Did  you,  as  you  would  expend  money  from  this  cam- 
paign pocket,  keep  any  memorandum  of  it  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No;  no. 

15235°— vol  1—11 44 


690 


SOLON  L.  PERRIN. 


Senator  Pomerene.  So  that  you  would  not  be  able  to  tell  at  the 
end  of  the  day  or  at  the  end  oi  the  week  whether  you  had  lost  any 
of  this  money  or  not  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I think  I would  have  known  that  without  the  use  of  a 
memorandum. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  keep  any  account  of  the  money  which 
you  would  expend  in  each  of  these  counties? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No  ; I made  no  attempt  to  divide  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  keep  any  memorandum  of  the  names 
of  the  individuals  that  you  had  working  in  each  of  the  several  voting 
precincts  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No;  I did  not. 

Senator  Pomerene.  How  many  voting  precincts  were  there? 

Mr.  Perrin.  EightjL 

Senator  Pomerene.  How  many  men  did  you  have  in  each  district 
to  arrange  that  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I think  Mr.  Wilson  and  Mr.  Mead  looked  after  that  in 

Washburn  County;  Mr.  Whitten 

Senator  Pomerene.  Let  me  have  those  full  names,  Mr.  Perrin. 
What  is  Wilson’s  name? 

Mr.  Perrin.  J.  W.  Wilson. 

Mr.  Littleeield.  What  is  Mead’s  name? 

Mr.  Perrin.  L.  H.  Meade. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Is  it  spelled  M-e-a-d? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  In  what  district  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Washburn  County. 

The  Chairman.  And  what  other  men  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Mr.  Whitten,  in  Sauk  County — T.  S.  Whitten. 
Senator  Pomerene.  In  Sauk  County  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Who  else  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  In  Bayfield  County,  Mr.  Inglis. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Give  the  full  name,  please. 

Mr.  Perrin.  Robert  Inglis. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Anyone  else  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  D.  M.  Maxcey. 

Senator  Pomerene.  In  the  same  county? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Anyone  else  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  in  Douglas  County? 

Mr.  Perrin.  C.  R.  Fridley. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Anyone  else  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Yourself  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I did  not  undertake  to  keep  any  memorandum  as  to 
the  names  of  the  workers. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  any  of  these  men  ever  account  to  you  for 
any  expenditures  that  they  had  made  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No. 

The  Chairman.  Let  me  ask  you:  Did  Mr.  Maxcey  receive  money 
from  you  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 


SOLON  L.  PERRIN.  691 

Mr.  Littlefield.  They  made  no  account  to  you?  Do  I under- 
stand that  to  be  the  fact  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I believe  that  is  all. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Had  you  managed,  in  this  same  way,  any 
previous  campaigns  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not  know  that  I can  say  that  I have  managed 
them.  I had  been  in  other  campaigns. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Had  you  been  intimately  connected  with 
other  campaigns  prior  to  this? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I should  like  to  ask  you  this  general  question: 
Whether  or  not,  in  the  management  or  handling  of  the  campaign 
for  Senator  Stephenson,  methods  were  used  other  than  those  that 
had  been  used  m prior  campaigns? 

Mr.  Perrin.  They  were  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  I understand  you  to  say  that  the  manner 
of  handling  Mr.  Stephenson’s  campaign  was  substantially  identical 
with  the  manner  of  handling  previous  campaigns  with  which  you 
have  been  identified? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Substantially  so. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  long  have  you  been  identified  with  cam- 
paigns in  that  section  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I have  taken  part  in  16  campaigns,  at  least.  I 
guess  I was  in  some  campaigns  before  I went  up  there,  too,  probably. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  are  unable  to  give  any  more  details  than 
you  have  already  given  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Absolutely  unable. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  there  any  purpose  by  way  of  concealment 
or  covering  up  any  of  your  expenditures,  in  failing  to  keep  a memo- 
randum of  the  detailed  work  done  by  you  or  by  those  under  you  ? 

Mr.  Perrln.  None  whatever. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I understand  from  what  you  say  that  your 
conduct  on  this  occasion  was  in  no  way  differentiated  from  the 
conduct  and  practice  on  other  occasions? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Not  in  any  degree  that  I can  recall  now. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  have  just  given  to  the  Senator,  as  I under- 
stand it,  the  names  of  the  gentlemen  who  were  practically  your 
representatives  in  the  four  counties? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  is  the  fact  with  reference  to  details 
involved  in  the  organization  in  those  four  counties,  as  to  their  being 
within  the  charge  of  these  gentlemen  or  within  your  immediate 
charge?  That  is,  in  whose  immediate  charge  were  the  details  in 
the  four  counties? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Oh,  as  to  the  details,  they  would  be  in  the  hands 
of  these  men,  although  I was  about  all  the  time,  and  in  these  other 
counties  more  or  less. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  whether  you  were  in  conference  with 
these  men  during  the  progress  of  the  campaign,  as  to  developments 
and  work  in  the  campaign? 

Mr.  Perrin.  From  time  to  time. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  that  a fact? 

Mr.  Perrin.  That  is  right. 


692 


SOLON  L.  PERKIN. 


Mr.  Littlefield.  In  such  conferences  did  you  require  of  them 
detailed  statements  as  to  particular  men,  and  particular  amounts 
that  they  were  disbursing;  or  was  it  a general  discussion  of  the 
work  of  the  campaign  and  its  progress  and  development? 

Mr.  Perrin.  We  discussed  it  generally.  We  did  not  go  into 
the  details  of  the  expenditures  of  this  money.  If  I had  undertaken 
to  go  into  the  minutia  of  that  thing  with  these  men,  I would  have 
lost  their  support.  They  simply  would  not  stay  by  and  do  the 
work  and  do  it  enthusiastically  if  they  were  called  on  every  day, 
or  from  time  to  time,  to  find  out  what  they  were  doing  with  this 
money. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  do  you  mean  by  that?  Do  you  desire 
to  be  understood  as  saying  that  they  would  have  considered  that 
a criticism  upon  their  integrity? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No;  they  wTould  have  thought  that  I had  no  confi- 
dence in  them. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  if  you  had  called 
upon  them  repeatedly  for  detailed  statements,  they  would  have 
looked  upon  that  as  a lack  of  confidence  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Your  idea  is  that  they  would  not  have  continued 
the  work  under  such  circumstances,  in  the  absence  of  that  confidence  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not  think  they  would  have  continued  it  vigor- 
ously and  whole-heartedly. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  To  what  section,  or  to  what  towns,  is  the  business 
of  these  four  counties  tributary — do  you  understand  the  question? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Of  course,  I mean  this  in  a general  way. 

Mr.  Perrin.  That  is  a pretty  hard  question  to  answer,  even  in  a 
general  way.  A good  deal  of  business  up  in  that  country  goes  over 
to  Ashland,  a great  deal  of  it  goes  to  Superior,  and  a large  amount  goes 
to  St.  Paul  and  Minneapolis.  I think  that  covers  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  whether  or  not  there  is  any  intimate 
business  relation  between  that  section  of  the  State  and  this  section  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is,  between  those  four  counties  and  Mil- 
waukee and  the  business  interests  here? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  it  or  not  a fact  that  substantially  the  business 
relations  in  that  section  of  the  State  go  to  Minneapolis,  either  to 
Duluth  or  St.  Paul,  or  some  portion  of  Minnesota;  that  that  is  the 
general  trend  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  That  is  the  general  trend;  yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  is  the  fact  as  to  the  circulation  of  news- 
papers up  through  that  section?  What  newspapers,  principally, 
circulate  through  that  section  of  the  State? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Well,  the  Superior  Telegram  probably  has  the  largest 
circulation  in  that  section  or  the  State. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Next  to  that? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I think  the  St.  Paul  and  Minneapolis  papers  would 
come  next  in  size  of  circulation. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Are  they  largely  taken  in  that  vicinity  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 


SOLON  L.  PERRIN. 


693 


Mr.  Littlefield.  How  about  the  Duluth  papers? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not  think  the  Duluth  morning  paper  has  as 
large  a circulation  there  as  that  of  the  St.  Paul  morning  paper. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  Superior  the  distributing  point  for  these  four 
counties  ? I am  not  familiar  with  the  business  situation. 

Mr.  Perrin.  Well,  I would  not  say  that. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  it  one  of  the  main  distributing  points  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  It  is  one  of  the  principal  ones;  yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  would  you  reach  these  four  counties  by 
mail  ? Would  the  mail  go  through  Superior  or  come  in  through  some 
other  avenue? 

Mr.  Perrin.  You  mean  from  here? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Say  from  Minneapolis  and  St.  Paul. 

Mr.  Perrin.  Oh,  I see.  The  mail  would  go  to  those  counties 
before  it  got  to  Superior. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  At  the  time,  along  about  the  last  of  July,  as  I 
understand  it,  of  the  first  payment  to  you — was  that  the  time  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield  (continuing).  And  prior  to  that,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  a disbursement  made  on  the  17th  of  July,  had  anything  been 
done  in  a practical  way  in  the  interests  of  Senator  Stephenson’s 
campaign  in  these  four  counties? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  At  that  time  was  the  campaign  being  prose- 
cuted by  the  gentlemen  who  were  representing  the  other  candidates 
in  those  counties? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  it  or  not  the  fact  that  Mr.  .Hatton,  Mr.  Cook, 
and  Mr.  McGovern  had  representatives  in  that  section  at  that  time  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I think  Mr.  Hatton  and  Mr.  McGovern  did,  but  I do 
not  think  Mr.  Cook  did. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  remember  how  long  the  representatives 
of  Mr.  Hatton  had  been  promoting  his  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No;  I do  not  know,  but  for  some  time.  I can  not 
tell  exactly. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is,  prior  to  the  17th  of  July? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  then,  so  far  as  you  know,  up  to  the  17th 
of  July,  no  movement  of  any  kind  had  been  made  in  the  interest  of 
Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not  know  of  anything  having  been  done. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Had  there  been  any  public  advertising  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I had  not  seen  any. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  there  any  advertising  in  the  Senator’s  cam- 
paign, by  way  of  posting  posters,  lithographs,  and  publicity  material 
of  that  sort  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Under  whose  direction  was  that  done? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I rather  think  Mr.  Fridley  did  that,  in  Douglas 
County. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  these  other  gentlemen  do  it  in  the  other 
counties  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I know  Mr.  Whitten  did  not  in  his  county. 


604 


SOLON  L.  PERRIN. 


Mr.  Littlefield.  What  I want  to  find  out  us  this:  From  whom 
did  that  instruction  come,  in  the  first  instance  ? Did  it  come  through 
you  ? Where  did  you  get  the  advertising  material,  for  instance  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  That  was  all  sent  out  of  Milwaukee. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  To  whom  was  it  to  be  sent — was  it  to  be  sent 
to  you  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I think  that  was  sent  direct  to  the  local  men. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  whether  or  not  it  was  done  under  your 
instructions. 

Mr.  Perrin.  I think  I gave  the  names  of  those  men,  probably,  to 
Mr.  Edmonds,  and  the  matter  was  sent  out  from  here. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  When  you  say  “ matter,”  to  what  do  you  refer 
as  “ matter” — posters? 

Mr.  Perrin.  The  things  to  which  you  have  referred. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Posters  and  lithographs  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Posters,  lithographs,  and  advertising  matter,  yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  To  what  extent  were  these  four  counties  covered 
by  this  advertising  matter  after  your  campaign  was  practically 
accomplished  in  that  direction,  so  far  as  you  know? 

Mr.  Perrin.  They  were  quite  generally  covered. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  the  same  territory  occupied  to  a certain 
extent  by  the  publicity  literature  of  Mr.  Hatton  also  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  by  Mr.  McGovern  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  When  your  people  got  to  work  in  these  79  or  80 
precincts  of  these  four  counties,  of  the  size,  I think  you  have  stated, 
geographically,  of  the  State  of  Connecticut,  do  you  know  whether  or 
not  they  met  in  the  campaign  the  representatives  of  Senator  Hatton 
and  Senator  McGovern,  who  were  about  soliciting  support  for  each 
of  those  candidates  and  presenting  their  advantages,  and  generally 
conducting  a personal  campaign  in  that  way  ? Do  you  know  whether 
or  not  they  met  them  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I heard  of  it  in  several  instances. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  know  whether  or  not  a campaign  was 
being  actively  prosecuted  in  the  interest  of  Senator  Hatton,  for 
instance,  substantially  all  over  the  four  counties  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes;  1 think  so,  substantially. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Were  any  persons  employed  by  you  in  the  inter- 
ests of  Senator  Stephenson,  either  directly  or  through  the  mediation 
of  these  gentlemen  representing  the  four  counties,  for  the  purpose  of 
traveling  about  throughout  these  counties,  and  urging  the  Senator’s 
candidacy  and  meeting  the  criticisms  of  the  gentlemen  representing 
the  other  candidates  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not  know  that  I understand  the  question. 

(By  request,  the  reporter  read  the  question.) 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is,  state  whether  that  kind  of  work  was  or 
was  not  being  done. 

Mr.  Perrin.  Oh,  yes,  that  was  done. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  have,  at  any  time,  any  poll  list  of  these 
four  counties  for  the  purpose,  in  the  first  instance,  of  ascertaining 
the  number  of  Republicans  upon  the  poll  list  and,  in  the  second 
instance,  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  how  many  of  these  Repub- 
licans could  be  relied  upon  to  support  the  Senator  ? 


SOLON  L.  PERRIN. 


695 


Mr.  Perrin.  No;  I do  not  think  we  ever  got  as  far  as  that  in  the 
organization.  We  did  not  have  time  to  get  out  a full  list  and  check 
them  over. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  know  how  those  poll  lists  are  procured  and 
how  those  canvasses  are  made,  I suppose  ? 

. Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Are  they  or  are  they  not  made  by  gentlemen 
selected  for  that  purpose,  hired  or  otherwise,  to  make  a personal 
canvass  of  the  sections  alloted  to  them? 

Mr.  Perrin.  That  is  the  method. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  I understand  that  you  were  able  to  make  a 
canvass  of  this  kind  or  that  you  were  not? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No;  we  could  not  make  a canvass  of  that  kind. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Why  not  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  The  territory  was  too  large  and  the  time  was  too 
short. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I suppose  men  enough  might  have  been  em- 
ployed to  do  that  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Not  with  the  money  that  was  turned  over  to  me  with 
which  to  do  the  work. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is,  within  the  time  limited,  taking  into 
account  the  territory,  it  was  a physical  impossibility,  so  far  as  you 
were  concerned  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  procure  a partial  list,  or  otherwise,  of 
Republicans  or  voters  to  whom  literature  might  be  sent  from  the 
central  headquarters  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No.  We  had  no  mailing  list. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  did  not  have  any  mailing  list  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  make  any  effort  during  the  campaign 
to  get  a mailing  list  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I did  not  think  it  was  possible  to  get  a mailing  list 
and  get  to  those  people  in  that  way  in  the  time  that  we  had  between 
the  commencement  of  this  work  and  the  primary  day. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  know  whether  this  paper  known  as  the 
Superior  Tidende  came  down  into  that  section  with  the  literature  in 
support  of  the  Senator  ? I do  not  know  whether  you  have  any  rec- 
ollection of  that  or  not. 

Mr.  Perrin.  I have  no  recollection  of  that. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  know  anything  about  the  Minneapolis 
Tidende,  or  about  that  paper  coming  into  that  section  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  was  printed  in  the  Scandinavian  tongue,  I 
believe.  I do  not  know  whether  you  ever  saw  the  paper. 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not  know  whether  I did  or  not.  I might  have 
seen  it  without  knowing  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  remember  to  have  ever  seen  it  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  The  Minneapolis  Tidende  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes. 

Mr.  Perrin.  No.  I did  not  know  there  was  such  a paper. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  this  territory  comprising  these  four  counties 
outside  of  the  city  of  Superior  sparsely  settled?  I take  it  that  it 
was  on  account  of  the  large  geographical  area. 


696 


WILLIAM  L.  ESSMANN. 


Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  it  feasible,  in  your  experience  in  connection 
with  those  counties,  to  get  out  a candidate’s  full  vote  on  the  primary 
day  without  the  aid  of  transportation  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  It  is  absolutely  impossible,  in  my  judgment. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  any  money  expended,  or  were  instructions 
given  by  you  for  any  money  to  be  expended,  for  the  purpose  of  fur- 
nishing conveyances  to  get  the  voters  who  were  friendly  to  Senator 
Stephenson  out  on  that  day  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I guess  that  was  always  left  to  the  judgment  of  the 
men  who  were  getting  out  the  vote. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Why  do  you  say  you  “guess?” 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I was  just  going  to  develop  that,  Senator. 

State  whether  or  not,  according  to  your  recollection,  that  was  a 
phase  of  the  campaign  that  was  discussed  by  you  with  either  of  the 
gentlemen,  or  all  of  the  gentlemen,  representing  the  four  counties. 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes;  it  was. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  ever  make  at  any  time,  or  were  you 
ever  able  to  make,  in  the  absence  of  a canvass  developing  the  number 
of  men  who  would  support  the  Senator,  an  estimate  as  to  what  the 
expense  would  be  for  transportation  for  these  voters  in  this  sparsely 
settled  territory  on  election  day  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  there  anything  said  between  yourself  and 
the  gentlemen  who  were  looking  out  for  these  four  counties  as  to  the 
employment  of  men  who  could  act  as  watchers  at  the  polls  to  ascer- 
tain whether  or  not  Stephenson’s  men  had  voted  and  whether  there 
were  other  men  who  had  not  voted,  who  should  be  sent  for  and 
brought  up  ? I suppose  that  is  what  they  do,  is  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes,  they  do  that;  but  I do  not  think  we  went  into 
that  detail,  as  to  whether  or  not  the  Stephenson  men  had  all  voted, 
because  I do  not  think  we  had  the  canvass  that  would  have  made  that 
possible 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  did  not  have  the  canvass  upon  which  you 
could  do  that  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No. 

(Whereupon,  at  12.30  o’clock  p.  m.,  a recess  was  taken  until 
2 o’clock  p.  m.) 


AFTER  RECESS. 


The  recess  having  expired,  the  subcommittee  reassembled. 

TESTIMONY  OF  WILLIAM  L.  ESSMANN. 

Mr.  Essmann,  having  been  duly  sworn  by  the  chairman,  was 
examined  and  testified  as  follows : 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Essmann,  you  are  the  custodian  of  what  ? 

Mr.  Essmann.  I am  the  superintendent  of  public  property. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  in  your  possession  the  papers  that  were 
used  and  presented  to  the  joint  committee  of  the  Legislature  of  Wis- 
consin in  connection  with  the  investigation  of  the  election  of  Senator 
Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Essmann.  I have  all  that  I could  find. 


WILLIAM  L.  ESSMANN. 


697 


The  Chairman.  Have  you  brought  them  with  you  ? 

Mr.  Essmann.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  opened  the  box  containing  them  ? 

Mr.  Essmann.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  will  allow  the  box  to  remain  closed  until  you 
are  called  upon  by  the  committee  to  open  it. 

Mr.  Essmann.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  desire  to  make  any  statement  ? 

Mr.  Essmann.  I would  like  to  make  a statement;  yes. 

The  Chairman.  The  committee  will  hear  you. 

Mr.  Essmann.  Mr.  Chairman,  it  seems  there  were  two  boxes  left 
with  the  State  treasurer  by  State  Senator  Marsh,  who  was  chairman 
of  the  investigation  committee,  and  when  I called  upon  the  State 
treasurer  for  the  two  boxes,  he  gave  me  this  box  which  I have  here  in 
the  room  and  another  box.  The  other  box  was  open  and  I looked 
into  it  and  found  it  was  a personal  matter  that  belonged  to  State 
Senator  Sanborn,  of  Ashland.  I did  not  think  this  committee  wanted 
that  box,  so  I left  it  at  Madison.  The  box  I have  brought  here  I 
think  contains  matters  pertaining  to  the  investigation,  but  I do  not 
think  it  contains  all.  My  belief  is  that  in  bringing  the  two  boxes  to 
the  State  treasurer  they  became  mixed  in  some  way,  and  they  brought 
State  Senator  Sanborn’s  private  box.  Possibly  Senator  Sanborn  has 
the  other  box  pertaining  to  the  investigation.  That,  of  course,  is 
merely  my  guess.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  As  the  custodian  of  this  class  of  property,  would 
you  have  authority  to  investigate  the  contents  of  the  box  that  you 
have  brought  ? 

Mr.  Essmann.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  And  separate  those  papers  that  would  be  proper 
to  bring  before  this  committee  ? 

Mr.  Essmann.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  That  box,  I understand,  is  here  ? 

Mr.  Essmann.  That  box  is  here.  I brought  one  box  with  me,  but 
I do  not  think  it  contains  all  of  the  evidence.  I was  present  at 
that  investigation,  and  it  seems  to  me  there  was  more  than  one  box 

full. 

The  Chairman.  The  only  papers  that  the  committee  feel  author- 
ized  to  direct  you  to  bring  before  them  are  those  that  were  used  in 
connection  with  that  hearing. 

Mr.  Essmann.  They  are  in  that  box,  which  I have  here,  so  far  as 
I know. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  All  you  could  find  ? 

Mr.  Essmann.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  As  custodian  of.  that  class  of  property,  you  would 
undoubtedly  be  entitled  to  separate  papers  that  did  not  belong  in 
that  box. 

Mr.  Essman.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  If  you  will  kindly  bring  together  in  that  box  or 
in  some  box  the  papers  called  for  pertaining  to  the  hearing,  and 
eliminate  or  remove  those  that  do  not  belong  there,  the  committee 
will  be  in  a position  to  take  up  the  matter  with  you. 

Mr.  Essmann.  Does  the  committee  desire  any  reference  to  the 
Hatton  and  McGovern  campaigns  ? 


698 


SOLON  L.  PERRIN. 


The  Chairman.  No;  the  committee  desires  evidence  in  regard  to 
the  campaign  of  Senator  Stephenson  only.  We  are  investigating 
nothing  else. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Mr.  Chairman,  before  Mr.  Essmann  leaves  for 
Madison  I may  wish  to  further  examine  him  in  relation  to  ascer 
taining  the  whereabouts  of  memoranda  that  were  left  with  this 
committee  by  various  witnesses. 

The  Chairman.  Yes.  I do  not  understand  that  Mr.  Essmann  is 
going  to  leave  Milwaukee  at  present. 

Mr.  Essmann.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  He  will  be  excused  for  the  present. 

Mr.  Essmann.  Do  you  want  me  to  look  through  this  box  now  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  as  custodian  you  are  at  liberty  to  separate 
those  papers. 

We  wul  resume  the  examination  of  Mr.  Perrin. 

TESTIMONY  OF  S.  I.  PERRIN-  Resumed. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Mr.  Perrin,  I have  just  a few  more  questions. 
You  stated  that  you  had  not  the  canvass  that  I last  inquired  about. 

Mr.  Perrin.  No;  I have  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  that  one  of  the  canvasses  that  you  were 
not  able  to  make  on  account  of  your  limit  for  expenditure  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  And  time. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  far  is  the  city  of  Superior  from  the  city  of 
Milwaukee,  approximately  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  About  415  miles. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  have  referred  to  the  eleventh  congressional 
district. 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  that  the  district  that  includes  the  four 
counties  as  to  which  you  have  given  some  description  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Which  were  under  your  control  for  Senator 
Stephenson  during  the  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  many  other  counties  does  the  district 
include  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Eight  others. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  So  that  that  district  consists  of  12  counties  in  all  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  that  the  district  in  which  Mr.  Lenroot  was  a 
candidate  for  Congress  against  Judge  Jenkins? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  that  in  this  campaign? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  that  a vigorously  contested  primary  nomi- 
nation between  Judge  Jenkins  and  Mr.  Lenroot? 

Mr.  Perrin.  It  was. 

The  Chairman.  Give  us  Judge  Jenkins’s  full  name. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  John  J.  Jenkins. 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  in  that  campaign  Mr.  Jenkins  was  defeated 
for  renomination  ? 


SOLON  L.  PERRIN. 


699 


Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  Mr.  Lenroot  a rather  specially  prominent 
representative  of  what  is  known  as  the  “Half-breed”  element? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield  Did  Mr.  Lenroot,  if  you  remember,  carry  those 
four  counties  that  were  under  your  control  in  the  interest  of  Senator 
Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I think  he  did.  I am  not  sure  about  that. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Your  recollection  would  be  that  Mr.  Lenroot 
carried  them  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  remember  what  his  approximate  ma- 
jority was  over  Judge  Jenkins? 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  is  the  purpose  of  this  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I simply  want  to  show  the  fact  that  Senator 
Stephenson  was  largely  supported  up  there,  as  I understood,  by  the 
Stalwart  element.  Was  that  a fact? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  supporters  of  Senator  Stephenson  were 
largely  of  the  Stalwart  variety  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  it  also  a fact  that  the  Stephenson  people 
were  appealing  to  the  “Half-breeds”  also? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  So  far  as  they  could  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  it  a fact  that  that  section  was  rather  strongly 
“Half-breed?” 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I do  not  say  this  in  any  offensive  way,  but  Mr. 
Lenroot  was  popularly  understood  to  be  one  of  the  principal  lieuten- 
ants of  Gov.  La  Follette? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  had  his  support,  I suppose,  in  the  cam- 
paign ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  territory  that  was  carried  by  Mr.  Lenroot  in 
his  campaign  against  Judge  Jenkins  was  also  carried  by  Senator 
Stephenson  by  a plurality? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not  remember,  except  as  to  these  four  counties. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  about  those  four  counties  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Mr.  Lenroot,  I think,  carried  all  of  those  four  counties 
that  Senator  Stephenson  carried  by  a plurality.  I may  be  mistaken 
as  to  Bayfield  County.  I have  not  looked  that  up. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  are  giving  your  best  recollection? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Were  there  any  candidates  in  the  field  for  the 
^Republican  nomination  other  than  Judge  Jenkins  and  Mr.  Lenroot? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I will  inquire  of  you  whether  or  not,  within  your 
knowledge,  any  of  the  money  that  was  placed  in  your  hands  for  use  in 
that  campaign  was  expended  in  bribing  or  corruptly  or  improperly 
influencing  any  voters  at  that  primary  election  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  None  whatever. 


700 


SOLON  L.  PERRIN. 


Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  any  so  expended  by  you  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  None  whatever. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  any  so  expended  by  any  of  the  people  to 
whom  you  gave  money  for  use  in  that  campaign,  within  your  knowl- 
edge? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Not  within  my  knowledge. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  ever  receive  any  information  from  any 
competent  or  reliable -source  that  there  was  any  such  expenditure  in 
those  four  counties! 

Mr.  Perrin.  None  whatever. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Do  you  keep  books  of  account  showing  the 
state  of  your  accounts  with  various  clients  for  services  you  render 
them? 

Mr.  Perrin.  We  can  always  tell  in  the  office  how  much  is  due  us 
from  a client. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  make  any  memorandum  of  your  ac- 
count with  Senator  Stephenson  for  services  in  connection  with  this 
campaign  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not  believe  I did.  I have  no  recollection  of  hav- 
ing done  so. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  did  not  regard  your  fees  in  that  matter, 
or  the  compensation  you  received,  as  connected  with  the  business  of 
your  office? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Why,  no.  I do  not  look  upon  that  as  a professional 
engagement. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  regard  it  as  such  when  you  made  your 
charge  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  I do  not  think  that  entered  my  mind. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I think  that  is  all  I wish  to  ask. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Just  a word:  Are  you  alone  in  business,  Mr. 
Perrin  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  So  that  everything  that  goes  on  in  the  office  is 
a matter  of  your  own  personal  interest  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Absolutely. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  this  Mr.  Savage  have  any  interest  in  your 
business  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No.  He  is  a clerk,  working  on  a salary. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  So  that  no  one  has  any  interest  in  your  business 
but  yourself? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No  one;  absolutely  no  one. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  I understand  that  you  did  or  did  not  make 
any  entry  in  any  of  your  books  of  the  sums  received  in  connection 
with  the  Stephenson  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  No. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Or  did  you  treat  it  as  an  entirely  independent 
matter  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Entirely  independent  of  the  business  of  the  office. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Perrin.  Am  I excused  from  further  attendance  at  this  time? 

The  Chairman.  Where  do  you  live  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  At  Superior. 


LEVI  H.  BANCROFT. 


701 


The  Chairman.  How  far  away  is  that  ? 

Mr.  Perrin.  About  400  miles — 415  miles. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  long  have  you  been  here  in  attendance, 
Mr.  Perrin? 

Mr.  Perrin.  Except  for  last  Sunday  and  Monday,  since  a week 
ago  Tuesday. 

The  Chairman.  Hold  yourself  subject  to  call  without  further  sub- 
poena and  you  will  be  excused. 

Mr.  Perrin.  Yes,  sir. 

TESTIMONY  OF  LEVI  H.  BANCROFT. 

Levi  H.  Bancroft,  having  been  previously  sworn,  was  exam- 
ined and  testified  as  follows : 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Bancroft,  you  have  been  sworn  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Where  do  you  reside  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I reside  at  Richland  Center,  Wis. 

The  Chairman.  What  position  do  you  occupy  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Attorney  general,  at  the  present  time. 

The  Chairman.  When  were  you  elected  attorney  general  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  In  1910. 

The  Chairman.  Prior  to  that  time  what  office,  if  any,  did  you 
hold  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  District  attorney,  county  judge,  and  member  of 
the  assembly. 

The  Chairman.  During  the  years  1908-9,  what  office,  if  any,  did 
you  hold  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Member  of  the  assembly. 

The  Chairman.  From  what  jurisdiction? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Richland  County  is  an  assembly  district. 

The  Chairman.  Is  it  an  entire  assembly  district  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  were  a candidate  at  the  direct  primaries  in 
1908  for  the  nomination  for  the  assembly  from  that  district,  were 
you  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I was. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  announce  your  candidacy  for  that 
office  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I do  not  know  that  I ever  announced  it.  I suppose 
the  first  announcement  would  be  the  filing  of  my  nomination  papers, 
perhaps. 

The  Chairman.  Prior  to  the  filing  of  your  nomination  papers  had 
you  been  a candidate  for  nomination  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Why,  yes;  at  the  time  the  nomination  papers 
were  being  circulated. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  circulate  nomination  papers  in  your  own 
behalf  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  make  a canvass  of  your  constituency  for 
nomination  prior  to  the  filing  of  your  nomination  papers  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  You  signed  your  nomination  papers,  did  you  ? 


702 


LEVI  H.  BANCROFT. 


Mr.  Bancroft.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  sign  them  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I could  not  give  you  the  date;  probably  about  the 
time  they  were  filed ; very  likely  the  same  day. 

The  Chairman.  Had  you  announced  your  candidacy  for  nomir 
nation  at  any  time  during  the  month  of  June,  1908,  or  prior  thereto  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I presume  I had,  because  I presume  my  nomi- 
nation papers  were  circulated  by  that  time,  but  I can  not  tell  you 
exactly  as  to  that  time. 

The  Chairman.  Who  circulated  your  nomination  papers  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I could  not  tell  you  that.  They  were  circulated  by 
friends  in  various  townships  of  the  county. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  of  any  one  person  that  circulated 
them  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I could  not  give  you  the  name  of  any  one  person 
now,  but  I could  furnish  you  the  nomination  papers  with  their  names 
attached.  I have  not  looked  up  that  matter,  and  from  memory  I 
could  not  tell  you  who  they  were. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  meet  Senator  Stephenson  during  the 
month  of  June,  1908,  and  have  a conversation  with  him  with  reference 
to  supporting  his  nomination  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  meet  him  in  the  month  of  July,  1908,  and 
have  such  a conversation  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  meet  Senator  Stephenson  at  any  time 
prior  to  the  1st  of  August,  1908,  and  discuss  with  him  his  nomination  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  receive  any  money  from  Senator  Stephen- 
son at  any  time  prior  to  the  1st  of  September,  1908,  to  be  used  by  you 
in  forwarding  his  nomination  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  receive  any  money  at  any  time  from 
Senator  Stephenson’s  representatives  or  campaign  committee  to  be 
used  by  you  in  forwarding  the  nomination  of  Senator  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I received  $250  from  John  H.  Puelicher,  cashier  of 
the  Marshall  & Ilsley  Bank. 

The  Chairman.  On  whose  behalf  did  he  pay  you  the  money  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I suppose  in  Senator  Stephenson’s  behalf. 

The  Chairman.  You  knew  at  the  time  you  received  it  that  he  was 
paying  it  to  you  on  behalf  of  Senator  Stephenson,  did  you  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Yes,  sir;  at  least  that  is  what  he  stated. 

The  Chairman.  It  was  so  stated? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  That  is  what  he  stated. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  receive  that  money? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I can  not  tell  you  from  my  own  memory,  but  I 
gave  a receipt  for  the  money  and  I think  the  date  of  that  receipt  is 
the  31st  day  of  July. 

The  Chairman.  Was  that  the  day  you  received  it? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  That  is  the  day  I received  it  if  that  is  what  the 
record  shows.  Anyway,  it  was  about  that  time  and  I think,  to  the 
best  of  my  recollection,  that  that  is  correct. 

The  Chairman.  Did  Mr.  Puelicher  come  to  you  or  did  you  go  to 
him? 


LEVI  H.  BANCROFT.  70$ 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I can  tell  you  what  I did.  That  would  be  a con- 
clusion. 

The  Chairman.  You  can  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I was  asked  by  telephone  to  come  here  and  I came 
down  and  went  over  to  the  bank  in  response  to  a message. 

The  Chairman.  Where  did  you  go  in  response  to  a message? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I went  to  Senator  Stephenson’s  headquarters. 

The  Chairman.  In  the  city  of  Milwaukee  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  In  the  city  of  Milwaukee. 

The  Chairman.  I find  in  your  testimony  before  the  joint  committee 
of  the  legislature  of  Wisconsin,  as  published  or  printed,  a statement 
purporting  to  have  been  made  by  you  as  follows  (I  read  from  p.  713) : 

During  the  primary  campaign  of  1908  a young  gentleman  who  was  an  entire  stranger 
to  me  came  to  Richland  Center  and  called  for  me  at  my  office. 

Who  was  that  man  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I think  that  was  a gentleman  by  the  name  of 
McMann  or  McMahon.  I have  no  acquaintance  with  him,  even  yet. 

The  Chairman.  Was  that  the  first  time  you  had  met  this  man  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  further  say: 

He  stated  that  he  represented  Senator  Stephenson’s  managers. 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman  (reading) : 

And  was  engaged  in  organization  work  throughout  the  State  and  had  been,  in  con- 
nection with  that,  assigned  to  Richland  County. 

Is  that  statement  the  fact  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  correct. 

The  Chairman  (reading) : 

He  said  that  he  knew,  of  course,  that  money  would  be  necessary  to  perfect  an  organi- 
zation, and  he  wanted  to  advise  with  some  of  Senator  Stephenson’s  friends  with 
reference  to  the  method  and  the  amount,  and  that  he  had  been  requested  to  call 
upon  me. 

Is  that  statement  correct  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  That  is  correct. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  this  man  call  on  you  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I could  not  give  you  the  date,  but  to  the  best  of 
my  recollection  it  was  a week  or  10  days  before  I came  to  Milwaukee. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  tell  us  when  you  came  to  Milwaukee  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Presumably  on  the  31st  day  of  July,  if  that  is  the 
day  that  I received  the  money. 

The  Chairman.  Then  it  was  about  a week  or  10  days  before  the 
31st  of  July  that  this  man  called  upon  you  and  made  this  statement? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  (reading  now  from  p.  714) : 

I was  a candidate  myself,  and  I could  not  antagonize  their  forces. 

Do  you  mean  by  that  that  you  were,  at  the  time  this  young  man 
called  on  you,  a candidate  for  nomination  to  the  legislature? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  we  can  fix  that  as  at  least  8 or  10  days 
prior  to  the  31st  day  of  July? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Yes,  sir;  I was  a candidate  at  that  time,  undoubt- 
edly. Pardon  me,  Senator;  I think  our  statute  requires  the  filing  of 


704 


LEVI  H.  BANCROFT. 

nomination  papers  for  candidates  for  members  of  the  assembly  at 
least  30  days  before  the  primary  election.  Of  course  my  papers  were 
on  file,  then,  by  the  1st  of  August,  and  of  course  I was  a candidate 
thereafter. 

The  Chairman.  You  say,  further,  on  page  714: 

After  that  conversation,  I think  the  same  evening  or  afternoon,  this  gentleman 
returned  to  Milwaukee,  as  I have  reason  to  believe,  because  I was  soon  after  telephoned 
to  by  Mr.  Edmonds  and  requested  to  come  to  Milwaukee. 

Is  that  true  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  further  say: 

And  the  statement  was  made  that  he  had  talked  with  the  gentleman  who  had  been 
to  Richland  Center  and  had  talked  with  me,  and  he  wanted  to  talk  with  me  personally. 

Is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  correct. 

The  Chairman.  Then  you  came  to  Milwaukee  and  saw  Mr.  Ed- 
monds, did  you  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I did. 

The  Chairman.  Where  did  you  see  Mr.  Edmonds  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Oh!  I beg  your  pardon.  I did  not  see  Mr.  Ed- 
monds. I came  to  Milwaukee  in  response  to  this  request.  I was 
telephoned  to  either  twice  or  three  times,  and  I finally  stated  the 
time  when  I would  come,  which,  I think,  was  on  Saturday. 

The  Chairman.  You  state  here  that  you  did  not  find  Mr.  Edmonds, 
but  that  you  did  find  Mr.  Puelicher. 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I came  to  Milwaukee  and  went  to  Senator  Stephen- 
son’s headquarters,  expecting  to  meet  Mr.  Edmonds,  and  was  in- 
formed by  somebody  there  that  he  had  been  called  to  Appleton,  and 
that  I was  requested  to  go  and  see  Mr.  Puelicher  at  the  Marshall  & 
Ilsley  Bank;  and  I did  so. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  go  to  see  Mr.  Puelicher  about  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I did  not  know  at  the  time;  I supposed  it  was 
something  in  connection  with  Senator  Stephenson’s  campaign. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  talk  to  Mr.  Puelicher  about  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  About  Senator  Stephenson’s  campaign. 

The  Chairman.  In  what  regard  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  It  was  a general  conversation.  We  went  out  to 
lunch  together,  and  were  together  perhaps  two  hours,  and  we  talked 
over  the  campaign  in  a general  way. 

The  Chairman.  I will  refresh  your  memory.  It  is  stated  here  that 
you  testified  as  follows: 

I talked  with  Mr.  Puelicher  about  the  situation,  and  the  manner  of  organization 

was  gone  over. 

Is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  (Reading:) 

I said  to  him  that  I could  not  advise  him  except  upon  my  own  experience  in  previous 
campaigns;  that  I thought  he  might  pay  money  to  certain  people,  as  other  politicians 
were  credited  with  having  done,  and  get  no  results;  that  my  method  would  be  to  put 
a little  money  into  each  town,  and  get  some  active  individual. 

Did  you  have  that  conversation  with  him  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Something  to  that  effect;  yes,  sir. 


LEVI  H.  BANCROFT. 


705 


The  Chairman.  You  are  further  reported  to  have  said: 

I explained  to  him  that  ours  was  a large  dairy  county,  and  there  was  every  indica- 
tion that  Mr.  Cook  would  carry  it;  that  he  was  very  friendly  with  the  dairy  people, 
and  that  every  cheese  factory  and  creamery  was  a little  meeting  place  for  the  farmers 
in  the  morning,  and  they  were  placarded  with  Cook’s  pictures,  etc. 

Did  you  say  that  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Something  to  that  effect;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  say  it  ? I ask  because  this  is  the  report 
of  your  testimony  as  published. 

Mr.  Bancroft.  In  substance,  yes.  I would  not  say  that  those 
were  the  exact  words.  I did  not  say  at  that  time  that  those  were  the 
exact  words. 

The  Chairman.  I am  now  referring  to  the  exact  words  of  your 
testimony  as  reported  by  the  stenographer.  Is  it  correctly  reported  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Let  it  go  that  way;  we  will  call  it  correct,  because 
in  substance  that  is  what  I said. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  further  reported  to  have  said: 

I said  to  him  that  my  idea  would  be  to  get  some  active  young  fellow  or  influential 
man  in  each  township  or  precinct  in  the  county  who  would  make  it  his  business 
to  be  at  the  factories  and  talk  for  Stephenson,  find  out  who  Mr.  Stephenson’s  friends 
were,  and  on  the  day  of  election  to  have  an  agreement  with  him  to  take  his  team,  if 
necessary  two  teams,  and  take  the  voters  to  the  polls. 

Did  you  make  that  statement  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Yes,  sir — in  substance,  yes. 

The  Chairman  (reading) : 

That  it  was  a country  district,  and  the  polls  were  a long  distance  from  some  of  their 
homes,  and  one  thing  that  concerned  us  people  in  the  country  was  to  get  people  who 
to  the  primary  at  all. 

That  may  be  a misprint  or  a little  incorrect  expression;  but  I want 
to  follow  the  language  as  it  is  reported. 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Certainly. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  This  is  a literal  report. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  the  briefest  way  to  get  it  into  this  record. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  but  it  is  obvious  right  there  that  if  that  is 
a literal  statement,  it  is  an  absurdity.  It  shows  the  stenographer 
was  not  up  to  his  job. 

The  Chairman  (reading) : 

One  thing  that  concerned  us  people  in  the  country  was  to  get  people  who  to  the  pri- 
mary at  all,  and  unless  they  were  induced  to  go,  and  a team  taken,  the  probabilities 
were  there  would  be  a light  vote.  This  was  the  substance  of  our  talk. 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  make  that  statement? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman  (reading) : 

Mr.  Puelicher  wanted  to  know  what  I thought  about  it.  I told  him  there  were 
about  25  precincts,  23,  I think,  in  Richland  County,  and  I thought  there  should  be  at 
least  $10  to  a precinct. 

Did  you  make  that  statement  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I do  not  think  I did.  I told  him  that  I thought 
$10  would  be  all-sufficient  for  each  precinct. 

The  Chairman.  This  purports  to  be  a stenographic  report  of  your 
testimony. 

Mr.  Bancroft.  It  purports  to  be  what  in  substance  I told  him,  as 
I say  there.  I presume  the  stenographer  has  down  what  I said ; but 
15235°— vol  1—11 45 


706 


LEVI  H.  BAN  CROFT. 


I am  positive  that  I never  told  Mr.  Puelicher  that  there  should  be  at 
least  $10  to  a precinct.  I know  that  I told  him  I did  not  see  any 
occasion  for  more  than  $10  to  a precinct. 

The  Chairman.  Then  you  question  the  accuracy  of  this  report  of 
your  statement,  do  you? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I do  not,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  How  do  you  explain  that  in  connection  with  your 
present  statement  that  you  did  not  make  the  statement  which  I have 
just  read  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I do  not  say  that  I did  not  make  that  statement  at 
the  time  I testified.  I say  that  I do  not  think  I made  that  statement 
to  Mr.  Puelicher.  That  was  a sort  of  slip  of  the  tongue  there. 

The  Chairman.  You  think  you  were  mistaken  at  that  time? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I do. 

The  Chairman.  I will  read  further: 

My  experience  was  that  these  men  did  not  want  to  do  the  work  without  having 
some  compensation. 

Did  you  make  that  statement? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman  (reading): 

I am  still  of  that  opinion. 

Did  you  say  that  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I think  I did. 

The  Chairman  (reading) : 

Mr.  Puelicher  estimated  that  $250,  then,  would  cover  my  proposition  of  putting  $10 
in  a precinct,  and  he  asked  me  if  I would  take  charge  of  it. 

Is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman  “(reading) : 

I expressed  some  reluctance  about  having  anything  to  do  with  the  management  of 
the  campaign,  because  when  I manage  anything  I like  to  take  an  active,  open  interest, 
and  in  this  case  I could  not. 

Did  you  make  that  statement  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman  (reading) : 

Mr.  Puelicher  expressly  stated  to  me  that  he  wanted  it  distinctly  understood  that 
not  one  dollar  of  this  was  being  contributed  to  my  personal  campaign. 

Is  that  true  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  That  is  correct. 

The  Chairman  (reading) : 

That  it  was  to  be  used  expressly  in  the  interests  of  Senator  Stephenson,  and  I so 
understood  it,  before  he  expressed  himself  that  way;  but  he  did  give  expression  to 
that,  fully. 

Is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  That  is  correct. 

The  Chairman  (reading) : 

The  result  of  our  conference  was  that  I,  being  pretty  well  acquainted  with  the  county 
and  knowing  who  the  political  workers  were  in  the  county,  consented  to  disburse  this 
amount  of  money  for  Mr.  Stephenson. 

Is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  That  is  correct. 


LEVI  H.  BANCROFT. 


707 


The  Chairman  (reading) : 

And  Mr.  Puelicher  paid  me  $250  in  cash.  I took  that  money  to  Richland  Center. 

Is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  That  is  correct. 

The  Chairman.  I will  commence  reading  now  on  page  716,  near 
the  top  of  the  page: 

Senator  Stephenson’s  money  was  disbursed,  most  of  it  in  larger  amounts,  to  people 
who  were  instructed  to  see  certain  men  in  the  towns,  or  if  I didn’t  know  the  man  that 
I thought  would  be  a good  worker,  for  them  to  go  there  and  find  a man  who  would  do 
this  work. 

Did  you  so  testify  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I think  I did. 

The  Chairman  (reading) : 

Would  agree  to  look  after  Senator  Stephenson’s  interests  and  agree  to  assist  in  get- 
ting the  voters  to  the  polls,  and  I personally  know  of  one  or  two  instances  where  men 
were  got  to  aid  the  work  who  were  opposed  to  me. 

Did  you  so  testify  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I think  I did;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield: 

But  were  Stephenson  men. 

The  Chairman.  Yes,  I am  going  to  read  that  (reading): 

But  were  Stephenson  men. 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman  (reading) : 

I personally  disbursed  some  of  it  in  the  same  way  myself,  part  of  it  in  the  town  of 
Bear  Creek,  in  Sauk  County,  Wis. 

Did  you  so  testify  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I think  I did. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  so  testify  now? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  That  is  correct;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman  (reading) : 

Also  some  individuals  in  the  town  of  Liberty,  Vernon  County,  Wis. 

Is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman  (reading) : 

I also  saw  several  individuals  from  the  town  of  Clyde,  in  Iowa  County,  Wis. 

Is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman  (reading) : 

Every  dollar  of  this  $250  was  disbursed  by  me,  and  a considerable  more  in  bills  that 
I had  to  pay  afterwards. 

Is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  That  is  correct. 

The  Chairman.  Are  we  to  understand  by  that  that  you  paid  or 
contributed  of  your  own  money  a sum  of  money  in  addition  to  the 
$250  for  the  support  of  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I did,  in  this  way,  if  you  will  permit  me  to  answer 

the  question  fully 

The  Chairman.  Certainly;  go  ahead. 


708 


LEVI  H.  BANCROFT. 


Mr.  Bancroft.  Most  of  this  money  that  I disbursed  was  for  per 
diem  and  livery  hire  in  posting  up  Stephenson  literature,  and  in  con- 
nection with  that  I had  said  to  some  of  these  people — 

Now,  get  all  the  boys  you  can  out  to  the  polls  on  primary  day. 

When  I got  through  some  of  them  came  around  to  me  after  the 
primary  was  over  and  felt  that  I ought  to  pay  them  for  their  services, 
and  there  were  one  or  two  livery  bills  that  came  in  after  the  $250  was 
gone.  I asked  no  questions,  but  paid  the  bills. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  here  that  you  expended  about  $100 
in  that  way  in  excess  of  the  amount  you  received  from  Senator 
Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I do  not  think  I spent  that  much  money.  I think 
that  appears  in  my  testimony,  but  I was  mistaken  there.  I do  not 
think  I spent  that  much.  I do  not  think  I spent  to  exceed  $25. 

The  Chairman.  The  testimony  here  is  as  follows:  You  are  spealdng 
of  the  $250: 

That  all  of  it  has  been  disbursed,  and  at  least  $100  besides  out  of  my  own  pocket. 

You  think  that  amount  is  more  than  you  expended,  do  you  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I spent  more  than  $100,  but  I did  not  spend  it  in 
that  primary.  That  is  what  I had  in  mind  at  that  time.  I spent 
about  $25,  somewhere  from  $15  to  $25,  in  paying  livery  bills,  etc., 
after  the  primary.  But  that  was  not  all  the  money  I ever  spent  in 
politics,  nor  all  that  I ever  spent  in  Mr.  Stephenson’s  interest. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  keep  an  account  of  the  expenditures  made 
on  behalf  of  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  make  any  memorandum  at  the  time  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  No  memorandum,  no  sir;  except  to  charge  my 
memory  with  it  as  an  incident. 

The  Chairman.  How  did  you  know  when  the  Stephenson  fund  was 
exhausted  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Because  this  money  was  laid  in  a separate  compart- 
ment in  my  safe,  and  that  specific  money  was  paid  out  in  paying  these 
bills. 

The  Chairman.  When  you  took  it  out  of  the  safe,  did  you  not  put 
in  some  slip  showing  that  you  had  taken  out  that  much  money  and 
showing  what  you  had  done  with  it  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Certainly  not.  I was  very  glad  to  get  rid  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  made  no  memorandum  that  would  advise 
you  as  to  when  you  had  spent  all  of  the  Stephenson  money;  you  only 
knew  that  you  had  spent  it  by  the  drawer  being  empty  ? Is  that  it  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  That  is  what  I knew;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  relied  upon  your  recollection  of  your  act  in 
paying  it  out  in  determining  that  it  was  spent  for  Stephenson  and 
not  for  yourself,  did  you  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Upon  my  memory;  yes.  I did  not  charge  myself 
with  anything  except  to  pay  what  I had  agreed  to  do.  I agreed  to 
do  certain  specific  work,  and  I did  it.  I did  it  as  quickly  and  as  expe- 
ditiously as  I could.  When  the  money  was  gone,  I was  very  glad  to 
be  relieved  of  any  further  responsibility  in  that  connection. 

The  Chairman.  How  long  did  you  have  the  Stephenson  money,  or 
any  part  of  it,  in  your  possession  ? 


LEVI  H.  BANCROFT. 


709 


Mr.  Bancroft.  It  was  all  disbursed  in  the  month  of  August,  some 
time  before  the  primary;  I should  say  within  two  or  three  weeks — 
four  weeks,  at  least.  It  was  all  done  before  the  prima]y,  which  was 
the  first  Tuesday  in  September.  I am  somewhat  of  a novice  at 
spending  money,  Senator.  That  is  the  only  money  that  belonged 
to  anybody  else  that  I ever  disbursed  in  a political  campaign,  and 
I think  it  will  be  the  last.  I am  not  ambitious  in  that  direction. 

The  Chairman.  The  record  shows  that  you  received  it  on  the  31st 
of  July. 

Mr.  Bancroft.  The  31st  of  July. 

The  Chairman.  In  a single  payment? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  A single  payment. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  pay  out  the  last  of  that  money  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I could  not  tell  you,  Senator;  some  time  during 
the  month  of  August. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  travel  from  your  home  or  place  of  business 
to  any  other  point  in  connection  with  the  expenditure  of  this  money 
for  Mr.  Stephenson,  or  on  his  account  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  No. 

The  Chairman.  How  did  you  bring  yourself  in  contact  with  those 
with  whom  you  made  arrangements  to  handle  or  expend  this  money  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  It  was  all  paid  out  in  the  city  of  Richland  Center. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  send  for  people  to  come  to  you  in  con- 
nection with  this  matter  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I did. 

The  Chairman.  And  they  came  to  your  office  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Some  of  them  did;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  said  you  did  not  travel  away  from  your  office 
in  connection  with  this  matter? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I did  not.  I may  have  traveled  a block.  I think 
one  payment  was  made  by  me,  that  was  made  in  my  office,  but  I think 
I spoke  to  the  gentleman  outside,  and  went  to  the  office  to  get  it. 

The  Chairman.  Was  all  of  the  money  delivered  in  your  office? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  To  the  best  of  my  recollection  it  was. 

The  Chairman.  With  how  many  people  did  you  make  arrange- 
ments ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Not  to  exceed  somewhere  from  6 to  10. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  name  them? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Yes,  most  of  them. 

The  Chairman.  Give  us  the  names  of  the  people  and  the  amounts 
you  gave  them. 

Mr.  Bancroft.  George  Mehaffy  I paid  $100. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  he  to  do  for  that  $100? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I gave  him  no  instructions  whatever. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  is  his  address  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Richland  Center. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  he  do  with  the  money? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I could  not  tell  you. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ask  him  to  render  you  an  account  of  the 
manner  of  its  expenditure  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  ever  tell  you  how  he  expended  the  money  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  He  did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Then  you  never  knew? 


710 


LEVI  H.  BANCROFT. 


Mr.  Bancroft.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  know? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I never  knew. 

The  Chairman.  Give  us  the  name  of  the  next  man. 

Mr.  Bancroft.  George  Francisco. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  his  business  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  He  was  a traveling  salesman  or  expert  in  farm 
machinery. 

The  Chairman.  WTiere  does  he  reside  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I do  not  know,  certainly.  He  resided  at  that 
time  in  Richland  Center.  I think  he  resides  now  in  Beloit.  The  last 
I knew  of  him  he  lived  in  Beloit. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  give  him  the  money  in  cash? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I did. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I paid  him  on  several  different  occasions.  His  sole 
business  was  traveling  around  and  putting  out  literature  and  seeing 
people,  and  I paid  the  livery  bills,  and  paid  him  for  his  services. 

The  Chairman.  What  literature  did  he  put  out  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  ask  him  the  amount  that  he  gave  to 
this  man  ? 

The  Chairman.  You  may  state  the  amount  that  you  gave  him. . 

Mr.  Bancroft.  To  the  best  of  my  judgment  I must  have  paid 
him  $50;  from  $40  to  $50. 

The  Chairman.  What  literature  did  he  put  out  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  He  put  out  several  buggy  loads  of  Stephenson 
lithographs,  and  the  placards  that  they  were  sending  out.  They 
had  a long,  triangular,  banner -shaped  advertisement,  with  the 
Senator’s  picture  on  the  top  and  some  advertisement  below.  . Then 
they  had  some  large  lithographs  of  the  Senator,  nearly  life-size.  I 
must  have  received  several  thousand  of  that  kind  of  things.  Buggy 
load  after  buggy  load  went  out,  and  they  were  instructed  to  nail 
them  up  in  every  available  place — on  all  the  railroads,  crossroads, 
cheese  factories,  creameries,  etc.,  in  the  county. 

The  Chairman.  Name  the  next  man. 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Thomas  Maxwell. 

The  Chairman.  Who  is  he  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  He,  at  that  time,  was  living  in  Richland  Center, 
and  employed  in  a newspaper  office. 

The  Chairman.  In  the  office  of  what  paper? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  The  Republican  Observer,  for  a time.  He  was  a 
sort  of  a general  man  and  worked  at  various  things.  I think  he 
worked  for  the  telephone  company  there  for  awhile. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  did  you  give  him  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I paid  him  on  several  different  occasions,  because 
he  was  sent  in  various  directions.  I might  say  to  you  that,,  at  that 
time  of  the  year,  I recall  a home  coming,  so  called,  at  the  village  of 
Cazenovia,  in  the  northeastern  part  of  the  county,  which  extended 
over  a period  of  three  days,  in  which  there  were  several  thousand 
people  there  from  Richmond,  Sauk,  and 

The  Chairman.  A home-coming  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  It  was  so  advertised — as  a home-coming. 

The  Chairman.  A home-coming  of  whom — who  was  coming  home  ? 


LEVI  H.  BANCROFT. 


711 


Mr.  Bancroft.  I could  not  tell  you,  Senator.  I suppose  the 
people  who  formerly  resided  in  Cazenovia.  I do  not  know  what  it 
was,  exactly — a picnic  and  advertisement. 

The  Chairman.  Were  they  electors  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Certainly. 

The  Chairman.  You  sent  him  there  for  what  purpose  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I sent  two  fellows  there. 

The  Chairman.  Who  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Francisco  was  there,  I think,  and  I think  Tom 
Maxwell  was  there. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  did  you  give  Maxwell  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I paid  him  at  one  time  a $20  bill,  and  at  another 
time  the  same  amount;  at  least  $40,  and  I think  there  were  some 
other  sums  paid  to  him. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  did  you  pay  Francisco  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Forty  to  fifty  dollars.  Understand  me,  I 'may 
not  have  paid  all  of  that  to  Francisco,  but  part  of  it  may  have  been 
for  his  livery  bill — paid  to  the  livery  people  in  Richland  Center. 

The  Chairman.  What  were  those  men  sent  to  do  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  They  were  sent  out  to  put  up  these  advertise- 
ments; to  nail  up  these  pictures.  I gave  them  no  general  instruc- 
tions. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  tell  them  that  Senator  Stephenson  was 
furnishing  you  with  the  money  to  have  them  do  this  work  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  No. 

The  Chairman.  Did  they  think  that  you  were  furnishing  this 
money  yourself  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I do  not  know  what  they  thought,  Senator. 

The  Chairman.  So  far  as  anything  that  you  said  to  them  was  con- 
cerned they  may  have  thought  that  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I told  them  that  I wanted  them  to  do  this  for  Sena- 
tor Stephenson;  that  they  were  to  carry  out  this  Stephenson  stuff. 
My  office  was  burdened  with  it,  and  every  time  I got  a batch  of  it  I 
sent  somebody  out  to  nail  it  up,  and  paid  him  for  it. 

The  Chairman.  Did  they  know  that  Senator  Stephenson  was 
employing  you  to  do  this  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I never  told  them.  I did  not  consider  it  any  of 
their  business. 

The  Chairman.  Were  these  men  friends  of  yours  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  They  were. 

The  Chairman.  And  that  is  the  reason  you  selected  them,  was  it 
not  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  No;  they  were  not  particular  friends  of  mine;  no. 
One  of  them,  Maxwell,  was  recommended  to  me  by  some  other  parties 
in  town.  I asked  them  who  would  be  a good  man  to  send  out  to  nail 
up  some  Stephenson  literature,  and  a friend  of  his,  Mr.  Minor,  told  me 
that  Tom  Maxwell  was  not  working,  and  that  he  would  be  glad  of  a 
job.  I sent  Tom  to  Cazenovia  and  Blue  River,  and  to  the  town  of 
Bloom,  at  a Modern  Woodmen’s  picnic.  I sent  out  this  advertising 
matter  to  these  various  picnics,  and  so  on. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  seem  rather  glad  to  have  this  opportunity 
to  earn  some  money  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Yes,  sir;  he  did. 


712 


LEVI  H.  BANCROFT. 


The  Chairman.  Was  he  under  the  impression  that  you  were  giving 
him  the  opportunity  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I do  not  know  what  impression  he  may  have  had 
about  it.  I asked  him  if  he  wanted  a job,  and  told  him  what  I wanted 
him  to  do.  Then  I paid  him  for  his  time,  and  his  livery  bills. 

The  Chairman.  When  was  this  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  That  was  some  time  in  August. 

The  Chairman.  It  was  after  your  nomination  papers  were  filed  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I think  it  was;  yes. 

The  Chairman.  Did  Tom  Maxwell  know  that  you  were  a candidate 
for  the  legislature  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I do  not  know  whether  he  did  or  not.  He  did  not 
have  any  literature  for  me,  because  I never  had  any. 

The  Chairman.  Who  was  the  man  that  recommended  Tom  Max- 
well to  you  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  G.  L.  Minor. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  know  that  you  were  a candidate  for  the 
legislature  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I presume  he  did.  I do  not  know  anything  about 
it.  He  is  a man  of  ordinary  common  sense,  and  I suppose  he  did 
know  it. 

The  Chairman.  Had  you  ever  been  in  the  legislature  before  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I have  been  there  two  terms. 

The  Chairman.  Once  immediately  preceding  this  term  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  One  term  preceding  this  term. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  the  sitting  member  at  this  time  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  During  this  campaign? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Give  us  the  name  of  another  man  to  whom  you 
gave  money. 

Mr.  Bancroft.  L.  C.  Wood  was  another. 

The  Chairman.  Who  was  he  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  He  was  a young  man  around  town  there,  and  did 
the  same  land  of  work.  He  is  the  one  who  placarded  the  city  of 
Richland  Center  and  some  of  the  adjoining  towns — Lone  Rock,  and 
so  on. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  know  that  Senator  Stephenson  was  fur- 
nishing the  money  to  pay  him  for  his  services  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I do  not  think  he  did.  At  least  I did  not  tell  him. 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  under  the  impression  that  he  thought  you 
were  doing  it  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I did  not  carry  on  any  very  lengthy  conversation 
with  any  of  my  hired  men.  I never  have.  I employed  them  to  do 
this  work,  and  I did  not  tell  them  anything  except  wkiat  to  do. 

The  Chairman.  Were  they  electors  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I think  they  were. 

The  Chairman.  And  of  that  legislative  district  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I do  not  know  whether  Tom  Maxwell  was  of  age  or 
not.  I think  the  others  were. 

The  Chairman.  Did  those  men  support  your  nomination? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I do  not  know  whether  they  did  or  not. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  examine  your  nomination  papers  to  see 
whether  or  not  their  names  were  on  those  papers  ? 


LEVI  H.  BANCROFT. 


713 


Mr.  Bancroft.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  did  you  give  that  last  man? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Wood?  I probably  paid  him  $10  or  $15,  maybe 
$20.  He  made  three  or  four  trips  and  placarded  the  village  of  Lone 
Rock,  the  village  of  Gotham,  the  village  of  Twin  Bluffs,  and  the  city 
of  Richland  Center. 

The  Chairman.  Whom  else  did  you  employ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I do  not  know  that  I can  give  you  the  names  of 
any  others,  Senator. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  think  that  was  all  of  them  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I think  that  is  all  that  I specifically  employed. 

The  Chairman.  Do  I understand  you  correctly  to  say  that  you 
did  not  tell  any  of  these  men  that  Senator  Stephenson  was  furnishing 
any  of  this  money  that  you  paid  out  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I do  not  think  I did. 

The  Chairman.  And  that,  so  far  as  you  knew,  they  were  under  the 
impression  that  you  furnished  them  the  money? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I do  not  know  anything  about  that. 

The  Chairman.  You  paid  them? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I would  be  inclined  to  think  that  if  they  had  any 
impression,  it  was  that  Senator  Stephenson  was  furnishing  the 
money. 

The  Chairman.  Where  would  you  get  that  impression  ? What  did 
you  say  to  them  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  From  the  fact  that  I never  used  any  money  in  a 
political  campaign,  and  never  had  employed  anybody  for  that  pur- 
pose, and  the  general  impression  that  Senator  Stephenson's  money 
was  in  circulation. 

The  Chairman.  How  would  these  men,  if,  as  you  say,  they  were 
not  acquainted  with  you,  or  you  were  not  acquainted  with  them  until 
you  sent  for  them,  or 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I did  not  say  that.  I was  acquainted  with  all  of 
these  men. 

The  Chairman.  I understood  you  to  say  that  one  was  recom- 
mended to  you,  and  that  you  had  no  previous  acquaintance  'with  him  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I knew  him,  but  you  were  then  asking  me  whether 
or  not  these  men  were  friends  of  mine  and  if  I went  out  and  em- 
ployed them;  and  I told  you  that  one  of  them  was  recommended  to 
me.  I knew  him,  but  he  was  not  a friend ; he  was  a mere  acquaintance. 
That  is  true  of  all  of  them.  They  were  not  friends. 

The  Chairman.  You  were  elected  to  the  legislature,  were  you  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I was. 

The  Chairman.  You  sent  a telegram,  did  you  not,  announcing 
the  fact  that  you  had  been  elected,  when  the  result  was  known  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Not  that  I am  aware  of.  Possibly  I did.  To  the 
best  of  my  recollection  I did  not;  unless  somebody  inquired  of  me. 
I have  no  recollection  of  sending  any  telegram  of  my  own  volition 
announcing  my  election. 

The  Chairman.  What  majority  did  you  receive  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  You  mean  at  the  election  or  at  the  primaries? 

The  Chairman.  At  the  primaries. 

Mr.  Bancroft.  At  the  primaries  I carried  the  county  by  between 
three  and  four  hundred. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  not  telegraph  that  fact  to  anybody? 


714 


LEVI  H.  BANCROFT. 


Mr.  Bancroft.  My  vote  was  something  over  1,100,  as  1 recall  it, 
and  that  of  my  nearest  opponent  was  something  over  700. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  is  his  name  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  A.  L.  Hatch.  There  were  four  candidates. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  there  another  candidate? 

Mi*.  Bancroft.  There  were  four  candidates  in  the  field. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Can  you  give  the  figures  for  all  of  them?  Or 
do  you  have  them  in  your  mind  ? 

Air.  Bancroft.  No;  I can  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Who  were  the  others  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I do  not  know  that  I remember.  They  were 
Republican  candidates. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I mean,  for  the  Republican  nomination. 

Mr.  Bancroft.  There  were  two  candidates  for  the  Republican 
nomination — myself  and  A.  L.  Hatch — as  I remember  it,  that  was 
all. 

The  Chairman.  I find  on  page  730  of  the  testimony,  this  question 
was  asked  you : 

Q.  You  said  that  you  were  “approached”  by  agents  for  two  other  senatorial  candi- 
dates. I would  like  to  ask  you  who  they  were? — A.  Taking  the  stand  that  I did  with 
reference  to  the  other  matters  I prefer  not  to  answer  that  question.  The  gentlemen 
will  be  on  the  stand,  and  if  they  want  to  tell  you  they  are  at  liberty  to  do  so,  but  I 
prefer  not  to  answer.  That  is  the  truth,  however,  that  I was  asked  if  I couldn’t  do 
some  work — “approached” — it  was  a mere  nothing.  The  manager,  in  each  instance, 
asked  me  if  I would  be  willing  to  do  some  work  for  his  candidate  in  Richland  County. 
I told  him  that  I could  not;  that  I was  for  Stephenson. 

Did  you  so  testify  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I did;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  The  chairman  then  asked: 

You  mean  the  candidate  himself  approached  you? 

And  you  answered: 

No.  One  of  his  managers. 

Mr.  Hambrecht  then  asks: 

Q.  Now,  to  get  back  to  the  question  where  you  were  interrupted  by  Senator  Husting, 
that  you  could  explain  why  you  thought  $250  was  sufficient.  I would  like  to  have 
you  explain  why  you  thought  so.  You  said  that  if  we  wanted  the  answer  we  could 
explain. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  probably  should  be,  “you  could  explain.” 

The  Chairman  (continuing  reading) : 

A.  Because  my  experience  has  been  that  you  can  get  a man  to  do  conscientious 
work  for  a moderate  compensation,  and  that  the  payment  of  any  more  than  that  will 
give  you  poorer  work  than  if  you  pay  him  what  his  services  are  worth.  My  actual 
experience  has  been  in  politics  that  the  men  who  get  large  sums  of  money  produce 
less  results;  that  is,  in  a species  of  graft,  and  that  if  it  is  paid  legitimately  for  work, 
you  get  the  work. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  say  that  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I think  I did. 

The  Chairman.  Senator  Husting  then  said: 

I want  to  ask  you:  Who  were  these  men  to  whom  you  paid  the  $10  apiece?  And 
your  answer  is:  “I  would  prefer  not  to  answer.” 

Did  you  make  that  reply  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I think  I did;  although  the  question  was  not  a 
pertinent  one,  because  I did  not  pay  anybody  $10  apiece. 


LEVI  H.  BANCROFT. 


715 


The  Chairman.  The  record  then  shows  that  a motion  was  made 
and  submitted  to  the  committee  as  to  whether  you  should  be  com- 
pelled to  answer  it,  and  it  was  voted  that  you  be  compelled  to  answer 
the  question. 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  The  chairman  says: 

The  substance  of  the  question  is,  whether  the  witness  should  be  required  to  tell  to 
whom  he  paid  this  money. 

Then  a controversy  follows  between  members  of  the  committee, 
which  it  is  not  necessary  to  read  in  here,  and  a vote  was  taken  as  to 
whether  or  not  you  should  be  compelled  to  answer. 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman  (reading) : 

The  Witness.  I will  answer  the  question  this  far:  By  saying  I couldn’t  tell  you  all 
the  money  I disbursed,  if  I tried,  because  I kept  no  account.  I could  tell  you  the 
names,  perhaps,  of  some  individuals  that  I paid  money  to;  several  of  them;  quite  a 
number  of  them;  not  all  of  them;  but  those  individuals  I shall  decline  to  tell  you, 
no  matter  what  your  motion  is.  I have  given  you  my  answer. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  From  what  page  are  you  reading,  Mr.  Chairman  ? 

The  Chairman.  From  page  732. 

Did  you  make  that  statement,  Mr.  Bancroft  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I think  I did. 

The  Chairman.  The  chairman  then  again  puts  the  motion,  as  to 
whether  you  should  be  compelled  to  answer. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  question  had  not  been  put  up  to  that  time. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  not  necessary  to  put  that  controversy  into 
the  record  here. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  This  is  the  first  time  the  motion  was  put. 

The  Chairman.  Again,  when  it  is  voted  that  you  shall  answer  the 
question,  this  is  reported  to  have  occurred: 

The  Chairman.  The  vote  stands  five  ayes  and  three  noes.  The  motion  is  carried, 
and  the  witness  is  requested  to  answer. 

Witness.  The  witness  will  decline  to  answer,  on  the  ground  that  I am  a privileged 
witness,  and  I will  not  disclose  it  until  I have  an  opportunity  to  know  whether  the 
parties  are  willing  to  have  their  names  given  or  not. 

Did  you  make  that  statement  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I did. 

The  Chairman.  If  this  money  was  paid  out  as  you  have  now 
stated,  for  the  purposes  as  you  have  now  stated  them,  what  objection 
could  there  possibly  have  been  to  your  stating,  as  you  have  to-day, 
the  names  of  the  persons  to  whom  you  paid  the  money  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  None,  except  personal  objection. 

The  Chairman.  Why  should  persons  who  performed  perfectly 
legitimate  service  in  a campaign  object  to  your  telling  that  you  had 
employed  them  to  perform  those  services  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  They  never  did  object. 

The  Chairman.  Then  why  did  you  withhold  from  the  committee 
on  that  occasion  the  statement  that  vou  freely  give  to  this  committee 
now? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I said  there  was  no  reason  for  it,  except  a personal 
reason. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  the  personal  reason  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  The  personal  reason  was  that  I did  not  propose  to 
answer  any  of  Senator  Husting’s  or  Senator  Marsh’s  questions  unless 
I took  a notion  to. 


716 


LEVI  H.  BANCROFT. 


The  Chairman.  Then  it  was  a question  of  feeling  between  you  and 
members  of  the  committee  who  were  questioning  you  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  There  was  not  anything  else. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  the  only  reason  that  you  refused  to 
answer  the  questions  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  That  was  the  only  reason;  and  if  they  asked  them 
now  they  would  not  be  answered. 

The  Chairman.  You  were  asked  by  Senator  Husting,  on  page  733: 

Did  you  ever  make  a report,  either  orally  or  otherwise,  to  Mr.  Puelicher,  or  anyone 
else  in  charge  of  Mr.  Stephenson's  campaign,  as  to  what  was  done  with  this  money, 
and  to  whom  paid? 

And  you  answered:  “I  did  not.”  That  is  correct,  is  it? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  That  is  correct.  I did  not.  The  only  reason  I 
did  not  was  because  I never  was  asked  to. 

The  Chairman.  You  state,  in  answer  to  the  question  “Were  you 
ever  requested  to  make  any,”  “I  never  was.” 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  carry  any  of  Senator  Stephenson’s 
money,  of  the  amount  which  he  gave  you,  on  your  person  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I never  did,  except  to  carry  it  to  Richland  Center. 
I did  not  have  any  campaign  pocket  myself. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  not  have  two  pockets  ? As  a member  of 
the  legislature,  you  were  elected  speaker  of  the  house,  were  you  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I was. 

The  Chairman.  Was  there  a contest  over  the  speakership? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Somewhat.  The  usual  contest. 

The  Chairman.  Who  were  your  opponents  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  M.  J.  Cleary 

The  Chairman.  I mean  among  the  Republicans. 

Senator  Pomerene.  The  Democrats  did  not  count. 

The  Chairman.  In  the  caucus. 

Senator  Pomerene.  There  was  no  real  opposition  on  the  other  side, 
I suppose. 

Mr.  Bancroft.  There  were  some  half  a dozen  candidates  up  to 
about  the  night  of  the  Republican  caucus,  and  at  that  time  I think 
they  all  withdrew,  with  the  exception  of  George  Scott. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  what  I was  after. 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Then,  before  the  caucus,  you  and  Scott  were  can- 
didates ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  We  were. 

The  Chairman.  It  was  between  you  two  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  were  elected  in  the  caucus? 

Air.  Bancroft.  I was. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Nominated.  He  could  not  be  elected  in  the 
caucus. 

The  Chairman.  Speaking  from  the  standpoint  of  a caucus,  we  use 
the  term  “elected.”  That  is  the  only  result  of  a caucus. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Perhaps,  inasmuch  as  we  are  really  investigat- 
ing a primary,  which  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  election,  I may  con- 
cede that. 


LEVI  H.  BANCROFT. 


717 


The  Chairman.  I think  I will  not  correct  that  word.  The  caucus 
elected  you  as  the  candidate  for  speaker  to  be  voted  for  in  the  open 
session,  and  you  were  elected  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  As  a Republican  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  continued  to  act  as  speaker  throughout  the 
proceedings  for  the  election  of  a United  States  Senator,  did  you 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I did. 

The  Chairman  (continuing).  Throughout  the  proceedings  as  a 
result  of  which  Senator  Stephenson  was  elected  to  the  United  States 
Senate  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  vote  for  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I did. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  vote  for  him  on  every  ballot  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I did.  Both  in  1907  and  1909. 

Senator  Sutherland.  When  you  paid  $100  to  MehafFy,  what  was 
he  to  do  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I stated  that  I gave  him  no  instructions.  1 told 
him  I had  some  Stephenson  money,  and  that  if  he  could  do  anything 
for  Mr.  Stephenson  to  take  it  aiul  use  it. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  have  no  understanding  with  him  as 
to  what  he  was  to  do  with  it  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Not  the  slightest. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  gave  him  the  hundred  dollars  to  go 
out  and  spend  it,  in  effect,  in  Stephenson’s  interest  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  That  is  the  fact.  But  I can  give  my  reasons. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I would  like  to  have  them. 

Mr.  Bancroft.  The  reasons  are  that  he  was  a personal  friend  of 
mine,  and  had  done  political  work  disinterestedly  for  me  a great 
many  times,  and  knew  a great  deal  more  about  how  to  do  those 
things  than  I did.  That  is,  how  to  approach  people  and  talk  to 
them,  and  so  on;  and  I had  very  great  confidence  that  he  could  do 
it  better  than  I could,  so  far  as  the  matter  of  seeing  people  in  certain 
parts  of  the  country  was  concerned,  where  he  was  more  thoroughly 
acquainted  than  I was.  So  that  I just  gave  it  to  him  with  the  general 
statement  that  I had  some  Stephenson  money;  that  I wanted  to  get 
rid  of  it,  and  for  him  to  take  it  and  do  what  he  could  for  Senator 
Stephenson. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Was  it  your  idea  that  the  money  was  to  be 
for  his  services,  or  was  he  to  spend  it  on  other  people  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  He  was  not  the  kind  of  a man  who  would  accept  a 
dollar  from  anybody  for  his  service. 

Senator  Sutherland.  He  was  to  spend  it? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  He  was  a wealthy  man  himself.  He  was  merely 
a personal  friend,  and  he  knew  how  to  do  political  work;  at  least,  I 
supposed  so.  He  had  always  gotten  results;  but  his  work  was  hon- 
orable and  square,  whatever  it  was. 

Senator  Sutherland.  He  was  a man  you  knew  well? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  A man  of  high  character? 


718 


LEVI  H.  BANCROFT. 


Mr.  Bancroft.  He  was.  He  was  a man  I would  trust  with 
every  dollar  that  I had  in  the  world,  for  that  matter,  because  he  was 
a square  fellow. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  were  present  at  the  time  Senator 
Stephenson  was  elected  at  the  joint  session  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I was. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  you  remember  that  three  Democrats 
were  absent  at  the  time? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I did  not  know  it  at  the  time,  and  took  no  notice 
of  it. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  learned  it  afterwards? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I heard  somebody  talk  about  it  afterwards. 

Senator  Sutherland.  It  did  not  attract  your  attention  at  the  time  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  No.  That  was  a frequent  occurrence.  There 
were  many  times  when  certain  people  were  absent,  sometimes  one 
member  and  sometimes  two  members.  It  finally  happened  that 
there  was  a day  when  there  was  enough  of  Stephenson’s  friends  there 
and  enough  absentees,  and  he  got  a majority.  That  would  have 
happened  a dozen  times  before,  if  all  the  Stephenson  men  had  been 
there. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I am  calling  your  attention  to  this  particu- 
lar circumstance  because  there  is  something  in  the  record  about  it,  and 
I want  to  know  what  you  can  tell  us  about  it,  if  anything. 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Certainly.  I do  not  know  a thing  about  it  except 
that,  in  a general  way,  this  is  true:  There  were  very  few  ballots 
taken  when  there  were  not  some  absentees.  There  were  a number 
of  ballots  taken,  when,  if  all  of  Stephenson’s  friends,  that  is,  the  men 
who  were  voting  for  him  consistently,  had  been  present,  he  would 
have  been  elected.  Finally,  there  came  a day  when  there  were  some 
absentees,  and  there  were  enough  Stephenson  men  present  so  that 
he  had  the  majority  and  was  elected.  I took  no  note  of  it  at  the  time, 
and  I know,  or  am  practically  certain,  that  no  one  else  did,  until 
afterwards  the  talk  was  that  there  were  a certain  three  Democrats 
who  were  absent.  Then  there  was  some  talk  as  to  why  they  were 
absent.  That  is  all  rumor,  and  I do  not  know  anything  about  it. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  know  nothing  about  why  they  were 
absent  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Not  the  slightest. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  you  know  of  any  circumstance  that 
would  enable  the  committee  to  find  out  why  they  were  absent  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I do  not. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Or  anything  that  would  put  us  upon  the 
track  of  the  fact? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I do  not.  If  I did,  I would  very  cheerfully  give 
it  to  you;  but  I do  not  know  of  anything  in  connection  with  their 
absence  that  would  throw  the  slightest  light  upon  the  reason  for  their 
absence. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  know  of  no  fact  or  circumstance  that 
would  indicate  the  reason  for  their  absence  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Not  the  slightest.  Some  of  these  men  had  been 
absent  before  many  times.  I am  positive  that  Mr.  Ramsey  was 
absent  and  that  Mr.  Towne  was  absent  a number  of  times,  some- 
times by  express  excuse  from  the  speaker,  during  joint  ballot.  At 


LEVI  H.  BANCROFT.  719 

this  particular  time  three  of  them  were  gone,  and  Senator  Stephenson 
was  elected. 

Senator  Sutherland.  We  are  endeavoring  to  find  out  all  the  facts 
about  this  matter  from  every  witness  who  would  be  likely  to  know 
anything  about  it. 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I understand  that;  and  if  there  were  anything 
within  my  knowledge  that  would  be  of  any  assistance  to  you  I would 
very  gladly  give  it  to  you. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Referring  to  these  three  candidates,  you  say 
there  was  some  talk.  Without  going  into  the  substance  of  that  talk 
did  you  yourself  have  any  talk  with  any  of  these  three  Democrats  on 
this  subject  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Concerning  their  absence? 

Senator  Pomerene.  Yes.  You  have  said  there  were  rumors 
about  it.  Did  you  have  any  talk  with  any  of  them  on  the  subject? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Not  until  long  afterwards.  I was  acquainted 
with  all  three  of  them  and  I 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  have  any  talk  with  anybody  who 
pretended  to  have  talked  with  any  of  them  on  this  subject  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Never.  I think  I referred  to  the  matter  in  a 
joking  way  with  Ramsey  or  Towne  some  time  afterwards  and  said: 
“I  understand  they  are  saying  you  got  your  pay  for  being  absent,” 
and  they  were  somewhat  indignant  and  it  was  turned  off  in  a joke; 
but  that  was  perhaps  a month  or  two — two  or  three  months — after  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  stated  before  the  former  investigating 
committee,  and  repeated  it  here,  that  you  claimed  to  be  a privileged 
witness  and  gave  that  as  a reason  for  declining  to  testify.  What 
did  you  mean  by  “a  privileged  witness”  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Oh,  I did  not  mean  anything,  Senator.  The 
Senator  reads  that,  I see,  as  part  of  my  testimony.  I do  not  recall 
saying  that,  but  undoubtedly  I did,  because  it  appears  there.  But 
I had  nothing  in  mind,  because  I not  only  was  not  privileged,  or  did 
not  care  to  be,  but  I went  there  and  requested  the  privilege  of  testi- 
fying. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  did  not  understand  that  there  was  any 
legal  privilege  that  you  could  have  exercised  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Certainly  not;  and  if  there  had  been  I would  have 
waived  it.  The  truth  is  that  the  only  thing  about  my  connection 
with  this  matter  is  that  I would  like  to  have  everybody  know  what 
the  facts  are.  It  has  been  somewhat  embarrassing  to  me  to  have 
my  name  associated  with  this  matter  as  having  used  money;  but  it 
was  not  used  illegally  or  illegitimately.  I would  like  to  have  every- 
body know  what  I did  with  it.  There  is  nothing  for  me  to  cover  up. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  render  any  account  to  Mr.  Puelicher 
or  to  Mr.  Edmonds,  or  to  Senator  Stephenson,  of  this  amount  of 
money  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I did  not. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Do  you  not  think  that  should  have  been  done  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I will  render  it  now  if  they  want  it.  They  did 
not  ask  me  to  render  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  are  an  attorney,  and  I am  talking  to 
you  as  one  attorney  to  another,  rather  than  as  a witness. 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Certainly. 


720 


LEVI  H.  BANCROFT. 


Senator  Pomerene.  You  understood  that  the  statute  required 
Senator  Stephenson  to  file  an  itemized  statement  of  his  expenditures  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Certainly. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Giving  the  date,  the  person  to  whom  and  the 
purpose  for  which  it  was  expended  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Certainly. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  is,  as  to  all  sums  above  $5.  I think  I 
state  the  law  in  substance. 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  had  expended  this  as  the  agent  for 
Senator  Stephenson’s  manager? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Possibly. 

Senator  Pomerene.  How  would  you  expect  him  or  them  to  ren- 
der any  account  without  your  rendering  an  account? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  The  statute  to  which  you  refer  is  a penal  statute. 
The  matter  of  agency  does  not  enter  into  it  at  all.  If  this  had  been 
a civil  matter  in  which  he  had  paid  me  some  money,  and  I was  to 
account  for  it,  I would  have  been  accountable  as  his  agent;  but  I 
did  not  so  consider  it  in  connection  with  the  primary  election  law. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Do  you  mean  to  say,  giving  this  as  your  legal 
opinion,  that  if  you  were  assisting  him  in  this  campaign  you  are  not 
required  to  furnish  Senator  Stephenson  an  account  of  the  money  you 
have  expended  for  him  and  which  he  has  furnished  to  you  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Your  question  is  a pretty  broad  one.  The  money 
was  not  paid  to  me  for  an  accounting;  it  was  paid  to  me  upon  an 
express  understanding  as  to  what  was  to  be  done  with  it.  I did 
exactly  what  I was  required  to  do  with  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I am  not  questioning  that. 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I would  have  been  perfectly  willing  to  render  an 
account  had  they  asked  for  it;  but  they  never  asned  it.  Consequently, 
I did  not  assume  that  it  was  necessary  to  do  so.  I do  not  understand 
that  any  question  of  agency  entered  into  it,  so  far  as  Senator  Stephen- 
son was  concerned. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  understand  that  the  statute  required 
Senator  Stephenson  to  file  an  account  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Yes,  sir;  not  an  account  of  what  I did  with  his 
money,  but  what  he  did  with  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  If  you  were  expending  it  as  his  agent,  do  you 
not  think  the  law  contemplates  that  he  shall  give  a detailed  account 
of  the  expenditures,  whether  by  him  directly  or  by  you  as  his  agent  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  No,  sir;  I do  not. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Has  there  been  any  adjudication  on  the  sub- 
ject in  this  State  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  There  has  not.  The  law  has  never  been  called  in 
question  in  this  State. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Has  there  been  any  judicial  construction  of 
these  statutes,  so  far  as  you  know  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  There  has  not  in  Wisconsin.  I think,  Senator, 
you  will  look  in  vain  in  that  law  for  anything  which  requires  Senator 
Stephenson’s  agents  to  file  an  expense  account. 

Senator  Pomerene.  If  you  are  asking  me  the  question,  I will 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I am  not.  I say,  I think  you  would  look  in  vain 
for  anything  of  that  kind  in  the  law. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I will  frankly  state  to  you  that  I believe  the 
statute  means  exactly  what  it  says. 


LEVI  H.  BANCROFT. 


721 


Mr.  Bancroft.  So  do  I.  It  does  not  say  that. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  I do  not  think  it  was  drawn  to  be  evaded 
in  that  way.  That  is  my  personal  opinion. 

Mr.  Bancroft.  My  personal  opinion  is  that  it  has  not  been  evaded 
by  me;  and  my  personal  opinion  further  is  that  there  is  nothing  in 
the  law  which  says  that  his  agents  shall  file  an  expense  account.  It 
says  that  he  shall  do  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Then  it  practically  means  nothing  so  far  as 
concerns  the  correction  of  any  evils  of  this  character? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  It  never  corrected  any  evils.  We  never  had  many 
until  we  got  that  law.  Never  was  there  any  money  spent  in  Wis- 
consin, to  my  knowledge,  in  politics,  until  we  got  the  primary.  Since 
that  there  has  not  been  anything  else  done. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  is,  there  has  been  no  public  account  of  it  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  No. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I think  that  is  all. 

Mr.  Bancroft.  A poor  man  could  run  for  office  before  that. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I wish  first  to  read  into  the  record  the  context 
bearing  upon  the  excerpts  that  were  read  to  you  by  the  chairman, 
and  to  inquire  whether  or  not  it  is  your  recollection  that  these  state- 
ments were  made  at  the  same  time.  I will  begin  on  page  713 : 

He  said  that  he  knew,  of  course,  that  money  would  be  necessary  to  perfect  an  organi- 
zation, and  he  wanted  to  advise  with  some  of  Senator  Stephenson’s  friends  with  refer- 
ence to  the  method  and  the  amount,  and  that  he  had  been  requested  to  call  upon  me. 
I wish  to  interject  here  that  the  use  of  money  by  other  people  is  something  that  I never 
indulged  in  before.  I never  spent  a dollar  before,  or  since,  except  my  own,  in  a 
political  campaign.  I did  not  like  the  idea  of  taking  any  part  in  it,  and  told  him  that 
personally  I could  not  take  any  part  in  the  organization  work  for  Senator  Stephenson. 

Do  you  remember  making,  in  substance,  that  statement? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield  (reading) : 

That  I was  a friend  of  his,  and  supporter  of  his,  but  that  there  were  other  candidates 
in  the  field,  and  I was  a candidate  myself,  and  I could  not  antagonize  their  forces; 
that  I preferred  to  remain  inactive.  Upon  the  question  of  organization  I told  him 
what  I thought  would  be  well  to  do,  but  upon  the  amount  of  money  to  be  used,  or  who 
should  use  it,  I preferred  to  say  nothing. 

Do  you  recollect  making,  in  substance,  that  statement  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  say  that  you  were  a friend  of  the  Senator. 
Will  you  state  generally,  please,  of  how  long  standing  that  friendship 
had  been  * 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Ten  or  fifteen  years. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  anything  occur  in  connection  with  this 
primary  in  1908,  resulting  from  your  relations  to  Mr.  Stephenson’s 
campaign  fund,  that  in  any  way  affected  your  relations  to  him  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Not  in  the  slightest.  He  was  considered  a pretty 
reputable  citizen  in  Wisconsin  prior  to  his  election  to  the  United 
States  Senate. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  ^ou  were  then  supporting  him,  were  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Would  you  have  supported  him  if  you  had  not 
received  this  $250  for  disbursements  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I did  not  receive  any  of  it,  and  I had  supported 
him  before,  I think  was  responsible  for  his  election,  and  supported 
him  afterwards. 

15235°— vol  1—11 46 


722 


LEVI  H.  BANCROFT. 


Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is,  you  refer  now  to  1907? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Now,  I will  read  from  page  716: 

I can  conscientiously  say  I was  very  scrupulous  in  the  use  of  that  money.  I did 
not  deposit  a dollar  of  it  to  my  personal  account  in  either  bank. 

Does  that  accord  with  your  recollection  of  your  statement  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield  (reading) : 

My  own  personal  campaign  expenses  were  paid  by  check,  and  this  committee  are 
privileged  to  have  my  checks  and  bank  books  if  they  desire  to  have  them,  of  both 
banks,  during  that  period,  to  verify  the  fact  that  my  campaign  was  paid  for  in  that  way. 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you,  in  substance,  make  that  statement  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Yes,  sir;  I did. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Can  this  subcommittee,  representing  the  United 
States  Senate,  have  the  same  privilege  if  they  want  it  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  They  can ; yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  will  produce  them  if  they  desire? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  If  they  desire  them,  at  any  time.  It  would  not 
be  very  much  of  a show,  because  there  was  only  about  $75  or  $80 
of  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  So  far  as  it  exists,  you  are  willing  that  it  should 
be  seen  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  People  interested  in  high  finance  would  not  find 
much  there  to  interest  them. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Have  you  now  given,  as  nearly  as  you  can,  the 
names  of  the  men  to  whom  this  money  was  given  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I have. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  money  paid  in  the  interest  of  Senator 
Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I have. 

The  Chairman.  I think  the  witness  has  already  given  the  names. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  He  has  given  some  names.  I simply  wanted  to 
make  it  clear.  I want  to  ask,  Mr.  Bancroft,  whether  or  not  you  have 
done  the  best  you  could  to  refresh  your  recollection,  so  as  to  give  the 
subcommittee  the  full  and  frank  benefit 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Pardon  me;  I want  to  correct  my  testimony. 
When  I said  I had  given  you  the  names,  I paid  some  of  the  livery 
bills  for  these  men  that  I sent  out.  There  was  a liveryman  by  the 
name  of  Daniel  Berger,  there  was  a liveryman  by  the  name  of  Philip 
Smith,  there  was  a liveryman  by  the  name  of  Wade  Hampton,  and  I 
paid  them  the  livery  bills  for  these  men  that  I sent  out.  When  I 
answered  that  question  I had  reference  to  the  man  that  I employed. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  recollect  the  amount  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I can  not,  but  I presume  their  books  will  show  it. 
I could  not  tell  you  what  they  were,  but  they  were  quite  considerable. 
It  would  account  for  the  balance  of  the  $250  or  more,  because  these 
men  were  out  during  the  greater  part  of  two  or  three  weeks.  When 
I would  get  a lot  of  this  literature,  I sent  a man  out  to  nail  it  up.  I 
did  not  care  how  thick  he  made  them;  I wanted  to  get  rid  of  them. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  As  I understand  it,  with  the  exception  of  the 
money  which  you  gave  to  Mr.  Mehaffey,  who  resides  in  Richland 
Center,  all  of  this  money  was  disbursed  mainly  in  connection  with 
the  publicity  feature  of  the  campaign? 


LEVI  H.  BANCROFT. 


723 


Mr.  Bancroft.  Absolutely  every  dollar  of  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Simply  in  distributing  and  posting  and  circu- 
lating the  kind  of  literature  that  was  being  used  in  the  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Livery  bills,  expenses,  etc.,  for  these  men  who 
went  out,  and  their  per  diems  for  posting  up  that  literature. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  literature  and  lithographs  and  material  of 
that  sort  sent  from  the  central  headquarters  to  you? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Yes,  sir;  by  express. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  then  distributed  as  you  have  described  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  is  Mr.  Mehaffey’s  business? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  He  is  sort  of  a retired  business  man  there  now. 
He  is  not  engaged  in  any  business  at  present  particularly.  I bought 
my  coal  of  him  this  fall,  but  he  was  not  in  the  coal  business.  He 
ordered  a carload  for  himself  and  me. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  any  of  this  money  that  was  placed  in  your 
hands  in  the  interest  of  Senator  Stephenson  in  this  campaign  expended 
for  the  purpose  of  bribing  or  corruptly  influencing  voters  to  your 
knowledge  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  No;  none  of  it — none  of  it.  I will  assume  to  speak 
for  my  friends  in  that  respect.  I know  that  none  of  it  was — not  a 
cent  of  it.  All  that  I paid  out  was  paid  out  in  the  way  that  I have 
indicated.  We  do  not  have  any  of  that  kind  of  business  that  I know 
of  in  Richland  Count}L  We  are  farther  west  than  Ohio. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  any  conduct  of  that  kind  charged  in  Rich- 
land County,  to  your  knowledge,  during  that  campaign? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Never. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I take  it,  from  the  offices  you  have  held,  that  you 
have  had  some  practical  experience  in  the  matter  of  campaigning  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I should  like  to  have  you  state  to  the  committee, 
in  a general  way,  whether  or  not  there  are  difficulties  in  getting  out 
the  full  vote  at  the  primary  without  the  use  of  transportation  for  the 
purpose  of  getting  the  voters  to  the  polls. 

Mr.  Bancroft.  With  all  of  the  money  that  was  spent  by  the 
four  candidates  for  United  States  Senator  and  the  various  candidates 
for  State  and  legislative  offices  and  the  county  tickets,  we  have 
never  had  out  50  per  cent  of  the  vote,  and  seldom  40  per  cent. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Take  it  in  this  very  last  campaign;  were  the 
various  candidates  represented  by  teams  and  transportation  in 
the  effort  to  get  voters  to  the  polls? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  It  is  a common  practice,  still  prevalent. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  It  always  has  been,  has  it  not? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  A long  custom. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  any  of  the  money  of  Senator  Stephenson 
that  was  placed  in  your  hands  used  in  any  way  for  the  purpose 
of  promoting  your  own  campaign? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  It  was  not;  not  a cent.  I took  it  very  reluctantly, 
simply  because  I was  a supporter  of  Senator  Stephenson  and  a 

Iiersonal  friend,  and  I did  not  like  to  refuse.  I declined  up  to  the 
ast  minute  to  have  anything  to  do  with  it;  but  I finally  took  it 
to  disburse  in  a certain  way,  which  I have  indicated,  simply  because 
I did  not  want  to  refuse  an  old  friend  or  his  managers  to  do  what 
I could  for  him,  because  I was  in  favor  of  his  election. 


724 


LEVI  H.  BANCROFT. 


Mr.  Littlefield.  As  bearing  upon  the  question  of  the  failure 
of  all  of  the  consistent  Stephenson  supporters  to  attend  during 
the  various  ballotings,  I should  like  to  ask  you  if  you  were  present 
when  the  Senator  received  a majority  of  the  votes  of  the  assembly, 
on  the  26th  of  January,  for  the  office  of  United  States  Senator? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I was. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  is  it  within  your  knowledge  that  on  that 
same  day  he  received  the  votes  of  a majority  of  the  senators  voting 
in  the  senate  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  He  did. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  A legal  quorum  voting? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  The  journals  show  that. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  was  the  attitude  of  yourself  and  other 
friends  of  Senator  Stephenson  as  to  whether  or  not  that  resulted 
in  his  election  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  We  contended  that  he  was  elected;  but 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  you  think,  Mr.  Littlefield,  that  we 
should  go  into  that? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  It  is  not  a matter  of  very  great  importance; 
but  the  fact  about  it  was  this,  as  I understand  it 

Senator  Sutherland.  We  know  the  fact. 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I do  not  recall  that  I ever  said  anything  about 
it,  one  way  or  the  other,  except  that  I expressed  my  opinion  at 
the  time  that  I thought  that  was  an  election. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I simply  wanted  to  get  the  fact  in  here  for 
the  purpose  of  giving  a reason  why  the  friends  of  the  Senator  were 
not  in  constant  attendance.  They  believed  he  was  elected,  and 
did  not  continue  to  attend  on  this  effort  that  was  being  made. 

Senator  Pomerene.  The  record  speaks  for  itself. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  It  would  only  be  a legal  question.  I do  not 
understand  that  anybody  pretends  to  dispute  the  record,  and  it  is 
doubtful  whether  they  could  do  it,  as  a matter  of  law. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  It  is  not  of  enough  consequence,  perhaps,  to 
spend  time  on.  But  the  significance  it  had  in  my  mind  was  tnis:  I 
wanted  to  show,  if  I could,  by  the  attorney  general — I do  not  know 
what  the  fact  is — that  the  friends  of  Senator  Stephenson  not  only 
understood  but  assumed  that  he  was  elected,  ana  for  that  reason 
they  did  not  attend  so  constantly  and  continuously  upon  the  subse- 
quent alleged  efforts  to  elect  as  they  otherwise  might  have  done,  if 
no  election  previously  had  taken  place. 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Possibly  not.  But  the  Senator’s  friends  were  not 

Earticularly  concerned  about  that,  I think.  The  result  would  have 
een  just  the  same  on  joint  ballot,  if  the  parties  who  instigated  this 
investigation  had  not  gone  to  certain  members  and  induced  them 
to  vote  against  Senator  Stephenson  on  the  first  day  of  the  joint 
ballot. 

The  Chairman.  Those  proceedings  are  certified  to  the  Senate  as  a 
basis  of  this  investigation,  and  there  is  no  controversy  whatever 
about  them.  The  ballots  about  which  you  are  interrogating  the 
witness  are  certified  to  the  Senate.  They  are  not  open  to  contro- 
versy. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  all.  I suppose  Mr.  Bancroft  would  like 
to  be  finally  excused,  if  that  is  agreeable? 


CHELLIS  C.  WAYLAND. 


725 


The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I will  be  at  the  call  of  the  subcommittee. 

Senator  Pomerene.  There  is  just  one  further  question  that  I 
would  like  to  ask  you  before  you  go  away.  When  were  you  elected 
attorney  general  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  In  1910. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  were  speaker  of  the  general  assembly  of 
the  house  and  have  been  attorney  general.  Has  anything  come 
to  your  knowledge,  either  as  speaker  of  the  house  or  as  attorney 
general,  other  than  what  you  have  given  here,  that  would  tend  to 
throw  any  light  on  this  matter  ? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Absolutely  nothing,  except  that  in  which  you 
would  not  be  interested,  which  is  simply  this — the  method  and 
manner  in  which  this  investigation  was  instigated. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  mean  the  investigation  before  the  joint 
legislative  committee. 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  I think  we  are  able  in  a large  measure  to  gather 
something  of  that  from  the  colloquies  contained  in  the  record. 

Mr.  Bancroft.  I have  no  doubt  of  that.  That  I have  discussed 
with  various  people  of  both  sides  of  the  political  factions  here.  But 
there  is  absolutely  nothing  that  I know  that  would  throw  any  light 
upon  this  matter.  If  there  were,  I should  be  glad  to  state  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Either  one  way  or  the  other? 

Mr.  Bancroft.  Not  one  way  or  the  other.  If  so,  I would  be  glad 
to  give  it. 

TESTIMONY  OF  CHELLIS  C.  WAYLAND. 

Mr.  Wayland,  having  been  previously  sworn,  was  examined  and 
testified  as  follows: 

The  Chairman.  Where  do  you  reside? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Milwaukee. 

The  Chairman.  How  long  have  you  resided  in  Milwaukee? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Seven  months. 

The  Chairman.  Where  did  you  reside  prior  to  coming  to  Mil- 
waukee ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Appleton,  Wis. 

The  Chairman.  How  long  did  you  reside  there? 

Mr.  Wayland.  I resided  there  about  four  years. 

The  Chairman.  Before  going  to  Appleton,  where  did  you  reside? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Portage,  Wis. ; Columbia  County. 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  a native  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin? 

Mr.  Wayland.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Of  what  place  are  you  a native? 

Mr.  Wayland.  I was  born  in  Indiana  and  raised  in  Illinois. 

The  Chairman.  You  came  from  Illinois  to  Wisconsin? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  How  long  have  you  resided  in  the  State  of  Wis- 
consin ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  About  12  years. 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  a partner  of  Mr.  Edmonds  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  I was  associated  with  him  in  business,  and  am  still. 

The  Chairman.  You  were  associated  with  him  in  business  prior  to 
the  time  when  he  assumed  the  management  of  Senator  Stephenson’s 
campaign  for  nomination  in  1908  ? 


726 


CHELLIS  C.  WAYLAND. 


Mr.  Wayland.  I was. 

The  Chairman.  Is  it  true  that  when  Mr.  Edmonds  was  tendered 
the  position  of  manager  for  Senator  Stephenson  you  made  a business 
arrangement  by  which  you  would  separate  your  business  affairs  during 
the  time  he  was  such  manager? 

Mr.  Wayland.  That  was  the  understanding;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  you  might  be  free  to  participate  in  the 
campaign  and  lend  assistance  to  Senator  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Independently  of  Mr.  Edmonds? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  were  a Republican  at  that  time? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  a supporter  of  Senator  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  The  record  shows  that  on  July  27  you  received 
of  Mr.  Edmonds  $100.  For  what  did  you  receive  that  $100  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  That  was  for  expenses  which  I was  incurring  in 
traveling  about  the  State. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose  were  you  traveling  about  the 
State  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  The  first  trip  I made  was  to  ascertain  the  general 
line-up  of  the  opposition,  and  to  see,  if  possible,  the  plan  of  campaign 
they  were  following;  also  to  see  several  of  the  prominent  men  who 
were  leaders  in  various  counties,  to  find  out  how  they  stood,  and,  if 
possible,  to  interest  them  in  Senator  Stephenson’s  campaign. 

The  Chairman.  Had  you  performed  services  of  that  kind  before 
you  received  the  $1 00  on  July  27  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Yes,  sir;  I think  my  first  trip  was  along  about  the 
6th  of  July — from  the  6th  to  the  7th  of  July,  if  I remember  cor- 
rectly. 

The  Chairman.  Was  that  about  the  time  that  you  made  the 
arrangement  with  Mr.  Edmonds  for  segregation  of  business  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  That  was  about  the  1st  of  July;  that  was  about  the 
time  he  was  to  come  to  Milwaukee  to  take  charge.  It  was  discussed 
in  the  office. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  the  first  week  in  July,  1908,  was  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  began  campaign  work  during  the  first  week 
of  July,  1908,  did  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Yes,  sir;  as  I recollect. 

The  Chairman.  You  so  testified,  I think. 

Mr.  Wayland.  That  is  my  idea  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  You  stated  on  a former  occasion  that  you  gave  up 
your  salary  and  suspended  your  business  engagements  of  all  kinds  in 
order  that  you  might  devote  your  wdiole  time  to  the  support  of 
Senator  Stephenson. 

Mr.  Wayland.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  correct,  is  it? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  devote  your  entire  time  in  that  way  from 
the  first  week  in  July  until  after  the  primary? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Yes,  sir;  I put  in  every  day. 


CHELLIS  C.  WAYLAND. 


727 


The  Chairman.  Did  you  pay  out  all  of  the  sum  of  $100  that  you 
received  on  the  27th  of  July  for  expenses,  or  did  you  retain  some  part 
of  it  for  yourself  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  I think  I had  expended  more  than  that.  I paid 
my  own  expenses  for  a considerable  time  and  I sent  in  a bill — I think 
the  first  bill  was  $49  and  some  cents. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  August  5 ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Yes;  I did  not  send  in  a bill  for  quite  awdiile.  I 
paid  out  my  own  funds  for  a considerable  time. 

The  Chairman.  Did  that  bill  for  for  $49.18  which  you  sent  in  on 
August  5 represent  the  expenditure  that  you  had  made  on  your  own 
behalf  in  traveling  around  for  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  I think  it  was  the  first  10  days.  I made  out  that 
bill  when  I came  in  from  the  first  trip,  but  did  not  present  it,  as  I 
remember  it. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  not  present  it  for  about  10  days  after 
you  had  received  the  $100,  did  you  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  No. 

The  Chairman.  On  August  7 you  received  $250.  What  did  you 
do  with  that  money  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  I can  not  remember  just  how  I did  with  that 
exact  $250.  1 can  tell  how  I did  through  the  campaign,  and  this 

was  part  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  render  an  account  of  your  expenses,  or 
money  expended  by  you  on  behalf  of  Senator  Stephenson’s  cam- 
paign ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  No;  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  You  never  rendered  an  expense  account  in  con- 
nection with  this  campaign,  did  you  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  No,  sir;  not  to  the  office;  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  tell  us  something  in  detail  as  to  the  expend- 
iture of  the  $250  which  you  received  on  August  7 ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Not  as  to  that  exact  $250.  It  was  part  of  the 
expense  that  had  been  incurred  and  was  being  incurred  as  I was 
going  along. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  the  nature  of  the  expense  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  If  I may  use  my  own  words,  after  I had  made 
these  trips  throughout  the  State  it  was  found,  upon  a trip  to  Apple- 
ton,  that  no  work  was  being  done  in  Outagamie  County.  I went 
down  to  see  Mr.  Edmonds  and  suggested  that  something  must  be 
done,  and  that  I had  better  go  home  and  take  care  of  that  myself. 
Do  you  want  me  to  go  ahead  and  tell  how  I did  it  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Wayland.  I immediately  went  home,  and  the  first  thing  that 
I endeavored  to  get  was  polling  lists.  I then  got  men  who  were 
experienced,  who  understood  affaifs  in  Outagamie  County,  and 
began  checking  up  these  polling  lists,  separating  those  that  were 
Republicans  and  those  that  were  Democrats.  I immediately  con- 
sulted with  the  former  and  present  county  chairman  of  the  Repub- 
lican Party  to  find  out  the  method  in  which  the  campaigns  had 
been  conducted  in  that  county,  I being  practically  a stranger  and 
knowing  very  few  people  in  the  city  at  that  time,  and  I also  ques- 
tioned him  about  the  amount  of  money  that  was  usually  expended 
in  Outagamie  County  in  carrying  on  the  campaign  for  the  Republican 
Party. 


728 


CHELLIS  C.  WAYLAND. 


Tlie  Chairman.  What  was  his  name  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Spencer.  He  was  not  active,  but  I simply  advised 
with  him.  I then  went  to  a number  of  the  people  who  were  for  Sen- 
ator Stephenson,  business  men,  and  asked  them  to  ascertain,  if 
possible,  throughout  the  city  the  names  of  men  who  were  for  Senator 
Stephenson,  and  they  did  so.  After  a name  was  handed  to  me  as 
that  of  a man  who  was  reliable,  and  supposed  to  be  friendly  to 
Senator  Stephenson,  I called  upon  him  in  the  evening,  often  going 
with  some  of  the  people  there  to  introduce  me — sometimes  I intro- 
duced myself — and  I made  arrangements  for  them  to  assist  in 
making  a canvass  of  the  city  of  Appleton,  at  first,  to  find  out  who 
were  for  Senator  Stephenson,  and  to  give  me  the  list  of  names.  I 
furnished  them  with  polling  lists,  dividing  up  the  lists  into  various 
parts  of  the  ward.  I then  arranged  to  find  out  who  were  the  prin- 
cipal men  in  the  various  townships.  There  were  some  42  precincts 
in  Outagamie  County. 

My  object  was  to  have  a man  in  charge  of  every  township  and  to 
have  this  township  canvassed  with  a polling  list;  and  I arranged 
for  the  day  of  the  primary  to  have  a team  in  certain  parts  of  the  town- 
ship to  gather  these  particular  voters  up  and  get  them  to  the  polls. 
I found,  as  I went  along,  that  with  the  sum  of  money  which  was  being 
furnished  to  me  it  was  impossible  to  carry  out  that  kind  of  a campaign. 
I endeavored  to  engage  a man  to  assist  me,  but  found  out  that  in 
his  idea  we  could  not,  in  the  time  allotted,  which  we  had,  cover  the 
county  of  Outagamie.  He  further  said  that  the  time  which  it  would 
take  from  his  business,  and  the  kind  of  a man  necessary  to  assist, 
would  be  so  expensive  that  the  money  I had  for  a campaign  would  not 
even  pay  the  men  who  did  the  canvassing,  and  it  would  be  useless 
to  attempt  to  organize  that  county.  I arranged  with  two  men  to  do 
the  advertising;  I had  them  out  constantly.  I posted  in  practically 
every  place  that  was  conspicuous  a pennant  with  the  name  of  Senator 
Stephenson  on  it.  I posted  his  lithographs.  I began  a newspaper 
campaign  of  my  own,  in  a small 


picnic  ground  near  Lake  Winnebago.  We  are  about  5 miles  away. 
I had  about  5,000  to  10,000  of  Senator  Stephenson  buttons.  I pinned 
those  on  everyone  that  I could  get  to  wear  them.  I made  his  name  as 
well  known  as  I could  in  every  corner  of  the  county,  and  when  they 
were  torn  down  I immediately  put  them  back.  I got  up  a circular 
stating  what  Senator  Stephenson  had  done  for  the  city  of  Appleton, 
what  he  had  done  for  Lawrence  University,  and  I put  that  out  into 
every  house;  I paid  for  the  publication  of  that  in  several  papers. 
I wrote  my  own  articles,  and  paid  the  advertising  rates.  I also  got 
out  stickers  at  the  fair,  and  had  every  seat  in  the  pavilion  pasted 
“Vote  for  Senator  Stephenson/ ’ so  that  everybody  would  see  it. 
At  these  picnics  I employed  the  best-looking  gins  I could  employ 
to  pin  these  buttons  onto  the  voters ; and  I made  as  big  a demonstra- 
tion as  I could  make. 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  the  item  found  on  page  2686,  “Paid  seven 
pretty  girls  $7.70  ?” 

Mr.  Wayland.  Yes,  sir;  then  I selected — do  you  want  me  to  go 
right  along? 

The  Chairman.  Go  right  along. 


evening  that  I had  canvassing 
every  picnic  that  occurred  in 


CHELLIS  C.  WAYLAND. 


729 


Mr.  Wayland.  I selected  the  best  men  I could  get  who  were  for 
Senator  Stephenson.  I selected  men  who  were  not  political  hacks — 
I mean,  who  had  been  famous  for  being  on  hand  at  every  campaign. 
I selected  clean,  sober,  industrious  men  who  held  positions  paying 
from  $2  to  $5  a day.  I selected  them  with  a view  to  their  wards, 
their  nationalities;  also  their  religious  associations.  I subdivided 
the  nationalities — the  Belgians,  the  Germans,  the  Hollanders — 
the  Methodists,  the  Catholics,  and  the  Lutherans.  I interviewed  some 
of  the  ministers;  I made  short  addresses  myself,  when  I could  get 
a congregation  at  a picnic — get  them  around  me.  I put  forth  the 
best  points  of  Senator  Stephenson  that  I could  find.  I endeavored 
to  harmonize  the  Half-breeds  and  the  Stalwarts. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  succeed  in  that  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  I did  not.  But  I will  tell  you  what  I did  do.  The 
way  we  made  a gain  was  this 

The  Chairman.  We  will  not  go  into  the  campaign  in  much  detail. 

Mr.  Wayland.  All  right. 

The  Chairman.  Proceed  with  the  statement  as  to  the  manner  in 
which  you  expended  this  money. 

Mr.  Wayland.  I found  that  I would  be  unable  to  get  men  in  the 
country.  I made  from  three  to  five  trips  a week  myself  to  endeavor  to 
find  out  who  was  for  Stephenson.  Sometimes  I would  drive  all  day, 
and  I would  not  strike  the  man;  so  I would  have  those  in  the  city  who 
were  acquainted  out  in  the  country  make  the  trips  for  themselves 
and  make  a report.  I then  went  over  and  quizzed  the  manager  for 
Mr.  Cook,  and  hobnobbed  with  him  to  find  out  the  method  of  his 
campaign,  to  see  wherein  he  was  getting  the  better  of  it  and  where  I 
was  lacking.  I furnished  the  cigars  for  my  men,  the  object  being  that 
when  you  can  get  a man  to  stop  and  smoke  a cigar  long  enough  you 
can  hold  him  still  and  talk  to  him. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  talk  to  him  about  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Senator  Stephenson.  I talked  about  why  he 
should  be  elected,  why  the  laboring  men  should  vote  for  him.  I 
looked  up  the  number  of  saloons  and  I found  there  were  68  in  the  city 
and  about  10  in  the  outskirts.  Most  of  those  on  the  outskirts  had 
grocery  stores  attached.  I found  that  from  the  hours  of  6 o’clock  to 
10  o’clock  there  would  be  about  5 to  30  men  in  each  place. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  that  a.  m.  or  p.  m.  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  In  the  afternoon— and  that  I could  find  more  of 
the  farmers  and  people  together  at  that  time  than  at  any  time  I knew 
of,  the  farmers  being  busy  during  the  day. 

The  Chairman.  You  mean  at  these  saloons? 

Mr.  Wayland.  I found  them  after  6 o’clock.  At  a Wisconsin 
saloon  there  is  very  often  a family  gathering.  There  are  usually  a 
number  of  tables,  and  the  people  sit  around  the  tables,  and  they  drink 
about  one  glass  of  beer  in  15  minutes.  They  do  not  think  any  more 
of  their  beer  than  we  do  of  ice  cream.  I got  a man  to  go  with  me. 
He  was  a candidate  for  sheriff.  I told  him  that  I did  not  drink  or 
smoke,  but  I wanted  to  see  these  people  and  I wanted  to  present 
Senator  Stephenson’s  case  to  them.  I did  not  know  any  other  way 
to  reach  them.  He  said  that  he  could  drink  all  I could  pay  for;  that 
he  could  bankrupt  the  brewery.  That  is  the  way  he  stated  it — and 
for  me  to  take  a cigar. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  smoke,  also  ? 


730 


CHELLIS  C.  WAYLAND. 


Mr.  Wayland.  He  smoked,  also. 

Tlie  Chairman.  So  you  hired  a drinker  and  a smoker  combined? 

Mr.  Wayland.  I did  not  liire  him.  He  went  with  me  of  his  own 
accord. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  the  entertaining  and  he  furnished — well, 
he  shared  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Yes,  he  shared.  I invited  these  people  to  partake 
of  a treat.  That  is  the  custom.  The  fact  is,  the  first  thing  the  bar- 
tender wanted  to  treat  us.  I took  a cigar.  That  is  the  custom  there. 
1 talked  to  them  about  why  the  workingman  and  the  farmer  should 
vote  for  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  when  these  crowds  would  meet  in  these 
saloons  you  would  invite  them  to  drink  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  And  pay  for  it  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  pay  for  it  out  of  the  money  furnished  you 
for  campaign  purposes  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Yes,  and  I reported  afterwards  to  Mr.  Edmonds 
what  I was  doing,  and  he  requested  me  to  discontinue  that  kind  of 
campaign  immediately. 

The  Chairman.  When  was  that  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  I think  he  came  home  about  the  next  Saturday 
night. 

The  Chairman.  Give  us  the  date. 

Mr.  Wayland.  I think  that  was  about  20  days  before  the  primary. 
That  would  be  about 

The  Chairman.  About  the  22d  of  August  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  No,  a little  earlier  than  that,  about  the  middle  of 
August.  I could  not  remember  just  the  exact  date. 

The  Chairman.  Then  up  to  the  middle  of  August  you  had  been 
proceeding  as  you  have  described  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Yes,  I proceeded  clear  through  to  the  end — I mean 
the  way  I conducted  the  campaign.  ] endeavored  to  show  the  way 
I conducted  the  primary. 

The  Chairman.  I want  to  know  when  you  ceased  treating. 

Mr.  Wayland.  I ceased  going  to  saloons  or  buying  anything  in  the 
saloons. 

The  Chairman.  Where  did  you  buy  it — in  the  grocery  store? 

Mr.  Wayland.  No,  they  were  saloons  in  grocery  stores. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  cease  buying  drinks  for  these  people  who 
went  to  the  grocery  stores  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Or  cigars,  or  treats  of  any  kind? 

Mr.  Wayland.  I gave  out  cigars. 

The  Chairman.  You  gave  them  out  personally  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Yes — well,  my  men  did. 

The  Chairman.  How  many  cigars  did  you  furnish  during  the  cam- 
paign ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  I accounted  for  it.  I followed  the  same  line  that 
the  others  were  following.  I remember  my  bill  was  about  $95  for 
that.  There  was  $27  of  that  that  I did  not  know  that  I had,  but 
some  enthusiast  had  passed  through  the  factories  hammering  away 
for  Senator  Stephenson 


CHELLIS  C.  WAYLAND. 


731 


The  Chairman.  And  he  treated  on  your  account? 

Mr.  Wayland.  He  said  he  paid  that  bill,  and  so  I settled  it.  I 
conducted  the  same  line  of  campaign  as  my  opponents. 

The  Chairman.  You  received  altogether  $1,199.18? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  have  given  a general  idea  of  the  expenses 
that  you  incurred  in  traveling  about.  Do  you  remember  how  much 
of  that  sum  you  paid  out  to  men  for  furnishing  teams  to  haul 
electors  to  the  polls  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  I think  it  is  accounted  for. 

The  Chairman.  You  furnished  a statement  of  it? 

Mr.  Wayland.  I gave  it  to  the  other  committee,  that  is,  the  inves- 
tigating committee. 

The  Chairman.  I do  not  find  an  itemized  statement  among  your 
ex  bihits. 

Mr.  Wayland.  It  is  put  in  the  third  volume;  it  is  entirely  sepa- 
rate. It  is  next  to  Mr.  Hambright’s  testimony. 

The  Chairman.  I think  I have  it  here,  page  2749,  Exhibit  116. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Mr.  Chairman,  Mr.  Essmann  is  here,  and  I 
imagine  he  may  have  made  his  segregation  of  the  exhibits,  and  I 
would  suggest  that  if  the  originals  are  here  they  are  the  better 
thing,  probably,  for  the  witness  to  refresh  his  recollection  from. 

The  Chairman.  The  committee  can  not  take  possession  of  the 
originals  that  are  part  of  the  State  papers.  We  have  a copy  of 
this  statement  on  page  2749,  and  we  can  use  that. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  We  can  use  the  originals. 

The  Chairman.  Oh,  yes;  but  we  have  copies  of  them  here,  and 
if  there  is  any  question  about  the  accuracy  of  these  copies  they 
can  be  verified  by  a comparison  with  the  original  statements  when 
we  have  them  classified.  It  will  be  necessary  to  take  these  papers 
from  the  box  and  classify  them.  I can  not  undertake  to  go  into 
an  examination  without  first  having  done  that.  We  can  proceed 
with  this  statement,  Exhibit  116,  which  appears  on  page  2749  of 
the  joint  committee  investigation.  Mr.  Wayland,  you  are  familiar 
with  that  statement,  are  you  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  I would  have  to  have  a copy  of  it  before  me. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I will  hand  it  to  you. 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  I notice  in  that  statement  the  first  item  is 
for  $315,  and  it  is  said  to  be  for — 

Workers  before  primary  and  during  the  day  of  same  and  expense  incurred  by  several 
while  advertising,  polling  lists,  etc.,  and  stenographers. 

Are  those  items  included  in  the  statement  that  you  have  made  or 
accounted  for? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Yes;  that  was  my  method  of  campaigning. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  did  you  pay  men  for  working  on  the 
day  of  election? 

Mr.  Wayland.  I hired  no  one  for  the  day  of  election,  except  the 
drivers.  They  were  to  get  $3,  I think  it  was,  but  the  men  1 got 
were  obtained  early  in  the  campaign,  and  put  in  their  evenings,  and 
then  they  were  to  work  also  on  the  day  of  the  election.  I gave  them 
sums  ranging  from  $5  to  $15. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  did  you  pay  to  the  stenographers  ? 


732 


CHELLIS  C.  WAYLAND. 


Mr.  Waylanu.  I do  not  know  just  the  exact  amount.  One  man  I 
know  I paid  $15  for  copying  the  Appleton  polling  list.  I also  sent 
that  down  to  the  headquarters  in  Milwaukee. 

The  Chairman.  Was  Buchanan  Township  one  of  those  in  which 
you  have  described  your  method  of  procedure  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  That  was  not  under  my  personal  supervision. 
That  consisted  of  the  town  of  Little  Chute,  of  about  1,400  people, 
and  Kimberley,  containing  about  600  people,  and  the  township 
around.  I arranged  for  the  rigs  to  be  sent  there  on  primary  day, 
and  those  were  sent  to  John  Scanlon. 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  referring  now  to  the  item  of  $66? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Yes.  " 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  expend  that  much  money  for  this  purpose  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  There  was  a bill  rendered  for  canvassing.  In 
this  township  there  was  a man  put  on  each  rig  and  a driver.  We 
had  to  keep  these  mills  running.  They  were  paper  mills,  and  when 
the  men  voted  they  are  conveyed  about  a mile  or  2 miles,  and  they 
usually  convey  them  in  what  we  call  towers,  that  is,  in  sets,  so  as 
not  to  shut  down  the  factory;  and  at  certain  hours,  when  the  shifts 
changed,  we  had  to  have  more  rigs.  Almost  all  of  the  expense  there 
incurred  was  for  teams  and  drivers. 

The  Chairman.  The  next  item  is  for  $34  for  the  town  of  Freedom. 
Is  that  class  of  expenditure  within  the  description  you  have  given  of 
your  usual  proceeding  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Yes;  I can  explain  that. 

The  Chairman.  Explain  it. 

Mr.  Wayland.  I asked  ex-District  Attorney  Krugmeyer,  the 
present  county  chairman,  to  find  out  if  possible  who  was  for  Ste- 
phenson in  that  township.  He  telephoned  me  one  day  that  a Mr. 
Schrader  and  a Mr.  Birdstrom,  I think,  were  in  town  and  were 
Stephenson  men.  I met  them  and  talked  over  the  campaign  with 
them,  got  their  ideas  of  canvassing — they  had  had  experience — and 
arranged  with  them  that  they  were  to  canvass  the  township.  They 
were  to  devote  time  to  it  as  they  saw  fit,  and  on  primary  day  they 
were  to  take,  with  their  sons,  rigs  and  start  from  different  parts  of 
the  township  and  bring  to  the  polls  people  who  were  found  to  be 
favorable  to  Senator  Stephenson.  I gave  them  $15  apiece  for  their 
work,  and  I bought  a box  of  cigars  for  $4,  to  be  used  in  canvassing 
when  they  were  talking  among  the  farmers,  the  idea  being;  that  when 
you  stop  a farmer’s  team,  if  he  would  smoke,  he  would  wait  patiently 
until  you  got  through  talking  with  him. 

The  Chairman.  Fifteen  dollars  a day  for  the  teams  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  No,  sir;  they  were  to  canvass  the  township,  and 
then  to  furnish,  I think,  three  teams  apiece  on  the  day  of  the  primary, 
and  receive  only  $15  each  for  the  two  of  them — $30. 

The  Chairman.  The  next  item  is — 

City  of  Kaukauna,  west  and  south,  and  tdWnships  west,  advertising,  teams,  workers, 
etc.,  $1.50. 

Mr.  Wayland.  That  is  a town  of  6,000  people. 

The  Chairman.  You  employed  the  same  general  methods  of  ex- 
penditure there  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Yes;  that  was  expended  by  Mr.  Watson.  I talked 
over  with  him  as  to  how  it  was  to  be  expended. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Watson? 


CH ELLIS  C.  WAYLAND.  733 

Mr.  Wayland.  Yes;  Mr.  John  Watson,  a business  man  there, 
practically  the  only  man  I knew  in  the  city. 

The  Chairman.  How  did  he  spend  that  money?  Did  he  report 
to  you  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  No,  sir.  He  was  away  after  the  primary  and  I was 
away.  I talked  with  him  since  I testified.  I knew  how  he  was 
expending  it  at  the  time — that  is,  in  a general  way.  He  took  charge 
of  the  advertising,  and  advertised  the  city  thoroughly.  From  that 
point  he  told  me  that  he  sent  out  men  in  the  townships  around.  He 
had  charge  of  this  city  of  Kaukauna,  and  there  were  several  town- 
ships adjoining,  and  also  the  teams,  and  in  the  settlement  of  Com- 
bined Locks,  about  2 miles  from  Kaukauna.  The  people  in  Com- 
bined Locks  voted  at  Kaukauna,  and  the  rigs  were  sent  there  to 
bring  the  voters  to  the  polls  at  Kaukauna. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Combined  Locks  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Yes;  that  is  a paper-mill  town,  where  there  are 
about  300  men  employed. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  now  pass  to  the  next  item — 

Paid  expenses  of  C.  G.  Cannon  on  trips  to  Seymour,  and  town  of  Black  Creek,  $10. 

Mr.  Wayland.  Mr.  Cannon  was  Edmonds’s  brother-in-law,  and 
they  were  having  an  old  settlers’  picnic  at  Seymour,  a home  celebra- 
tion. I got  him  to  go  over  there,  and  I think  he  stayed  about  three 
days. 

The  Chairman.  This  was  what  kind  of  a celebration  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  A kind  of  home-coming  they  had  there,  and  all  the 
politicians  of  the  county  were  attending  it,  as  I understood  it. 

The  Chairman.  Was  this  a religious  meeting? 

Mr.  Wayland.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  It  was  a social  affair? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  A sort  of  harvest  home  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Who  was  this  man  to  whom  you  gave  S10  to  go  to 
this  meeting  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  I paid  his  expenses.  It  amounted  to  a little  more 
than  $10,  but  he  settled  it  at  $10. 

The  Chairman.  How  did  he  spend  it? 

Mr.  Wayland.  For  hotel  bills  and  car  fare. 

The  Chairman.  Was  this  a meeting  out  in  a grove? 

Mr.  Wayland.  No;  it  was  a meeting  in  the  town  of  Seymour.  It 
was  a town  celebration,  and  then  from  there  he  went  to  Black  Creek, 
and  I paid  his  expenses. 

The  Chairman.  What  were  his  expenses  for — liquors  and  cigars? 

Mr.  Wayland.  He  probably  had  some  cigars.  He  does  not  drink. 
I do  not  think  he  would  buy  it  for  anybody. 

The  Chairman.  The  money  that  he  was  to  expend  was  not  his 
money,  and  might  he  not  have  had  a different  rule  in  a case  of  that 
kind? 

Mr.  Wayland.  No;  not  that  man. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know  what  he  spent  the  $10  for  ? You 
gave  it  to  him  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  I know  what  he  told  me  he  spent  it  for — that  is,  he 
explained  it  to  me.  He  explained  his  hotel  bills  and  the  number  of 


734 


CHELLIS  C.  WAYLAND. 


days  that  he  was  gone.  I rather  think  he  paid  money  out  of  his  own 
pocket,  because  he  was  gone  several  days. 

The  Chairman.  He  could  not  get  a room  with  a bath  at  that  rate. 

Mr.  Wayland.  No;  $10  would  not  last  very  long  up  there. 

The  Chairman.  Was  this  a gathering  of  any  particular  nationality  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  No;  it  was  a general  picnic  in  a town  of  about  1,000 
people. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  American  citizens  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  The  next  item  is — 

Livery  rigs,  buses,  etc.,  autos  for  day  of  primary  and  trips  before  primary  day, 
including  rigs  for  the  month  of  August,  $164. 

Was  that  expended  by  you  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Most  of  it  was  paid  for  by  me.  Different  men 
who  were  employed  by  me  made  the  trips.  I paid  the  bills. 

The  Chairman.  The  next  item  is — 

Cigars,  $38.25,  $14,  $14,  $7,  70  cents,  25  cents,  25  cents,  $20,  15  cents. 

Mr.  Wayland.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  item  intended  to  be  separate  from  the  one 
following  it  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  It  is  a part  of  the  one  following.  I separated  that 
because  this  last  money  was  spent  in  these  saloons  that  I have  men- 
tioned, in  these  grocery  saloons.  I was  willing  to  account  for  what 
I did. 

The  Chairman:  Then  there  is  the  item,  “ Headaches  (treats), 
$17.15.” 

Mr.  Wayland.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Was  that  expended  the  same  day  that  the  money 
was  expended  for  cigars  and  treats  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  No;  they  are  different  days. 

The  Chairman.  The  headache  came  along  the  next  day,  did  it  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  In  the  morning  after,  I think. 

The  Chairman.  I notice  it  is  a subsequent  item.  Those  all  amount 
to  $95.95.  You  paid  for  those  out  of  the  money  given  you  from  the 
Stephenson  campaign  fund  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  In  what  county  were  those  expenditures  made  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Outagamie. 

The  Chairman.  Over  what  period  of  time  did  those  expenditures 
extend  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  They  commenced,  to  the  best  of  my  recollection, 
from,  probably,  about  the  15th  or  20th  of  July,  and  continued  up  to 
the  close  of  the  primary. 

The  Chairman.  Was  the  $17.15  for  headaches  after  or  before  the 
primary  election  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  It  was  about  20  days  before  the  primary  election. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  the  closing  item. 

Mr.  Wayland.  They  are  not  put  in  in  the  order  in  which  they  were 
expended. 

The  Chairman.  There  is  no  way  of  distinguishing  between  the 
items  expended  before  Mr.  Edmonds’s  instructions  to  you  and  after- 
wards ? 

Mr.  W^ayland.  No,  sir;  not  from  this. 


CH ELLIS  C.  WAYLAND. 


735 


The  Chairman.  The  next  item  is — 

Paid  at  different  times  to  7 pretty  girls  for  fastening  badges  and  campaign  buttons 
on  voters,  including  dish  of  cream  for  each  girl,  $7.70. 

I suppose  you  expended  that  money  for  that  purpose  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Yes;  for  a good  reason. 

The  Chairman.  And  paid  it  out  of  the  campaign  fund  of  Senator 
Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  I did. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  report  that  to  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  He  did  not  object  to  it? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  He  has  never  had  a chance  to. 

Mr.  Wayland.  He  never  had  an  opportunity. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  think  he  would  have  objected  to  that 
item? 

Mr.  Wayland.  I do  not  think  he  would. 

The  Chairman.  The  next  item  is — 

Paid  for  printing  campaign  badges,  sample  ballots,  instructions  to  voters  in  news- 
papers, bills  stating  what  Stephenson  had  done  for  Appleton,  newspaper  advertising, 
ribbons  for  badges,  stickers,  etc.,  $45. 

Mr.  Wayland.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  made  that  expenditure  out  of  this  fund? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Then  there  is  the  item — 

Expenses  traveling  about  State  and  incidentals,  estimated  (my  expenses  first  10 
days  were  $49.34),  $100. 

That  was  expended,  as  you  have  said,  for  traveling  around  in  the 
State? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Making  a total  of  $987.05.  The  item  of  total 
amount  expended  in  Outagamie  County  is  set  forth  as  $887.65  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  The  total  amount  received  by  you,  you  state,  at 
various  times  during  the  entire  campaign  was  $1,199.34? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  do  with  the  difference  between  the 
amount  paid  out,  $887.65,  and  $1,199.34? 

Mr.  Wayland.  That  was  retained  by  me  for  services. 

The  Chairman.  Then  you  did  charge  for  your  services  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Yes.  Mr.  Edmonds  was  mistaken  in  his  testimony 
about  my  being  paid  in  the  primary.  He  was  correct  as  to  my  not 
being  paid  anything  before  the  legislature,  but  in  the  primary  I was 
to  receive  pay  for  my  services. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  at  any  time  held  public  office  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  a candidate  for  public  office  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  go  down  to  Madison  when  the  legislature 
was  in  session  and  the  election  of  Senator  Stephenson  was  before  it? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Why  did  you  go  there  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  The  first  time  I went  there,  I went  at  the  request 
of  Mr.  Edmonds.  He  said  to  come  down,  I think,  about  the  24th. 


736 


CHELLIS  C.  WAYLAND. 


The  Chairman.  The  24th  of  what? 

Mr.  Wayland.  January,  1909,  or  the  25th.  He  said:  "We  can  go 
down  and  come  back  the  next  day,  after  the  first  ballot — it  will  be  all 
over  with.”  I did  not  wish  to  go.  I said  I did  not  wish  to  make  any 
expense  to  myself,  that  I had  wasted,  I thought,  a great  deal  of  time, 
and  he  said:  “If  you  will  come  down  as  my  guest  I will  pay  your 
expenses.”  I told  him  all  right,  and  I went  down,  expecting  to 
return  immediately. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  arrive  there? 

Mr.  Wayland.  I think  it  was  either  the  night  of  the  23d  or  the 
morning  of  the  24th. 

The  Chairman.  Of  January,  1909? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Who  was  with  you  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Mr.  Edmonds. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  do  when  you  reached  Madison?  * 

Mr.  Wayland.  The  first  thing  we  did  was  to  register  at  the  Park 
Hotel. 

The  Chairman.  Was  the  legislature  in  session? 

Mr.  Wayland.  It  was  to  convene  the  next  day. 

The  Chairman.  With  whom  did  you  talk  there  in  regard  to  Senator 
Stephenson’s  election  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  I do  not  think  at  that  particular  time  that  anyone 
was  particularly  canvassed,  because  it  was  not  known  that  there  w'as 
going  to  be  any  contest  so  far  as  the  Republican  vote  was  concerned. 
The  charges  had  not  been  filed,  and  I remember  Mr.  Edmonds  stating 
to  me  when  I said  I was  going  home,  that  it  would  be  all  over.  X 
asked  him  as  to  the  rumor  in  the  paper,  if  there  was  going  to  be  an 
investigation,  and  he  said  no,  that  he  understood  not.  So  we  made 
no  effort,  as  I understand,  to  see  anyone.  We  visited  with  each 
other  and  talked  in  a general  way.  I do  not  remember  that  anything 
particular  was  done. 

The  Chairman.  Whom  of  the  members  of  the  legislature  did  you 
meet  when  you  were  there  on  that  occasion  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  I think  I met  Mr.  Haight  of  the  east  district  of 
Columbia  County,  and  Mr.  Tower  from  Portage.  That  was  my 
voting  place  at  that  time.  I talked  with  Mr.  Ballard,  of  Outagamie 
County,  and  I visited  with  Mr.  Lehr,  and  Mr.  Cleary,  and  Mr.  Twesme, 
and  I think  I was  introduced  to  Platt  Whitman. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  talk  about  Senator  Stephenson’s  election 
with  these  members  of  the  legislature,  whose  names  you  have  just 
given  us  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  I do  not  think  I did.  We  were  talking  about 
matters  in  general  at  that  time. 

The  Chairman.  Did  they  talk  to  you  about  it? 

Mr.  Wayland.  I think  they  did.  I do  not  recall  just  what  was 
said  at  that  time.  1 was  not  taking  any  particular  notice.  It  was 
not  understood  that  I was  to  go  down  there  at  that  time  for  work. 
Mr.  Edmonds  wanted  me  to  go  along  with  him. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  do  any  work  while  you  were  there  on  that 
occasion  ? 

Mr.  W'ayland.  I do  not  think  I did,  as  I recall. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  electioneer  or  talk  to  the  members  of  the 
legislature,  and  try  to  induce  them  to  vote  for  Senator  Stephenson? 


CHELLIS  C.  WAYLAND.  737 

Mr.  Wayland.  The  day  the  first  ballot  was  taken  I think  I talked 
with  Mr.  Tower,  of  Portage. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Of  your  own  representative  district  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  I am  inquiring  into  this  because  you  went  down, 
having  your  expenses  paid  by  Mr.  Edmonds. 

Mr.  Wayland.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  I know  of  no  law  that  prohibits  a man  from  going 
to  the  legislature  and  talking  to  members  in  regard  to  such  a question, 
but  I am  endeavoring  to  get  at  the  facts. 

Mr.  Wayland.  Often  when  Mr.  Edmonds  takes  trips  he  invites  me 
to  go  along  and  pays  my  expenses.  The  fact  is,  he  offered  to  pay 
my  expenses  to  Texas  for  the  sake  of  my  company. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  make  any  report  of  these  expenditures 
other  than  your  report  to  the  legislative  committee  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  ever  make  any  to  Mr.  Edmonds? 

Mr.  Wayland.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Or  to  Mr.  Puelicher? 

Mr.  Wayland.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Or  to  Senator  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Wayland.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Were  you  ever  asked  for  a report  of  any  of 
your  expenditures  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  No,  sir;  I will  explain  that.  I believe  I asked  Mr. 
Edmonds  once  how  a report  was  to  be  gotten  up — something  to  that 
effect.  He  said  he  did  not  know  yet;  he  said  he  was  not  the  manager 
now,  but  he  thought  I would  be  informed. 

Senator  Pomerene.  When  was  that  conversation? 

Mr.  Wayland.  That  was  about  the  middle  of  September. 

Senator  Pomerene.  In  any  event,  after  the  primary  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  He  said  he  was  not  then  the  manager? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Who  was  the  manager  then  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  I do  not  know  of  anyone.  I came  down  here 
immediately  after  the  primary,  within  two  or  three  days,  and  I called 
at  the  office  expecting  at  that  time  to  find  it  open,  but  no  one  was 
there;  it  was  closed. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  come  down  then  to  make  your  report  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  I would  have  made  my  report. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  were  prepared  to  make  your  report  at 
that  time  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  keep  an  itemized  statement  of  your 
expenditures  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  I kept  a statement  in  general.  That  is,  I did  not 
keep  an  account  for  each  postage  stamp,  and  the  smaller  items,  but 
I kept  the  character  of  the  expenditures. 

Senator  Pomerene.  As  you  employed  men  or  teams  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Yes,  I had  that. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Or  when  you  put  out  lithographs  or  other 
printed  matter,  you  would  make  a memorandum  of  it  ? 

15235°— vol  1—11 47 


738 


CHELLIS  C.  WAYLAND. 


Mr.  Wayland.  Yes;  I knew  to  whom  I gave  the  money  in  each 
case. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  keep  that  in  a book  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  No;  I had  that  on  slips;  detached  slips. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  had  that  on  separate  slips? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  became  of  those  slips  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Along  about,  I think  it  was,  the  15th  day  of  Decem- 
ber, when  we  moved  the  office,  those  slips,  which  were  on  different 
sheets  of  paper,  were  destroyed. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Who  destroyed  them? 

Mr.  Wayland.  I did,  myself. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Why  did  you  destroy  them? 

Mr.  Wayland.  There  were  a number  of  those,  and  I copied  those 
off  on  one  paper. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Just  exactly  as  they  were  on  those  slips  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  I copied  from  them;  yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  copy  them  exactly  as  they  were  on 
the  slips  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  My  recollection  is  that  I did;  yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Or  did  you  attempt  to  abbreviate  the  entries 
which  were  made  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Or  to  summarize  them  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  No;  but  instead  of  saying,  for  instance,  where  I 
bought  the  cigars,  I just  put  down  the  cigars.  I knew,  at  that  time, 
where  I got  my  cigars. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  was  here  in  Milwaukee  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  No,  sir;  that  was  in  Appleton. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  copied  from  the  slips? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Yes;  as  I recollect  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Onto  your  sheets  of  paper? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  All  of  your  expenditures? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Yes;  all  that  I had  itemized. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  your  receipts? 

Mr.  Wayland.  My  receipts  ? I did  not  have  receipts. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I mean,  moneys  that  you  had  received; 
using  the  word  “ receipts”  in  that  sense. 

Mr.  Wayland.  I think  I did;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  How  did  you  destroy  these  slips  that  you  had  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  We  were  moving  into  a new  office. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Whom  do  you  mean  by  “we?” 

Mr.  Wayland.  The  company  which  I was  representing;  Mr. 
Edmonds  with  his  different  companies.  We  were  movingthe  office, 
and  a great  many  papers  had  accumulated.  There  was  agreat  deal 
of  correspondence  for  the  company,  which  was  of  no  particular 
value,  not  worth  putting  on  the  transferring  list;  and  we  destroyed 
several  waste  paper  baskets  full  of  different  material,  newspapers, 
circulars,  and  catalogues  and  different  things.  There  was  no  object 
I had  in  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Was  it  in  your  office  in  Appleton  that  you 
had  this  talk  with  Mr.  Edmonds  about  making  the  account? 


CHELLIS  C.  WAYLAND. 


739 


Mr.  Wayland.  No;  at  one  time  on  the  street.  I was  walking 
down  the  street. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  was  it  that  he  said  to  you  and  you  to 
him  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  I believe  I asked  him  how  I should  make  an 
accounting,  or  something,  and  he  said:  “I  don't  know."  And  I 
think  there  was  some  conversation  as  to  who  to  make  it  to,  and  lie 
said:  “I  am  not  the  manager,  now,  and  I do  not  know." 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  understand  that  it  was  your  duty  to 
make  an  accounting  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  I had  not  thought  of  that;  but  I was  willing  to 
do  it,  I know. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  understood  that  there  was  a statute  which 
required  the  filing  of  an  account  by  the  candidate,  did  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  By  the  candidate;  yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  you  were  wanting  to  furnish  your  account 
to  Mr.  Stephenson,  or  to  his  manager,  so  as  to  enable  the  candidate 
to  file  the  account — was  that  your  idea  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  I was  willing  to  do  it;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I say,  was  that  your  idea  at  that  time — that 
you  wanted  to  render  an  account  for  that  purpose  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  I know  that  it  is  the  first  money  that  I had  ever 
expended  and  I was  anxious  to  account  for  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  are  not  answering  my  question. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  question  is  whether,  at  that  time,  he  had 
it  in  his  mind. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Yes;  whether,  at  that  time,  you  had  it  in 
your  mind  to  furnish  this  account  so  as  to  aid  Senator  Stephenson  in 
filing  this  account  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  I do  not  think  I had  that  in  mind;  I could  tell 
you  what  I had  in  mind.  I knew  that  there  was  to  be  some  account- 
ing, and  I did  not  know  just  how  they  would  account — under  what 
heads. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Some  accounting — how  do  you  mean  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  I did  not  know  whether  it  would  be  itemized  clear 
down  to  the  small  items  or  not. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  mean,  in  order  to  comply  with  the  elec- 
tion laws,  do  you  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  have  any  talk  with  anyone  else,  with 
respect  to  the  filing  of  this  account  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I think  that  is  all. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Had  you  ever  read  the  election  law  in  relation 
to  returns  up  to  that  time,  to  your  recollection  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  No;  I remember  of  filing  one  account.  I said 
I had  never  held  an  office.  I was  a school  commissioner,  and 
spent  $5.35  for  gum  for  the  ladies  who  voted;  and  I accounted  for  it. 
[Laughter.] 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you,  during  this  primary  campaign,  expend 
any  of  the  sums  that  were  placed  in  your  hands  by  the  representa- 
tives of  Senator  Stephenson  for  the  purpose  of  bribing  or  corruptly 
influencing  any  voters  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  No,  sir. 


740 


WILLIAM  L.  ESSMANN. 


Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  any  money  expended  by  any  of  the  people 
to  whom  you  intrusted  the  money  for  use  in  the  campaign  in  the  inter- 
est of  Senator  Stephenson  for  the  purpose  of  bribing  or  corruptly 
influencing  voters,  to  your  knowledge? 

Mr.  Wayland.  Not  to  my  knowledge. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  any  information  ever  reach  you,  in  connec- 
tion with  the  campaign,  that  any  money  had  been  so  expended  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  had  been  disbursed  by  you  or  by  others 
under  your  instruction  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  furnish  money  to  others  to  distribute  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  In  other  words,  you  gave  it  to  the  ultimate 
consumer,  yourself  ? 

Mr.  Wayland.  I did;  and,  furthermore,  I did  not  pay  these  men, 
a great  many  of  them,  until  after  the  primary,  so  that  I felt  there 
would  be  no  money  in  anyone’s  hands.  I was  very  careful  through 
my  campaign. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  is  all. 

(The  witness  was  thereupon  excused.) 

TESTIMONY  OF  WILLIAM  L.  ESSMANN,  RECALLED. 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  prepared,  Mr.  Essmann,  to  give  the  com- 
mittee a list  of  the  papers  in  your  possession  ? 

Mr.  Essmann.  No,  sir;  I have  all  the  contents  of  the  box  sorted 
out. 

The  Chairman.  But  you  have  not  arranged  the  matter  as  yet? 

Mr.  Essmann.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  I would  suggest  before  you  come  on  the  stand 
that,  in  the  interest  of  orderly  procedure,  you  secure  the  assistance 
of  one  of  the  clerks  of  the  committee  and  arrange  these  documents 
systematically. 

"You  say  there  are  still  other  documents  at  Madison,  you  think? 

Mr.  Essmann.  No,  sir;  I do  not  think  there  are  any  more  at 
Madison. 

The  Chairman.  You  think  they  are  all  here  in  your  possession — all 
the  exhibits  that  were  before  the  committee  ? 

Mr.  Essmann.  No,  sir;  I think  there  are  more  somewhere,  but  I 
do  not  know  where. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know  where? 

Mr.  Essmann.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  These  are  all  of  which  you  have  knowledge  ? 

Mr.  Essmann.  Yes;  that  is  all  that  are  in  my  possession. 

The  Chairman.  If  you  will,  then,  arrange  them  in  consecutive 
order  and  classify  them  we  will  call  you. 

The  usual  time  for  adjournment  has  now  arrived. 

(Whereupon,  at  4.30  o’clock  p.  m.,  the  subcommittee  adjourned 
until  to-morrow,  Thursday,  October  12,  1911,  at  10  o’clock  a.  m.) 


GEORGE  H.  GORDON. 


741 


THURSDAY,  OCTOBER  12,  1911. 

Federal  Building,  Milwaukee,  Wis. 

The  subcommittee  met  at  10  o’clock  a.  m. 

Present:  Senators  Heyburn  (chairman),  Sutherland,  and  Pomerene. 

Present  also:  Mr.  C.  E.  Littlefield,  Mr.  W.  E.  Black,  and  Mr.  H.  H. 
J.  Upham,  counsel  for  Senator  Isaac  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  The  Secretary  will  call  the  names  of  the  witnesses 
subpoenaed  for  to-day. 

Mr.  Riordan  will  be  excused  from  the  stand  and  Mr.  Gordon  will  be 
called.  Mr.  Riordan  will  remain  in  attendance. 

Mr.  Gordon,  you  have  not  been  sworn  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No. 

The  Chairman.  The  following  witnesses  summoned  to  appear  this 
morning  will  come  forward  as  their  names  are  called : Adolph  Rosen- 
heim, D.  J.  O’Connor,  N.  L.  James,  George  Beyers. 

Mr.  Rosenheim  and  Mr.  James  responded  to  their  names,  and  the 
oath  was  administered  to  them  by  the  chairman. 

TESTIMONY  OF  GEORGE  H.  GORDON. 

George  H.  Gordon,  having  been  duly  sworn,  testified  as  follows: 

The  Chairman.  Your  name  is  George  H.  Gordon  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  position,  if  any,  do  you  hold  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  United  States  attorney  for  the  western  district  of 
Wisconsin. 

The  Chairman.  Where  do  you  reside  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  La  Crosse. 

The  Chairman.  How  long  have  you  been  United  States  attorney 
for  that  district  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  About  two  years;  a little  over. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  take  part  in  the  senatorial  contest  during 
the  direct  primary  election  of  1908  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I did. 

The  Chairman.  Whom  did  you  support  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  It  has  appeared  in  the  testimony  already  taken 
that  certain  sums  of  money  were  paid  by  you  and  disbursed  by  you 
in  connection  with  that  campaign.  How  much  money  did  you 
receive  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  $1,800. 

The  Chairman,  Who  paid  it  to  you  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Mr.  Edmonds,  I think. 

The  Chairman.  When  was  it  paid  to  you  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  At  different  times  during  the  month  of  July. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  state  when  you  received  it  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I can  not  state  the  exact  day  when  I received  it. 

The  Chairman.  The  testimony  that  has  been  given  indicates 
that  on  August  4 you  received  $1,300.  Did  you  receive  that  sum 
at  that  time  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I could  not  tell  the  time  when  I received  it  or  the 
amount  I received  at  any  given  time.  I received  $1,800  in  the 
aggregate. 


742 


GEORGE  H.  GORDON. 


The  Chairman.  On  August  21  did  you  receive  $200? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I can  not  tell  you  the  date,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  On  August  27  did  you  receive  $300  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I can  not  give  you  any  dates. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  make  any  memorandum  of  the  money 
received  at  the  time  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  None  whatever,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  y ou  do  with  the  money  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I expended  it  in  the  campaign  for  Mr.  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  did  you  expend  it  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  For  general  campaign  expenses. 

The  Chairman.  Designate,  more  particularly,  what  you  mean  by 
general  campaign  expenses.  State  what  you  mean  by  “spending”  it. 

Mr.  Gordon.  Did  I say  “spending”  it? 

The  Chairman.  Whether  you  did  or  not,  state  what  you  mean  by 
that  term. 

Mr.  Gordon.  I mean  spending  it  by  employing  men  to  advance 
the  candidacy  of  Mr.  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  Name  some  man  whom  you  employed  for  that 
purpose. 

Mr.  Gordon.  C.  S.  Van  Auken. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  did  you  pay  him  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I can  not  give  you  the  amount. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  direct  him  to  do  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I employed  him  to  look  after  his  district. 

The  Chairman.  What  do  you  mean  by  looking  after  his  district  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  To  get  men  to  talk  for  Mr.  Stephenson  and  represent 
him  at  the  primary  on  primary  day. 

The  Chairman.  Represent  him  in  what  manner  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Oh,  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  out  voters  at  the  polls 
to  the  primary. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  expend  it  for  that  purpose? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I think  he  did. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  account  to  you  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  He  did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  tell  you  he  had  expended  it  for  that 
purpose  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  He  did  not. 

The  Chairman.  How  do  you  know  he  spent  it  for  that  purpose  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I know  he  is  a man  of  character  and  would  not  do 
anything  that  was  not  on  the  square. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  not  speaking  from  your  own  information  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Not  from  personal  knowledge  of  what  he  told  me; 
no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  see  him  expend  any  of  it  or  pay  it  out  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Just  a moment.  Do  not  commence  to  answer  a 
question  until  it  is  fully  asked.  There  is  plenty  of  time. 

Mr.  Gordon.  I will  try  to  obey  your  instructions,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  make,  at  any  time,  a statement  of  the 
manner  of  the  expenditure  of  this  money  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  With  whom  did  you  make  the  arrangement  for  the 
receipt  and  expenditure  of  this  money  ? 


GEORGE  H.  GORDON. 


743 


Mr.  Gordon.  I think  it  was  with  Mr.  Edmonds. 

The  Chairman.  Where  did  you  make  the  arrangement  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I think  he  made  the  arrangement  with  me  over  the 
long-distance  telephone. 

The  Chairman.  How  did  you  receive  the  money  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  By  draft,  I think. 

The  Chairman.  On  each  of  the  three  occasions  when  you  received  it  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you,  at  any  time,  have  a personal  interview 
with  Mr.  Edmonds  in  regard  to  expending  this  money  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I did  not.  My  recollection  is  that  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  see  Mr.  Edmonds  during  the  campaign? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I did  not — excuse  me.  I saw  Mr.  Edmonds.  I first 
met  Mr.  Edmonds  in  Milwaukee,  before  he  made  an  arrangement  with 
me  to  handle  any  money;  and  that,  I think,  was  in  the  early  part  of 
July  or  the  latter  part  of  June. 

The  Chairman.  What  arrangement  did  he  make  with  you  in  regard 
to  handling  this  money  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  At  the  time  he  was  introduced  to  me,  none.  Over  the 
long-distance  phone  he  asked  if  I would  take  some  money  and  use  it 
in  the  interests  of  Mr.  Stephenson  in  my  territory. 

The  Chairman.  At  that  time  were  you  engaged  in  the  general  prac- 
tice of  law  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I was,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  the  attorney  for  any  special  class  of  cli- 
ents— railroads,  for  instance  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I engaged  in  the  general  practice.  I was  retained  to 
represent  the  Chicago  & Northwestern  locally  at  La  Crosse  for  many 
years. 

The  Chairman.  And  still  do  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  have  any  instructions  as  to  the  manner  in 
which  you  were  to  expend  this  money  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Not  that  I recall. 

The  Chairman.  Did  Mr.  Edmonds  place  any  limitations  upon  you 
in  regard  to  the  use  to  make  of  the  money  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I can  not  recall  what  he  did  say  about  that.  I think 
he  may  have  said  something  about  how  it  was  to  be  expended.  I can 
not  recall  at  the  present  time. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  have  any  instructions  from  Mr.  Tracy  in 
regard  to  receiving  or  spending  this  money  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I never  met  Mr.  Tracy. 

The  Chairman.  Edward  L.  Tracy  testified  before  the  joint  com- 
mittee of  investigation  in  the  legislature 

Mr.  Littlefield.  To  what  page  do  you  refer,  Mr.  Chairman  ? 

The  Chairman.  You  will  find  the  commencement  of  his  testimony 
on  page  3395.  I shall  have  to  turn  back  further  to  get  the  date.  He 
was  the  first  witness  on  that  day.  It  must  be  March  30,  1909,  on  page 
3361,  unless  I have  overlooked  a date  between  that  and  the  point 
where  Mr.  Tracy’s  testimony  seems  to  be  given. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Page  3361  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  that  is  right.  At  least  that  date  appears 
there — March  30,  1909. 


744 


GEORGE  H.  GORDON. 


To  what  page  are  you  referring  for  the  testimony,  Mr.  Chairman  ? 
What  we  are  trying  to  do  is  to  make  certain  as  to  the  day  when  he 
testified. 

The  Chairman.  Page  3395;  that  is  where  Mr.  Tracy  is  sworn. 
Now,  on  page  3406  is  the  testimony  to  which  I was  referring. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  I have  it,  thank  you. 

The  Chairman.  I am  inclined  to  think  that  the  indexer  of  this 
testimony  has  mistaken  the  word  Grogan  for  Gordon.  I find  the 
testimony  that  would  evidently  apply,  but  it  is  relative  to  instruc- 
tions given  Mr.  Grogan,  and  it  is  indexed  as  referring  to  Mr.  Gordon. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I think  the  chairman  is  right  about  that. 

The  Chairman.  So  I will  let  that  question  stand,  with  that  explana- 
tion, without  answer. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  meet  Mr.  Puelicher  at  any  time  during 
the  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes;  I met  him  twice,  I think. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  talk  to  him  with  reference  to  Mr.  Stephen- 
son’s campaign  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I met  him  the  time  I was  introduced,  the  same  day 
that  I was  introduced  to  Mr.  Edmonds  in  Milwaukee,  and  I met  him 
again  at  La  Crosse  several  days  before  the  primary,  and  he  was  then 
with  Senator  Stephenson.  I guess  we  discussed  the  candidacy  at 
that  time,  perhaps. 

The  Chairman.  The  three  of  you  together  discussed  that  at  that 
time? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No,  sir;  not  necessarily.  There  was  quite  a number 
of  other  gentlemen  in  Mr.  Stephenson’s  party.  I think  he  was  mak- 
ing a tour  of  the  State,  and  there  were  several  gentlemen  with  him. 

The  Chairman.  I will  now  read  from  your  testimony  in  part  as  to 
the  manner  of  the  distribution  of  money.  I read  from  page  1881, 
beginning  at  the  bottom  of  page  1880: 

Q.  Mr.  Gordon,  will  you  tell  us  what  was  done  with  that  money? — A.  Why,  it  was 
distributed  among  workers,  men  that  devoted  time  in  the  interests  of  the  candidacy 
of  Mr.  Stephenson,  or  distributing  literature,  putting  up  lithographs  of  Mr.  Stephen- 
son, circulating  and  distributing  buttons,  livery  hire,  automobiles,  and  newspaper 
circulation  and  advertising — generally,  that  is  what  it  was  used  for. 

Q.  Did  you  pay  the  bills,  or  was  some  of  this  money  turned  over  to  other  people? — 
A.,  The  system  that  we  adopted,  if  it  may  be  called  a system — this  was  a new  expe- 
rience to  me,  the  distribution  of  moneys  in  La  Crosse;  others  had  heretofore  been 
selected  for  that  purpose,  and  I called  in  some  of  the  boys  that  had  had  previous 
experience  and  who  were  acquainted  with  the  men  who  had  the  influence,  and  they 
would  send  those  fellows  to  me;  some  of  them  I knew  and  some  of  them  I didn’t  know; 
they  would  say,  “Well,  now,  such  men  as  Charley  Van  Auken  and  Frank  P.  Hixon 
and  Eugene  Perkins  and  Charley  Smith,  and  a number  of  other  men  that  had  previous 
experience,”  they  would  say,  “Why,  I know  of  a good  fellow  down  in  a certain  place; 
I will  send  him  up.”  And  I would  get  his  funds,  what  he  thought  was  right,  and  he 
went  on  his  way  rejoicing,  and  if  he  wanted  any  more  he  came  back  and  got  them,  as 
long  as  they  lasted. 

Did  you  so  testify  at  that  time  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Substantially. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  true  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  That  is  true. 

The  Chairman.  You  mention  Mr.  Van  Auken.  Can  you  tell  me 
how  much  money  was  turned  over  to  him  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I can  not. 


GEORGE  H.  GORDON. 


745 


. The  Chairman.  Can  you  remember  how  much  money  you  turned 
over  to  any  one  man  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  none  of  them  made  any  account  to  you? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Not  to  me;  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Nor  did  you  ever  make  any  account  to  Mr.  Ste- 
phenson, or  to  anyone  on  his  behalf? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Never. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  ever  asked  to? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I was  never  asked  to. 

The  Chairman.  You  had  been  a supporter  of  Senator  Stephenson 
prior  to  receiving  this  money,  had  you  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  hold  any  public  position  at  that  time  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  not  been  elected  to  public  office  in  the 
State  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  You  mean  a State  office  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr,  Gordon.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Nor  were  you  ever  a member  of  either  house  of 
the  legislature  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Mr.  Gordon,  can  you  give  us  the  names  of 
all  the  people  to  whom  you  paid  money? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Give  us  the  names  of  some  of  them. 

Mr.  Gordon.  In  addition  to  Charles  S.  Van  Auken  there  were 
W.  E.  Barber,  Charles  Smith,  E.  G.  Perkins,  Mr.  Powel]  (I  do  not 
know  his  first  name),  John  Mulder,  Mr.  McConnell,  Mr.  Kaizer,  Mr. 
Young  (I  think  it  is  W.  Young).  I can  not  recall  any  more  just  at 
present.  If  you  will  allow  me  to  explain,  I will  state  how  this  cam- 
paign was  conducted;  that  is,  how  I came  into  it. 

There  were  three  gentlemen — Mr.  Van  Auken,  Mr.  Barber,  and 
Mr.  Smith — who  had  all  been  chairmen  of  the  Republican  county 
committee  of  our  county,  who  were  men  who  had  experience  in  the 
management  of  campaigns.  While  I had  always  taken  a sort  of 
active  part  in  management,  I never  had  had  active  management  of 
any  campaign.  I called  in  these  gentlemen  to  assist  me,  and  a great 
many  of  the  men  were  sent  to  me  by  these  men.  Perhaps  I knew 
them  when  they  would  appear  and  perhaps  I did  not;  but  they  came 
verified  by  some  one  of  these  men,  and  others.  I remember  Senator 
Withee  was  also  active  in  the  candidacy  of  Senator  Stephenson,  and 
he  sent  some  men  to  me.  Many  of  the  men  I knew  at  the  time  and 
many  I did  not;  but  I relied  on  these  men  to  send  me  reliable  men — 
men  who  would  expend  this  money  properly. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Who  was  Mr.  Van  Auken?  What  was  his 
business  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  He  was  then  and  is  now  in  the  insurance  business. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  had  been  active  in  politics  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes;  he  had  been  chairman  of  the  county  committee 
for  a great  many  years. 


746 


GEORGE  H.  GORDON. 


Senator  Sutherland.  Do  you  recall  the  circumstances  of  seeing 
Mr.  Van  Auken  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I remember  seeing  him  in  my  office. 

Senator  Sutherland.  He  came  to  your  office  ? 

Mr.  Gordon,  I asked  him  to  come.  I asked  Mr  Barber  and  Mr. 
Van  Auken  and  Mr.  Smith  all  to  come. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  the  three  of  them  come  together? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  you  had  the  talk  with  the  three  of 
them  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  In  substance,  what  was  the  talk  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I told  them  that  I had  some  money  to  use  in  the 
interest  of  Senator  Stephenson’s  campaign,  and  I wanted  their  assist- 
ance; that  they  knew  the  workers  throughout  the  different  precincts 
of  the  city  and  the  county,  and  I wanted  to  get  men  to  work  in  the 
interest  of  Senator  Stephenson,  to  talk  about  Senator  Stephenson, 
and  to  devote  their  time  to  his  candidacy. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  tell  them  what  you  wanted  them 
to  do  any  more  definitely  than  that  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  That  is  about  as  I remember  it.  I may  have  been 
more  definite  at  the  time. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  ask  each  of  them  how  much  money 
he  needed  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  How  did  you  arrive  at  the  amount  of 
money  you  paid  to  each  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I would  give  the  money  at  different  times  to  some  of 
them,  and  to  some  at  once. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  you  recall  what  you  gave  any  one  of  them 
at  this  particular  time  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Or  how  you  arrived  at  the  amount  that  you 
first  paid  them? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  have  no  recollection  at  all  on  that 
subject  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  you  recall  whether  you  gave  Mr.  Van 
Auken  as  much  as  $100  or  more? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Do  you  ask  me  to  guess  ? 

Senator  Sutherland.  I do  not  ask  you  to  guess. 

Mr.  Gordon.  I have  told  you  that  1 can  not  tell  you  how  much  I 
gave  him. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Your  mind  is  an  entire  blank  on  that  sub- 
ject ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  If  you  wish  to  use  that  term. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is,  you  do  not  know  whether  you 
gave  them  as  much  as  $1  or  more  than  $1  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I do  not  remember  how  much  I gave  them.  Cer- 
tainly I gave  them  more  than  $1. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  you  remember  whether  you  gav  them 
as  much  as  $1  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes.  I remember  giving  them  as  much  as  $1. 


GEORGE  H.  GORDON. 


747 


Senator  Sutherland.  You  do  remember  that? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  gave  them  more  than  $1  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  More  than  $1. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  gave  them  more  than  $5  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  More  than  $5. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Is  that  as  nearly  as  you  can  give  it  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I think  that  is  as  near  as  I can  come  to  it. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is  as  nearly  as  you  are  willing  to  state  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  you  remember  whether  you  gave  each 
of  the  three  an  equal  amount? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I do  not  think  I did. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  paid  them  in  unequal  amounts? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  is  it  that  impresses  that  circumstance 
on  your  mind  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Because  I had  not  any  specific  understanding  as  to 
how  much  they  were  to  receive,  and  they  got  money  at  different  times 
and  for  different  purposes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I understood  you  to  say  that  you  could  not 
remember  the  amount  that  you  paid  to  any  one  of  them,  but  you  do 
remember  that  the  amounts  paid  were  unequal  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I asked  you  what,  if  anything,  there  was 
that  impressed  that  circumstance  on  your  mind  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  That  I gave  them  unequal  amounts  ? 

Senator  Sutherland.  Yes. 

Mr.  Gordon.  My  recollection  is  that  I gave  them  unequal  amounts. 
I am  basing  that  statement  on  the  fact  that  I had  not  any  arrange- 
ment with  them  specifically  as  to  how  much  they  were  to  receive. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Have  you  a clear  recollection  that  you  did 
pay  them  unequal  amounts  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  You  mean  that  the  total  amount  received  by  each 
would  be  the  same,  or  unequal  ? 

Senator  Sutherland.  At  this  particular  time,  when  you  first  paid 
them  money — the  first  time  you  paid  it  to  them. 

Mr.  Gordon.  I do  not  think  I gave  them  equal  amounts.  Still,  I 
have  no  way  of  fixing  that  definitely  by  anything  said  or  done  that  I 
can  recollect. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  you  mean  to  say  you  have  or  have  not 
any  recollection  on  that  subject  as  to  whether  the  amounts  you  paid 
them  were  equal  or  unequal  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No,  sir;  I have  not.  I suppose  that  is  a proper 
answer. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  have  no  recollection  at  all  on  that 
subject? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I have  no  recollection  as  to  how  much  each  one 
received. 

Senator  Sutherland  Have  you  any  recollection  as  to  whether 
the  amounts  were  equal  or  unequal  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I can  n<>t  tell  you. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Whether  or  not  you  paid  each  of  them  the 
same  amount? 


748 


GEORGE  H.  GORDON. 


Mr.  Gordon.  No;  I do  not  think  I did. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  say  you  do  not  think  you  did.  Have 
you  any  recollection  on  the  subject? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I do  not  understand  your  question. 

(The  question  was  repeated  by  the  reporter,  as  follows) : 

‘*You  say  you  do  not  think  you  did.  Have  you  any  recollection 
on  the  subject?” 

Mr.  Gordon.  I can  not  remember  that  they  each  one  received  the 
same  amount  of  money.  I do  not  know  whether  they  did  or  whether 
they  did  not. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Why  did  you  say  that  you  thought  they 
were  unequal  amounts  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Judging  from  the  activity  of  the  men,  I think  Mr. 
Van  Auken  would  receive  more  than  the  others.  Mr.  Van  Auken 
was  more  active  than  the  others. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is,  you  are  simply  reasoning  about  it  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Just  reasoning  about  it;  yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Because  Van  Auken  was  the  more  active 
man  you  think  it  probable  that  you  paid  him  more  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Is  that  what  you  mean  to  say  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  That  is  what  I mean. 

Senator  Sutherland.  How  many  different  times  did  you  pay 
Mr.  Van  Auken  money? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I can  not  remember  that.  I think  more  than  once, 
but  how  many  times  I can  not  remember. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Was  it  more  than  twice? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I do  not  think  it  was  more  than  twice. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is,  you  think  you  paid  him  on  two 
occasions,  do  you  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I think  so. 

Senator  Sutherland.  How  much  did  you  pay  him  altogether  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I can  not  tell  you  that. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Approximately  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I can  not  tell  you  that. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  have  no  sort  of  idea  whatever? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  you  mean  to  say,  Mr.  Gordon,  that  you 
do  not  remember  whether  you  paid  him  as  much  as  $100  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I have  not  any  definite  recollection  of  how  much  I 
did  pay  Mr.  Van  Auken.  If  you  desire  me  to  make  an  estimate,  I 
should  think  it  would  be  somewhere  between  $50  and  $100. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Between  $50  and  $100  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Is  that  a mere  guess  or  is  it  based  upon 
some  recollection  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  That  is  purely  a guess. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Purely  a guess  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  It  may  have  been  very  much  more  or  very 
much  less,  as  a matter  of  fact? 

Mr.  Gordon.  It  may  have  been;  yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  How  much  did  you  pay  Mr.  Barber  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I do  not  remember. 


GEORGE  H.  GORDON. 


749 


Senator  Sutherland.  Approximate  it. 

Mr.  Gordon.  Possibly  $30  or  $40. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Have  you  any  recollection  on  that  subject 
or  are  you  just  guessing? 

Mr.  Gordon.  You  are  asking  me  to  approximate  it? 

Senator  Sutherland.  Yes;  but  I am  asking  you  to  answer  my 
question  whether  you  have  any  recollection  or  are  just  guessing. 

Mr.  Gordon.  I say,  that  is  a guess,  pure  and  simple. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is  a mere  guess? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  have  no  recollection  whatever  on  the 
subject  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No;  none  at  all. 

Senator  Sutherland.  It  may  have  been  more  than  $100,  may  it? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I do  not  think  it  would  be  more  than  $100. 

Senator  Sutherland.  The  question  I ask  you  is  whether  it  may 
have  been  more  than  $100  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I can  not  tell  you. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  can  not  tell  me  whether  it  may  have 
been  or  not? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No. 

Senator  Sutherland.  How  much  did  you  pay  Mr.  Charles  Smith  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I do  not  remember  that. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Can  you  approximate  it  from  any  recollec- 
tion ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I can  not  do  it. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Have  you  any  recollection  as  to  whether  it 
was  more  or  less  than  $100  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I should  guess  that  it  was  less. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  should  guess  it  was  less? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Why  do  you  guess  it  was  less  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Mr.  Smith  was  not  even  as  active  as  Mr.  Barber  in 
the  work. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Because  Mr.  Smith  was  not  as  active  as 
somebody  else,  you  guess  it  was  less  than  $100? 

Mr.  Gordon.  As  these  three  men  I have  mentioned. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  pay  each  of  these  three  other  men 
that  you  have  mentioned  more  than  $100? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I can  not  tell  you. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  three  other  men  does  the  Senator  have  in 
mind? 

Senator  Sutherland.  The  three  men  he  has  mentioned. 

Then  how  does  this  afford  any  basis  for  your  guessing  that  you 
paid  Mr.  Charles  Smith  less  than  $100? 

Mr.  Gordon.  My  conclusion  now  is  that  a man  that  was  very 
active  would  necessarily  spend  more  money  than  one  that  was  not 
quite  so  active. 

Senator  Sutherland.  How  much  would  men  who  were  very  active 
spend  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I can  not  tell  you. 

Senator  Sutherland.  More  than  $100,  or  less? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I can  not  tell  you. 


750 


GEORGE  H.  GORDON. 


Senator  Sutherland.  Then  I ask  you  again:  How  does  that 
afford  any  basis  for  your  guessing  that  Mr.  Charles  Smith  received 
less  than  $100? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I have  told  you  all  the  reason  I could  give  for  that. 

Senator  Sutherland.  It  does  not  afford  any  basis  at  all. 

Mr.  Gordon.  That  depends  on  how  a man  views  it. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Does  it? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I think  it  does. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is,  you  have  no  idea  whether  you  paid 
Mr.  Auken  or  Mr.  Barber,  either  one  of  them,  more  than  $100,  but 
you  think  they  were  more  active  than  Mr.  Smith  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  that,  therefore,  you  must  have  paid 
Mr.  Smith  less  than  $100  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  That  is  correct. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is  the  way  you  want  to  leave  your 
statement  with  the  committee,  is  it  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  That  is  what  I have  stated. 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  did  you  pay  Mr.  Perkins? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I can  not  remember  what  I paid  Mr.  Perkins. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  pay  him  anything  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes,  I paid  him  something;  but  I can  not  remember 
how  much. 

Senator  Sutherland.  How  do  you  remember  that  you  paid  him 
anything  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I have  a recollection  of  his  getting  some  money  from 
me,  but  just  of  the  fact  that  I paid  him — that  is  all. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  pay  him  in  one  amount? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I think  he  got  it  once  from  me. 

Senator  Sutherland.  How  many  times  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Once. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Only  once.  Did  you  pay  him  more  than 
$100  or  less  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Less  than  $100. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  you  recollect  that  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I feel  very  certain  that  it  was  less  than  $100. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Still,  you  have  no  recollection  on  the  sub- 
ject ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Not  a definite  recollection;  no. 

Senator  Sutherland.  If  Mr.  Perkins  were  to  say  that  you  paid 
him  more  than  $100,  would  you  accept  that  as  being  the  fact? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I would  accept  his  statement;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  did  you  pay  Mr.  Powell  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I can  not  tell  you  that. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  can  tell  no  more  about  that  than  you 
can  about  any  of  the  others  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I know  that  Powell  got  money  two  or  three  times, 
but  how  much  he  got  at  each  time  I can  not  remember. 

Senator  Sutherland.  How  much  did  you  pay  Mr.  Mulder? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I can  not  remember  that. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  you  remember  where  you  paid  him  ? 


GEORGE  H.  GORDON.  751 

Mr.  Gordon.  I think  he  came  to  my  office  and  was  in  my  office 
when  it  was  paid  to  him. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  pay  him  at  more  than  one  time  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I may  have,  but  I can  not  say  definitely. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  can  not  recall  whether  you  paid  him 
more  than  once  or  not  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  How  much  did  you  pay  Mr.  McConnell? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I can  not  remember  that. 

Senator  Sutherland.  How  much  did  you  pay  Mr.  Kaizer  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I can  not  remember  that. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Or  Mr.  Young  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I can  not  remember  that. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  can  not  even  approximate  from  your 
recollection  the  amount  that  you  paid  a single  one  of  these  indi- 
viduals ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  What  do  you  mean  by  “approximate”  ? 

Senator  Sutherland.  I mean  just  what  I say.  You  know  what 
the  word  “approximate”  means,  do  you  not? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Do  you  mean  to  guess  what  I paid  him,  now  ? 

Senator  Sutherland.  Can  you  approximate  from  your  recollection 
how  much  you  paid  any  one  man  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I do  not  think  I paid  any  man  less  than  $5. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Nor  more  than  what  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Well,  more  than  $100,  probably. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  paid  no  man  more  than  $100  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes;  I want  to  correct  that.  I paid  $600  to  the 
newspapers — the  Chronicle  and  the  Leader-Press. 

Senator  Sutherland.  How  much  did  you  pay  them? 

Mr.  Gordon.  $600. 

Senator  Sutherland.  For  the  two  papers? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  was  that  for  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  That  was  for  extra  papers  that  were  put  out  in  the 
district. 

Senator  Sutherland.  How  many  extra  papers  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  As  much  as  $600  would  purchase. 

Senator  Sutherland.  How  many  was  that  ? Have  you  any  idea  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I do  not  know. 

Senator  Sutherland.  How  much  was  each  paper  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I can  not  remember  just  the  figure.  Both  of  those 
papers  are  practically  owned  by  the  same  individual.  One  is  a 
morning  paper  and  the  other  an  evening  paper.  I think  it  was  dis- 
tributed; my  intention  was  two- thirds  and  one- third — I think  two- 
thirds  for  the  evening  and  one-third  for  the  morning  paper,  or  the 
other  way.  I can  not  remember. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is,  two-thirds  of  the  $600  for  one  and 
one-third  for  the  other  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I think  that  is  the  way. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  you  have  no  idea  how  many  papers 
each  of  them  distributed  or  was  to  distribute? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Except  as  I was  informed  afterwards  that  there  were 
three  or  four  hundred  extra  papers,  or  more,  put  out  of  each  issue. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Three  or  four  hundred  extra  copies  ? 


752 


GEORGE  H.  GORDON, 


Mr.  Gordon.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Of  each  issue  ?. 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is,  you  mean  the  morning  and  the 
evening  issue  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  my  recollection  now. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Let  me  see  if  I understand  you : Do  you  mean 
that  three  or  four  hundred  copies  of  one  issue  of  the  morning  paper 
were  put  out  and  three  or  four  hundred  copies  of  one  issue  of  the  even- 
ing paper  were  put  out  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  That  is  my  recollection.  That  is  my  understanding 
of  it. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Making  between  six  and  eight  hundred 
newspapers  furnished  altogether  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I think  that  is  correct.  That  is  my  recollection. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Were  these  special  editions  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No;  they  were  the  regular  editions. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Regular  editions  of  the  paper.  What  special 
feature  did  they  contain,  that  you  wanted  to  send  them  out  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  There  was  sent  to  me  from  time  to  time  literature  of 
different  kinds  that  I put  in  the  paper,  and  the  paper  was  supporting 
Mr.  Stephenson  editorially. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Referring  to  these  particular  issues,  the 
morning  issue  that  you  sent  out  and  the  evening  issue  that  you  sent 
out:  What  particular  feature  did  those  papers  contain  that  you 
wanted  to  distribute  them  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I say,  the  papers  were  supporting  Mr.  Stephenson 
editorially;  and  from  time  to  time  literature  came  to  me  that  was 
put  into  those  papers. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  does  not  answer  my  question,  Mr. 
Gordon.  What  particular  thing  did  these  particular  issues  of  the 
papers  contain  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  These  three  or  four  hundred  papers,  you  mean? 

Senator  Sutherland.  Yes. 

Mr.  Gordon.  They  were  the  same  as  the  other  papers  that  were 
issued  by  the  same  paper  to  its  subscribers.  The  paper  was  support- 
ing Mr.  Stephenson  editorially. 

Senator  Sutherland.  A paper  might  be  supporting  Mr.  Stephen- 
son, and  yet  some  particular  issue  might  have  nothing  about  Mr. 
Stephenson  in  it.  Did  these  particular  papers  contain  something 
about  Mr.  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I did  not  keep  a record  of  the  papers,  as  to  what  they 
said  about  Mr.  Stephenson  on  any  particular  occasion.  But  gen- 
erally, I think  almost  daily,  they  were  writing  in  the  interest  of  Mr. 
Stephenson. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Perhaps  I do  not  understand  you.  I under- 
stood you  to  say  that  they  sent  out  three  or  four  hundred  copies  of 
the  morning  paper. 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  For  one  issue? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Oh,  not  for  one  issue. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  said  that.  What  is  the  fact? 


GEORGE  H.  GORDON.  753 

Mr.  Gordon.  I think  generally  during  the  time  after  this  money 
was  paid  there  were  that  many  papers  sent  out. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  you  mean  that  that  many  papers  were 
sent  out  every  morning  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Daily. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Covering  a period  of  time? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I am  not  attempting  to  be  specific  about  how  many 
papers  there  were.  That  is  my  judgment — that  there  were  three  or 
four  hundred. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Three  or  four  hundred  were  sent  out  for 
how  long  a time  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  During  the  primary  campaign. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  you  did  not  tell  me  before.  I under- 
stood you  to  answer  specifically  that  it  was  only  a single  issue. 

Mr.  Gordon.  Oh,  no;  no. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Covering  how  long  a period — four  or  five 
months  or  four  or  five  weeks. 

Mr.  Gordon.  I think  it  would  be  during  the  month  of  August. 

Senator  Sutherland.  During  the  entire  month  of  August  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I will  not  be  certain  about  that;  but  it  was  two  or 
three  or  four  weeks,  possibly,  before  the  primary. 

Mr.  Sutherland.  Did  you  furnish  the  list  of  names  of  persons  to 
whom  they  were  to  go  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No;  I did  not. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Who  furnished  that  list  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I do  not  know.  The  publishers  secured  them  them- 
selves, I suppose.  I did  not  have  any  list. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is,  you  just  told  them  to  send  out 
papers,  without  telling  them  to  whom  to  send  them.  Did  you  tell 
them  how  many  to  send  out  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland,  Did  you  make  any  agreement  about  that  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  have  any  understanding  as  to  how 
many  they  were  sending  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Or  going  to  send? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  just  handed  over  $600,  and  told  them 
to  send  out  their  papers  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  My  understanding  was  that  they  would  send  out  as 
many  papers  as  that  money  would  compensate  them  for. 

Senator  Sutherland.  As  many  as  that  money  would  pay  for? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Leaving  it  wholly  to  them? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  As  to  the  number  and  as  to  the  persons  to 
whom  they  should  be  sent  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Outside  of  this  $600,  how  did  you  expend 
the  remainder  of  the  $1,800? 

Mr.  Gordon.  In  the  manner  I have  described. 

Senator  Sutherland.  In  the  way  you  have  stated? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes. 

15235°— vol  1—11 


48 


754 


GEORGE  H.  GORDON. 


Senator  Sutherland.  As  paying  it  out  to  individuals  who  were 
employed  to  go  out  and  work  for  Mr.  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes;  and  some  incidental  expenses — automobile  hire, 
if  I had  an  automobile,  or  putting  up  lithographs  of  Mr.  Stephenson, 
or  other  literature.  I think  there  was  certain  literature  sent  to  me 
which  I had  men  distribute  for  me. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  retain  any  of  the  $1,800  for  your 
services  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  expended  the  entire  $1,800? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  How  did  you  know  when  you  had  got  it  all 
spent  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I think  I was  a little  bit  shy  when  I gat  through,  on 
my  own  account. 

Senator  Sutherland.  How  do  you  know  you  were  a little  bit  shy  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Some  of  the  bills  that  were  contracted  were  paid  after 
the  primary  was  over.  Some  men  were  compensated;  and  I can 
remember  well  when  I got  to  the  end  of  it. 

Senator  Sutherland.  How  did  you  keep  the  money  or  keep  the 
account  so  that  you  were  enabled  to  know  that  you  had  spent  all  of  it  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I kept  no  accounts. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  kept  no  accounts? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  How  did  you  keep  the  money  so  that  you 
knew? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I kept  the  money  in  my  safe.  I kept  the  currency 
right  in  the  safe. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is,  you  cashed  the  checks,  and  put  the 
cash  in  your  safe  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Right  in  the  safe;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  mingle  it  with  any  other  funds  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  It  was  not  mingled  with  your  own  funds  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  simply  paid  it  out  until  the  contents  of 
the  safe  were  exhausted  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  render  any  account  at  all  of  your 
expenditures  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  testified  before  the  legislative  com- 
mittee ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  In  March  following  this  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Some  time  during  the  committee’s  sessions.  I do 
not  remember  the  time — the  date. 

Senator  Sutherland.  It  was  within  a few  months  after  the  expend- 
iture of  this  money,  was  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes;  I think  it  was  the  summer  before  that  that  it 
was  expended. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  testified  on  March  12? 

Mr.  Gordon.  It  was  the  summer  before;  the  previous  summer. 


GEORGE  H.  GORDON. 


755 


Senator  Sutherland.  The  money  was  spent  in  the  previous 
August.  Your  attention  at  that  time  was  called  to  the  fact  that 
information  was  desired  respecting  the  amounts  of  money  that  you 
had  paid  to  these  various  people,  was  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I attempted  to  give  them  what  information  I could 
at  that  time. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  give  them  any  more  definite  infor- 
mation than  you  have  given  us  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  My  testimony  will  show  that.  I do  not  recollect 
what  the  testimony  was. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  do  not  recall  whether  you  did  or  not  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No;  I tried  to  answer  the  questions  they  put  to  me. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  you  recall  whether  or  not  you  gave  to 
that  committee  the  amount  that  you  paid  to  a single  individual, 
Mr.  Gordon  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I do  not  think  I did. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  do  not  think  you  did?  Then  so  far  as 
the  amount 

Mr.  Gordon.  Excuse  me — except  this  newspaper. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Except  the  $600  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  The  $600;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Then  so  far  as  the  amounts  which  were  paid 
were  concerned,  your  testimony  before  that  committee  was  no  more 
definite  than  it  is  before  this  committee  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  was  within  seven  months  after  the 
expenditures.  Have  you  taken  any  pains  to  refresh  your  memory 
about  these  expenditures? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No,  I have  not. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Have  you  talked  with  Van  Auken  or  Barber 
or  Smith  so  as  to  ascertain  the  amounts? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Pomerene.  When  were  you  appointed  United  States  dis- 
trict attorney? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I think  it  was  in  the  spring  of  1909. 

Senator  Pomerene.  The  spring  of  1909? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I think  some  time  in  April  or  May. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Had  you  held  any  official  position  before  that  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I had  been  district  attorney  of  La  Crosse  County,  a 
local  officer,  at  one  time  20  years  ago. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Is  La  Crosse  County  the  county  in  which  the 
city  of  La  Crosse  is  located  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Was  this  $1,800  that  you  received  for  cam- 
paign purposes  in  that  particular  county  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  was  it  all  expended,  so  far  as  you  were 
able  to  tell,  in  that  county  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Are  these  men  whose  names  you  have  given 
all  residents  of  La  Crosse  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  is  the  population  of  your  city  ? 


756 


GEORGE  H.  GORDON. 


Mr.  Gordon.  30,000. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  what  is  the  population  of  the  county  ? 
Mr.  Gordon.  About  between  42,000  and  45,000;  I think  45,000  at 
the  last  census,  of  1900. 

Senator  Pomerene.  With  whom  did  you  make  the  arrangement 
about  the  $600  that  you  speak  of,  which  was  given  to  two  papers  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I talked  with  Mr.  R.  B.  Gelett. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Spell  the  name,  please,  so  that  I can  get  it. 
Mr.  Gordon.  G-e-l-e-t-t. 

Senator  Pomerene.  He  is  the  proprietor  of  the  two  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  He  is  a stockholder,  manager,  and  editor  of  one  of 
them. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  you  paid  the  money  to  him  ? 

Mr.  Gordon  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Was  it  paid  in  currency  or  by  check? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Currency. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I wish  you  would  name  the  men  that  you 
called  to  your  office  on  that  day.  Van  Auken  you  gave  as  one,  and 
Smith.  Who  was  the  third  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Mr.  Barber. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  is  William  E.  Barber? 

Mr.  Gordon.  W.  E.  Barber;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  They  all  lived  in  La  Crosse  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  When  did  you  see  Mr.  Mulder  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Mr.  Mulder  ? 

Senator  Pomerene.  Yes. 

Mr.  Gordon.  Some  time  early  in  the  campaign.  I can  not  tell  the 
exact  date. 

Senator  Pomerene.  When,  with  reference  to  your  interview  with 
Van  Auken,  Barber,  and  Smith  in  your  office? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Do  you  mean  before  or  after  ? 

Senator  Pomerene.  Yes. 

Mr.  Gordon.  I can  not  tell  you  that. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Was  it  before  or  after  you  had  received  the 
money  from  Mr.  Edmonds  or  Mr.  Puelicher  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I can  not  tell  you  that. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  was  his  first  name? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Mr.  Mulder’s  first  name  ? 

Senator  Pomerene.  Yes. 

Mr.  Gordon.  John. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  is  his  business  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  He  is  a grocer. 

Senator  Pomerene.  He  was  a candidate  for  the  assembly  at  that 
time? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I think  he  was. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Who  was  nominated  in  that  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  A man  by  the  name  of  McConnell.  I will  not  be  cer- 
tain whether  Mr.  Mulder  was  a candidate  at  that  time  or  not;  but  he 
was  a candidate  before  the  primary  for  that  position. 

Senator  Pomerene.  He  got  some  of  this  money,  did  he? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  How  much  did  he  get  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I can  not  tell  you. 


GEORGE  H.  GORDON. 


757 


Senator  Pomerene.  About  how  much? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I can  not  tell  you  that. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Just  a moment,  if  the  Senator  please.  Which 
gentleman  do  you  refer  to  ? 

Senator  Pomerene.  John  Mulder. 

Mr.  Black.  The  witness  said  “McConnell.” 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I got  the  impression  from  the  examination  that 
the  Senator  had  in  mind  Mr.  McConnell. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Oh,  no.  He  said  in  answer  to  my  question 
that  McConnell  was  nominated. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Then  you  said,  “ and  he  got  some  of  this  money;” 
so  I got  the  impression  that  you  referred  to  McConnell. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  understood  that  I was  referring  to 
Mulder? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  all  right,  then. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Yes;  that  is  all  right,  so  there  will  be  no  mis- 
understanding. Was  it  as  much  as  $50  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I can  not  tell  you  how  much  it  was. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  can  certainly  give  us  some  idea  as  to 
whether  it  was  a matter  of  $5  or  $10  or  $50  or  $100. 

Mr.  Gordon.  I can  not  tell  you  definitely  how  much  it  was. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I know;  but  I am  not  asking  you  for  that.  I 
am  asking  you  for  your  best  judgment  about  it. 

Mr.  Gordon.  It  was  probably,  I should  guess,  from  $25  to  $50. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  did  you  say  to  him  with  reference  to  his 
campaign  and  what  use  was  to  be  made  of  this  money  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  He  was  one  of  the  original  Stephenson  men  in  the 
county,  and  I asked  him  to  do  what  he  could  in  the  interest  of  Mr. 
Stephenson. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  else  was  said  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  That  is  all  I can  recollect.  I do  not  recollect  all  that 
was  said.  That  is  what  I naturally  would  say. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Since  your  attention  has  been  directed  to  this 
matter,  do  you  not  recall  that  Mulder  was  a candidate  for  the  general 
assembly  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I say  he  was  a candidate,  but  I can  not  recollect 
whether  he  was  when  I gave  him  the  money  or  whether  he  subse- 
quently became  a candidate. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I misunderstood  you,  then. 

Mr.  Gordon.  He  was  a candidate;  yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  We  understand  each  other  now — that  he  was 
in  fact  a candidate  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  He  was  a candidate;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  But  you  meant  to  say  that  you  do  not  remem- 
ber whether  at  the  time  you  gave  him  the  money  he  was  then  an 
announced  candidate  or  not  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  That  is  the  idea. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Very  well,  just  so  I understand  you. 

Mr.  Gordon.  My  recollection  is  that  he  became  a candidate  late  in 
the  campaign,  although  I am  not  positive  about  that. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Are  you  able  to  give  the  date  when  this  money 
was  given  to  him  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No,  sir. 


758 


GEORGE  H.  GORDON. 


Senator  Pomerene.  Was  he  present  in  your  office  at  any  time  with 
these  other  gentlemen  you  name  when  you  talked  over  the  situation  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I do  not  think  he  was. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Was  this  for  his  own  personal  compensation,  or 
was  it  to  be  distributed  among  workers  and  for  teams,  etc. 

Mr.  Gordon.  He  was  to  use  it  in  securing  workers  if  he  found  any 
that  were  desirable. 

Senator  Pomerene.  How  much  of  it  was  for  his  personal  compen- 
sation ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I did  not  specify. 

Senator  Pomerene.  It  was  understood  that  some  of  this  would  be 
for  his  compensation  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I expected  that  he  would  use  it  as  his  judgment  dic- 
tated. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  was  the  understanding  between  you, 
was  it  ? 


Mr.  Gordon.  I can  not  recall  what  the  understanding  was. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Give  us  as  nearly  as  you  can  the  conversation, 
or  the  substance  of  it. 

Mr.  Gordon.  I think  I have  given  you  the  conversation  as  nearly 
as  I can  recall  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I do  not  now  recall  that  there  was  anything 
said  on  the  subject  of  compensation  in  what  you  gave  us  before. 
Since  your  attention  is  directed  to  that 

Mr.  Gordon.  I said  that  I gave  him  the  money  with  the  purpose  of 
doing  what  he  could  in  the  interest  of  Mr.  Stephenson,  and  my  recol- 
lection is — I have  not  any  recollection  upon  the  point,  but  I think 
naturally  I would  ask  him,  if  he  found  a man  that  was  available  and 
desirable,  a good  man,  to  secure  him  to  work  in  the  interest  of  Mr. 
Stephenson. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  did  you  say  about  paying  him  for  his 
services  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I do  not  think  I said  anything  about  it.  I gave  him 
the  money. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  gave  him  the  money,  to  do  with  it  as  he 
saw  fit  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  To  refresh  your  memory:  Do  you  not  recall 
that  his  nomination  papers  had  already  been  filed  at  the  time  this 
money  was  given  to  him  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I guess  possibly  they  must  have  been.  They  must 
have  been  filed. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Your  law,  as  I recall  it,  provides  that  these 
papers  must  be  filed  at  least  30  days  prior  to  the  date  of  the  primary. 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  So  that  as  you  now  view  the  situation,  his 
papers  must  have  been  filed  at  the  time  he  received  this  money  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I think  so,  because  I stated  that  he  became  a candi- 
date very  late  in  the  campaign,  very  shortly  before  the  time  for 
filing  expired. 

Senator  Pomerene  Did  you  discuss  with  him  the  question  of  his 
candidacy  for  the  general  assembly,  or  the  assembly,  I believe  you 
call  it  here  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  The  assembly. 


GEORGE  H.  GORDON. 


759 


Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  discuss  that  question  with  him  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Generally? 

Senator  Pomerene.  Yes;  at  the  time  when  you  were  talking  to 
him  about  Senator  Stephenson’s  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I can  not  recall  that  I did,  particularly. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  knew  at  that  time  that  he  was  favorable 
to  Senator  Stephenson’s  candidacy  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes;  I knew  that. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  you  would  not  have  given  him  this  money 
if  he  had  not  been  favorable  to  Senator  Stephenson’s  candidacy  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I certainly  would  not  have  employed  any  man  to 
work  for  Senator  Stephenson  that  was  not  favorable  to  his  candidacy; 
no. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Certainly.  And  Mr.  McConnell  was  the  can- 
didate against  Mulder  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  he  got  the  nomination? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Whom  did  he  favor  for  the  United  States 
Senate  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.'  I think  he  favored  Hatton,  if  I am  not  mistaken. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Was  that  known  to  you  at  the  time  you  were 
aiding  Senator  Stephenson  in  this  primary  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  That  McConnell  was  for  Hatton  ? 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  he  favored  Hatton,  or  someone  other 
than  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I do  not  know  whether  I knew  it  at  the  time,  or 
whether  I am  confusing  that  with  what  I have  subsequently  learned. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Were  these  men  that  you  have  named  here, 
or  any  of  them,  connected  with  this  railroad  company  whose  attorney 
you  were  at  that  time  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  None  of  them? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No,  sir.  May  I make  a statement  there  regarding 
Mr.  Mulder? 

Senator  Pomerene.  I shall  be  very  glad  to  have  you  make  any 
statement  you  wish. 

Mr.  Gordon.  Mr.  Mulder  had  announced  in  the  paper  that  he 
would  support  the  nominee  of  the  primary,  on  several  occasions;  so 
that,  while  he  was  supporting  Mr.  Stephensoi^  he  announced  that  he 
would  support  whoever  might  be  nominated  at  the  primary. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I take  it  from  what  you  have  said  that  it  was 
commonly  understood  at  that  time  that  he  favored  Senator  Stephen- 
son ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And,  notwithstanding  his  position  with  ref- 
erence to  Senator  Stephenson,  he  had  made  the  announcement  that 
if  anyone  else  received  a plurality  of  votes  he  would  support  his 
party’s  candidate  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Mr.  Gordon,  you  are  an  attorney  of  how 
many  years’  experience  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  About  25. 


760 


GEORGE  H.  GORDON-. 


Senator  Pomerene.  With  your  knowledge  of  the  complications 
that  grow  out  of  affairs  of  this  kind,  did  it  not  occur  to  you  that  you 
ought  to  keep  an  account  of  this  large  disbursement  of  money  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Not  at  that  time;  no,  sir.  I think  with  my  subse- 
quent experience  I would  not  have  any  question  about  what  I would 
do;  but  1 kept  the  accounts  as  they  had  been  kept  in  the  State  for 
years. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Without  any  political  experience — and  you 
have  indicated  that  you  were  rather  a novice  on  the  subject  at  the 
time  you  took  up  this  matter — did  not  your  experience  in  the  affairs 
of  your  clients,  etc.,  indicate  to  you  the  necessity,  when  money  was 
placed  in  your  hands,  of  your  being  able  to  render  a reasonable  ac- 
count of  what  you  had  done  with  the  money  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  My  experience  politically,  do  you  mean? 

Senator  Pomerene.  No,  no;  your  experience  professionally,  I will 
say. 

Mr.  Gordon.  I do  not  think  I would  treat  a fund  of  that  character 
as  I would  a fund  that  I was  intrusted  with  professionally. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  is  the  difference  between  the  two  ? I 
should  like  you  to  discriminate. 

Mr.  Gordon.  I should  say  that  I followed  out  the  custom  of  the 
campaign  managers  in  my  locality  since  I have  known  anything 
about  campaigning.  That  is  the  method  they  pursued.  I never 
knew  of  one 

Senator  Pomerene.  Not  to  render  any  account  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I never  knew  of  one  rendering  an  account. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  knew,  did  you  not,  that  the  statutes 
here  required  the  candidates  for  any  office,  including  the  United 
States  senatorial  candidates,  to  file  accounts  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  as  a lawyer  it  occurred  to  you  that  if 
you  were  spending  $1,S00  of  Senator  Stephenson’s  money  he  ought 
to  account  for  that  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I expected  he  would  account  for  it,  according  to  his 
knowledge,  as  to  the  manner  in  which  it  was  expended. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  say  “ according  to  his  knowledge.” 
Would  it  not  occur  to  you,  as  one  of  his  representatives  or  agents, 
that  you  ought  to  place  in  his  hands  sufficient  data  to  enable  him 
to  file  a detailed  account? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  did  not  occur  to  you  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I do  not  think  the  law  contemplates  anything  of 
the  kind. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Do  I understand  this  to  be  your  position, 
then:  That  if  a candidate  were  to  place  in  your  possession,  say,  $10,000, 
to  be  used  in  furthering  his  campaign,  it  would  be  a sufficient  com- 
pliance with  the  law  for  him  to  say  that  he  gave  to  United  States 
Attorney  George  H.  Gordon  $10,000  to  be  used  in  his  behalf? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I would  think  so. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  section  of  the  statute  authorizes  that 
kind  of  an  account  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I do  not  recall.  I always  get  hold  of  the  statute 
when  I refer  to  a particular  statute. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I am  asking  you  what  the  statute  is. 


GEORGE  H.  GORDON. 


761 


Mr.  Gordon.  I do  not  recall  the  statute. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  are  a Wisconsin  lawyer,  and  we  should 
like  to  have  some  light  on  this  subject. 

Mr.  Gordon.  I do  not  recall  the  statute. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  mean  by  that  that  you  do  not  recall  the 
language  of  it  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Will  you  refer  to  the  section  of  the  statute 
and  furnish  it  to  the  subcommittee? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I think  the  general  statute  requiring  an  account 
simply  contemplates  that  the  candidate  shall  account  for  the  manner 
in  which  the  money  was  disbursed,  if  within  his  knowledge. 

Senator  Pomerene.  The  affidavits  which  were  filed  here — and  I 
assume  that  they  are  drawn  in  harmony  with  the  prevailing  practice 
in  this  State — provide,  in  effect,  that  the  account  of  the  expendi- 
tures which  the  candidate  himself  made  is  correct,  and  that  the 
account  of  those  expenditures  which  were  made  by  persons  other 
than  himself  is  correct,  according  to  his  best  knowledge  and  belief. 
Would  not  that  contemplate,  in  your  mind,  that  these  agents  ought 
to  render  some  accounts,  so  that  he  could  state  that  they  were 
correct  according  to  his  best  knowledge  and  belief? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I do  not  think  so. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Then  it  is  your  understanding  that  this  law 
can  be  evaded  by  any  candidate  by  simply  turning  over  bodily  his 
money  to  some  one  as  his  campaign  manager  and  making  a return 
to  that  effect  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I did  not  say  that. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  the  answer  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I do  not  say  that  the  law  could  be  evaded  by  a 
candidate  in  doing  so. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  do  you  say  now  ? Can  it  be  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I would  not  call  it  an  evasion. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  do  you  call  it  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I would  say  that  when  a man  picked  out  a man  and 
trusted  him  witli  $1,800,  he  would  have  some  confidence  in  his  re- 
sponsibility; he  would  know  that  he  was  a man  of  character  and 
would  properly  expend  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Then  suppose  we  put  it  at  some  abnormal 
sum — say  $500,000 — to  get  your  idea  of  the  law. 

Mr.  Gordon.  That  is  pretty  large  for  me  to  contemplate — $500,000. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  understand  my  question;  and  it  is  purely 
a hypothetical  question  so  far  as  the  amount  is  concerned.  As- 
sume, now,  that  $500,000  is  placed  in  a campaign  manager’s  hands, 
to  be  expended  in  a campaign,  and  that  the  campaign  is  managed 
by  the  manager  who  receives  that  money:  Is  it  your  understanding 
of  the  law  that  the  only  return  the  candidate  is  required  to  make 
is  that  he  paid  over  to  John  Jones,  for  instance,  his  campaign  mana- 
ger, $500,000  to  be  used  in  furthering  his  campaign?  Is  that  your 
construction  of  the  law  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No;  I would  not  say  that.  I would  say  that  if  his 
campaign  manager  distributed  it  as  Mr.  Edmonds  distributed  this 
money  of  Mr.  Stephenson’s,  when  he  had  designated  the  men  in  the 
different  sections  of  the  State  to  whom  he  intrusted  the  expenditure 
of  certain  sums  he  had  complied  with  the  provisions  of  the  law. 


762 


GEORGE  H.  GORDON. 


Senator  Pomerene.  Then  it  is  your  understanding  that  the  cam- 
paign manager  should  make  a report  ? Is  that  it  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I expect  he  should  make  a report;  yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Suppose  he  then  retained  other  lieutenants 
throughout  the  State.  Would  not  the  same  obligation  be  upon 
them  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I do  not  think  so. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Will  you  state  your  reasons  for  discriminating  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  All  I can  say  is,  the  custom  that  has  always  pre- 
vailed. 

Senator  Pomerene.  As  I understand  it,  this  statute  was  supposed 
to  be  adopted  for  the  purpose  of  breaking  up  the  custom  that  pre- 
vailed. Is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I do  not  know  what  the  purpose  of  the  adoption  of 
the  statute  was.  I am  incompetent  to  give  an  opinion  upon  that 
proposition. 

The  Chairman.  I did  not  hear  the  answer. 

Mr.  Gordon.  I say,  I do  not  consider  myself  competent  to  give 
an  opinion  as  to  the  purpose  of  the  enactment  of  that  statute. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Mr.  Gordon,  was  any  part  of  this  money 
expended  for  liquors  and  cigars  and  things  of  that  sort  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Not  to  my  knowledge. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  spent  none  of  it  in  that  way? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I want  to  ask  you  another  question  in  line 
with  what  Senator  Pomerene  has  been  asking  you.  Would  you 
understand  it  to  be  a compliance  with  this  statute  requiring  an 
account  to  be  filed  by  the  candidate  if  the  candidate  were  to  put 
into  the  hands  of  a campaign  manager  $107,000  and  the  campaign 
manager  were  to  distribute  that  sum  in  equal  amounts  among  the  71 
counties  in  the  State,  giving  an  equal  amount  to  a sub  campaign 
manager  in  each  county  and  do  nothing  more  about  it,  leaving  the 
sub  campaign  manager  to  expend  it  as  he  pleased  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  If  he  gave  the  campaign  manager  instructions  as  to 
how  to  spend  it;  yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  he  need  make  no  further  accounting 
of  it  than  that  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I think  that  would  be  sufficient. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Then,  even  though  the  money  had  been 
actually  expended  for  the  purpose  of  bribing  and  corrupting  voters, 
there  would  be  no  way  in  which  the  account  would  exhibit  that  con- 
dition of  affairs.  That  would  be  correct,  would  it  not? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Certainly  the  account  would  not  show  anything 
except  the  person  to  whom  the  money  was  given. 

Senator  Sutherland.  The  account  would  not  show  how  one  single 
dollar  of  that  $107,000  was  expended,  would  it? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No. 

Senator  Sutherland.  It  would  not  show  the  name  of  the  person 
to  whom  it  was  paid  or  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  paid  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I supposed  your  question  embodied  the  name  of  the 
person  to  whom  the  money  was  paid. 

Senator  Sutherland.  It  embodies  the  name  of  the  campaign 
manager  only. 


GEORGE  H.  GORDON. 


763 


Mr.  Gordon.  Yes;  in  the  local  county. 

Senator  Sutherland.  But  it  gives  no  information  whatever  as  to 
how  the  money  was  ultimately  expended. 

Mr.  Gordon.  No. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  you  think  that  would  be  a sufficient 
compliance  with  this  law  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I think  it  would. 

Senator  Sutherland.  This  statute,  Mr.  Gordon,  provides  that 
‘ 1 every  person  who  shall  he  a candidate  * * * shall  * * * 

make  out  and  file  * * * a statement  in  writing  * * * set- 

ting forth  in  detail  each  item  in  excess  of  $5  in  money  or  property 
contributed,  disbursed,  expended,  or  promised  by  him  and  to  the 
best  of  his  knowledge  and  belief  by  any  other  person  or  persons  for 
him  or  in  his  behalf,  wholly  or  in  part,  m endeavoring  to  secure  or  in 
any  way  in  connection  with  his  nomination  or  election  to  such  office 
or  place,  or  in  connection  with  the  election  of  any  other  person  at 
said  election,  the  dates  when  and  the  persons  to  whom  and  the  pur- 
pose for  which  all  said  sums  were  paid,  expended,  or  promised.’ ’ 

You  think,  do  you,  that  it  would  be  a sufficient  compliance  with 
that  requirement  that  the  accounts  should  set  forth  in  detail  each 
item  in  excess  of  $5,  together  with  the  names  of  the  persons  to  whom, 
the  dates  when,  and  the  purposes  for  which  all  such  sums  were 
expended,  to  expend  the  money  and  make  the  account  in  the  way 
you  have  indicated  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes.  The  candidate  answers  within  his  knowledge 
as  to  how  the  money  was  expended. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  that  was  your  understanding  at  the 
time  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I will  not  say  as  to  that.  I do  not  know  that  I had 
any  understanding,  particular^,  at  the  time.  I think  possibly  if  I 
had  examined  that  law,  and  had  not  had  the  example  of  my  prede- 
cessors before  me  in  the  management  of  campaigns,  I should  have 
made  a list  of  every  item  I expended. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Why  did  you  not  examine  the  law  when 
you  had  this  sum  of  $1,800  to  expend? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Oh,  I did  not  do  it;  that  is  all.  I can  not  tell  you 
why  I did  not  do  it. 

Senator  Sutherland.  It  did  not  occur  to  you  at  all  to  make  an 
examination  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I understood  you  to  say  you  had  been 
practicing  law  for  25  years  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Have  you  been  in  active  trial  practice  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Have  you  been  trying  cases  right  along 
during  that  period  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Of  all  kinds;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  have  been  training  your  memory  dur- 
ing that  period  of  25  years,  to  remember  the  facts  of  your  case  as  you 
went  along? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Training  my  memory  to  remember  the  case ; yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Yet,  after  all  that  25  years’  experience  in 
the  trial  of  cases,  training  your  memory  to  recollect  facts  in  order 


764 


GEORGE  H.  GORDON. 


to  present  them  to  a jury  and  to  a court,  you  can  not  in  a single 
instance  give  this  subcommittee  the  amount  you  paid  to  a certain 
man  in  that  campaign? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is  correct ; is  it  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  That  is  correct.  That  is  the  testimony. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  have  given  a certain  construction  which 
you  place  upon  this  statute.  Within  your  knowledge,  have  any  of 
the  courts  here  judicially  considered  this  section  of  the  statute  with 
reference  to  the  filing  of  accounts,  or  any  of  these  other  sections  of 
the  statute  pertaining  to  election  offenses  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I do  not  think  they  have. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  is  all. 

The  Chairman.  I desire  to  ask  a question : Mr.  Gordon,  the  inquiry 
which  I made  of  you,  in  regard  to  the  manner  of  the  expenditure  of 
money  placed  in  your  hands  by  Senator  Stephenson  or  his  represent- 
atives was  not  intended  to  develop  the  fact  as  to  whether  a state- 
ment was  filed  or  was  not  filed;  but  it  was  to  develop  the  facts,  irre- 
spective of  the  filing  of  a statement.  I say  for  myself — not  assuming 
to  speak  for  any  other  member  of  the  committee — that  I do  not 
think,  under  the  law,  the  failure  to  file  a statement  by  a candidate 
for  the  United  States  Senate  would  or  could  at  any  time  affect  the 
validity  of  his  election;  but  when  the  validity  of  his  election  is  chal- 
lenged the  question  of  fact  is  open  just  as  much  as  though  the  state- 
ment had  been  filed.  I have  asked  you  the  questions  which  I did 
submit  to  you  in  order  that  you  might  have  an  opportunity  to  justify 
the  expenditure  which  you  made  of  this  money,  the  responsibility 
being  upon  you.  I will  ask  you  generally  this  question:  Did  you 
expend  any  part  of  that  money  for  the  purpose  of  in  any  manner 
influencing  electors  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin  to  support  Senator 
Stephenson  as  a candidate  for  the  United  States  Senate  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  The  money  was  used  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  out 
the  vote,  and  talking  Mr.  Stephenson  to  the  electors.  If  that  can  be 
construed  to  be  “influencing”  them,  I would  sav  “yes.” 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  pay  any  of  that  money  to  any  person 
who  was  an  elector  as  a consideration  for  his  support  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  When  I use  the  term  “pay,”  I mean  directly  or 
indirectly. 

Mr.  Gordon.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  use  that  money  for  the  purpose  of  chang- 
ing favorably  to  Senator  Stephenson  the  action  of  any  elector? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Right  along  on  that  line,  Mr.  Gordon,  will  you 
be  kind  enough  to  state  whether  any  of  this  money  was  used  by  you, 
either  directty  or  indirectly,  for  the  purpose  of  bribing  or  corruptly 
influencing  any  elector  to  support  Senator  Stephenson  in  the  primary 
election  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Within  your  knowledge — of  course  I do  not 
expect  you  to  state  the  impossible — was  any  of  this  money  used,  by 
any  of  the  gentlemen  to  whose  hands  you  entrusted  it  for  use  in 


GEORGE  H.  GORDON-. 


765 


promoting  the  interests  of  Senator  Stephenson  in  that  primary  cam- 
paign, for  the  purpose  of  bribing  or  corruptly  influencing  any  elector 
to  support  the  Senator,  so  far  as  you  know  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  were  inquired  of  in  relation  to  the  phe- 
nomenal memory  that  an  attorney  at  law  has  in  connection  with 
facts.  Do  I understand  you  to  say  that  although  you  are  engaged 
in  active  practice  in  the  trial  of  cases  before  a jury  you  are  not  only 
able  to  remember  the  facts  in  a particular  case  when  you  sum  up  to 
a jury,  but  that  you  carry  all  those  facts  right  along  with  you? 

Mr.  Gordon.  1 do  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  ever  hear  of  a lawyer  that  had  the  nerve 
to  undertake  that  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No,  sir;  never. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I suppose  we  have  all  tried  cases  before  juries, 
somewhat,  and  had  more  or  less  experience  in  that  line. 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Have  you  given  the  names  of  all  the  gentlemen 
that  you  recollect  to  whom  you  gave  any  funds  for  the  purpose  of 
promoting  the  Senator’s  interest  in  this  campaign? 

Mr.  Gordon.  All  that  I can  recollect  at  present;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  May  I call  your  attention  to  one  or  two  for  the 
purpose  of  refreshing  your  recollection?  Do  you  remember  a man 
by  the  name  of  Anderson  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Oh,  yes — A.  F.  Anderson.  Yes;  I know  him. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  about  him  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  He  was  a man  who  was  working  during  the  entire 
primary  campaign  in  the  interest  of  Mr.  Stephenson. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  have  a definite  recollection  as  to  how 
much  you  gave  him  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No;  I have  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  remember  a man  by  the  name  of  Lang  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes,  sir — J.  C.  Lang.  He  worked  also  for  Mr. 
Stephenson. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  recollect  how  much  you  gave  him  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I do  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  remember  a man  by  the  name  of  Larson  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes.  I do  not  know  his  first  name.  There  was  a 
man  by  the  name  of  Larson. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  recollect  how  much  you  gave  him  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I do  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  remember  any  others  than  these  to  whom 
I have  called  your  attention? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Not  aside  from  the  names  I have  given  already. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  have  mentioned  a Mr.  McConnell.  Is  that 
the  same  McConnell  that  was  a candidate  for  the  legislature? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  He  was  another  man  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Another  man. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  remember  how  much  you  gave  him  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No;  I do  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Have  you  done  the  best  you  can  to  refresh  your 
recollection  in  connection  with  these  names? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes;  I have. 


766 


GEORGE  H.  GORDON. 


Mr.  Littlefield.  I do  not  understand  that  you  have  gone  about 
to  see  the  men,  and  discuss  it  with  them. 

Mr.  Gordon.  I have  not  devoted  any  of  my  time  to  that.  I have 
been  pretty  busy. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Have  you  had  any  discussion  of  this  matter 
with  any  of  the  men  to  whom  you  intrusted  funds? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No;  I have  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Since  your  examination  at  Madison  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Are  you  prepared  to  state  that  all  of  the  funds 
that  were  placed  in  your  hands  were  disbursed  through  these  gentle- 
men, or  may  there  have  been  others?  Were  there  others,  or  do  you 
not  remember  about  that  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  There  were  a great  many  others;  but,  as  I say,  I did 
not  know  their  names,  and  those  that  I did  know  I have  forgotten. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  go  about  the  county  yourself? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I went  into  several  of  the  towns;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  the  work  that  was  done  by  you  done  prin- 
cipally by  going  about  the  county,  or  from  your  office  in  La  Crosse  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Principally  in  my  office;  but  I was  out  in  two  or  three 
of  the  towns. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  many  precincts  are  there  in  La  Crosse 
County  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  There  are  36. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Those  are  voting  precincts  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  long  have  you  lived  in  La  Crosse  County? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I have  lived  there  all  my  life. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  old  are  you  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I am  50  years  of  age. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Can  you  give  the  committee  any  approximate 
estimate  of  the  number  of  men  that  were  at  work  in  the  campaign — I 
mean,  as  the  result  of  your  activities  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  This  is  purely  a guess;  I would  not  say,  but  possibly 
there  were  30  or  40.  There  were  a great  many  men  that  were  work- 
ing in  the  interest  of  Senator  Stephenson  that  did  not  receive  any 
funds — such  men  as  Senator  Withee  and  John  M.  Holley  and  Mr. 
Hixon,  and  men  who  were  in  business  there. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes.  But  what  I had  in  mind  particularly  was, 
men  that  were  employed  either  by  you  or  by  gentlemen  who  were 
acting  for  you. 

Mr.  Gordon.  There  probably  were  a great  many  more  than  the 
names  I have  given;  I can  not  tell  just  how  many. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  many  more  wTere  there,  so  far  as  you  can 
remember,  with  whom  you  came  in  personal  touch — those  that  you 
yourself  met  personally  in  the  campaign? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I can  not  tell  you  that.  But  there  were  a great 
many  that  came  to  me  who  were  sent  by  these  different  men,  or  of 
their  own  accord. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  there  an  active  campaign  being  conducted 
in  that  county  in  the  interests  of  the  other  candidates? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Will  you  be  kind  enough  to  explain  in  a general 
way  to  the  subcommittee  the  sort  of  a campaign  that  it  was  necessary 


GEORGE  H.  GORDON.  767 

to  conduct  to  meet  the  campaigns  that  were  going  on  in  the  interest 
of  the  other  candidates? 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  material  to  any  issue  that  we  are  inquiring 
about  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I simply  want  to  show  the  kind  of  work  these 
men  were  expected  to  do. 

The  Chairman.  We  do  not  want  to  open  up  the  question  of  any 
other  campaign. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  No;  but  I want  to  get  enough  on  the  record,  if 
the  chairman  please,  to  show  the  sort  of  work  that  it  was  necessary 
to  employ  men  to  do  in  our  campaign.  That  is  my  only  purpose. 

The  Chairman.  The  question  here  is  as  to  the  manner  of  the  expen- 
diture of  money  in  behalf  of  Senator  Stephenson,  and  no  other  person. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  that  is  true.  All  I want  on  this  point  is 
simply  to  get  enough  into  the  record  to  show  the  sort  of  work  that 
Mr.  Gordon's  men  who  were  engaged  in  canvassing  had  to  do.  I am 
not  going  into  details. 

The  Chairman.  I think  we  will  not  go  into  the  sort  of  work  that 
anyone  was  doing  for  any  other  candidate. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I should  like  to  have  the  record  show  that  we 
offer  to  show  by  this  witness  the  character  of  the  publicity  work  and 
canvassing  that  the  gentlemen  that  he  employed  found  it  necessary 
to  do  in  the  interest  of  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  The  record  will  show  that  the  offer  was  made. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Head  the  question. 

(The  reporter  read  as  follows:) 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Will  you  be  kind  enough  to  explain  in  a general  way  to  the  sub- 
committee the  sort  of  a campaign  that  it  was  necessary  to  conduct  to  meet  the  cam- 
paigns that  were  going  on  in  the  interest  of  the  other  candidates? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Read  the  offer;  that  is  my  question.  I stand  on 
that. 

(The  reporter  read  as  follows:)  « 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I should  like  to  have  the  record  show  that  we  offer  to  show  by 
this  witness  the  character  of  the  publicity  work  and  canvassing  that  the  gentlemen 
that  he  employed  found  it  necessary  to  do  in  the  interest  of  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  That  question  is  not  objectionable.  The  objection 
was  only  in  connection  with  the  purpose  and  the  further  proposition 
of  counsel.  If  it  is  confined  to  the  character  of  work  which  those 
working  for  Senator  Stephenson  were  compelled  to  do,  the  question 
is  not  objectionable. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  all  I intended  to  draw  out  by  the  other 
question. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  not  to  go  beyond  that. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes.  I want  to  be  perfectly  frank  with  the 
chairman.  If  he  got  the  impression  that  I was  intending  to  go  into 
another  field,  I did  not  intend  to  convey  that  impression. 

The  Chairman.  I thought  the  proposition  would  justify  that, 
and  I merely  wanted  to  warn  counsel. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes.  I think  the  suggestion  is  perfectly  proper. 
Just  read  that  question,  please. 

(The  reporter  read  as  follows:) 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I should  like  to  have  the  record  show  that  we  offer  to  show  by 
this  witness  the  character  of  the  publicity  work  and  canvassing  that  the  gentlemen 
that  he  employed  found  it  necessary  to  do  in  the  interest  of  Senator  Stephenson. 


768 


GEORGE  H.  GORDON. 


Mr.  Littlefield.  Will  the  witness  please  answer  the  question? 
That,  I think,  covers  it  exactly. 

Mr.  Gordon.  You  mean,  to  combat  the  arguments  that  were 
made  against  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I mean  exactly  what  they  had  to  do.  What 
had  they  to  do  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  They  had  to  go  about  the  county,  in  the  different 
precincts,  and  talk  to  the  voters  about  Mr.  Stephenson.  There 
were  arguments  used  against  Mr.  Stephenson — that  he  was  a very 
old  man,  decrepit,  unfit  for  the  position;  and  it  became  necessary  to 
refute  those  statements.  Mr.  Stephenson  had  been  allied  with  the 
faction  of  the  party  other  than  the  stalwarts;  and  it  became  necessary 
to  argue  with  stalwarts  somewhat  to  get  them  to  support  Mr.  Stephen- 
son. Then,  Mr.  Stephenson  was  not  acquainted  in  our  locality, 
except  by  reputation.  It  was  necessary  to  talk  Mr.  Stephenson,  tell 
them  who  he  was,  and  what  his  position  had  been  in  the  State.  I am 
stating  generally  what  the  arguments  were. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  have  always  lived,  you  say,  in  La  Crosse? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  large  is  that  town  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  We  claim  30,000;  between  29,000  and  30,000. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  is  it — the  second  or  third  city  in  the 
State  ?. 

Mr.  Gordon.  No  ; I think  we  claim 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Perhaps  that  is  a tender  point.  Outside  of 
Milwaukee  it  is  one  of  the  largest  cities  in  the  State  ? 

Mr.  Gordon:  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  say  you  have  always  lived  there? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  is  the  fact  with  reference  to  the  interest, 
active  or  otherwise,  that  you  have  taken  in  political  matters  since 
your  majority  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I have  always  taken  an  interest  in  political  matters. 
I have  not  managed  any  campaigns.  I have  always  taken  an  active 
part  and  assisted  what  I could  in  the  interests  of  the  Republican 
party. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  whether  or  not  during  this  whole  period 
you  have  known  of  and  participated  in  the  campaigns  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Pretty  generally  since  my  majority;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Dou  you  know  what  methods  have  been 
employed  in  conducting  the  campaigns  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  I mean  by  that  is  as  to  whether  or  not 
you  are  familar  with  the  details  of  political  organization  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  is  necessary  in  order  to  make  an  effective 
and  successful  organization  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes,  I think  I know.  I know  what  has  been  done. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Have  you  been  familiar  with  those  matters 
during  practically  all  of  your  lifetime  since  your  majority  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I think  so. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you,  in  this  campaign  in  the  interest  of 
Senator  Stephenson,  make  any  canvass  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining 
the  Republicans,  and  the  Republicans  who  would  support  the  Senator  ? 


GEORGE  H.  GORDON. 


769 


Mr.  Gordon.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Why  not  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I did  not  have  time  nor  funds  to  do  it  with. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Could  you  give  any  estimate  of  what  it  would 
cost  per  precinct,  on  the  average,  to  make  and  perfect  and  carry 
through  an  effective,  successful  political  organization  in  the  interest 
of  a candidate  in  the  primary  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  From  $60  to  $100,  I would  say. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Per  precinct  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Per  precinct. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  would  you  reach  that  result  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Do  you  mean  what  items  go  to  make  that  up  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes. 

Mr.  Gordon.  If  I were  making  a thorough  campaign,  such  as  has 
been  made,  I would,  in  the  first  place,  get  a list  of  all  the  voters  in  a 
precinct.  I am  taking  one  precinct  now. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I want  you  to  illustrate  by  taking  one  precinct. 

Senator  Pomerene.  How  many  precincts  are  there  in  the  State? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Twenty-two  hundred;  little  bit  better,  I think. 
I am  taking  one  precinct. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes,  I want  you  to  apply  it  to  one  precinct,  as 
a unit. 

Mr.  Gordon.  I would  first  secure  a list  of  the  voters  in  that  pre- 
cinct, have  the  names  put  into  a proper  book,  and  then  I would  have 
that  precinct  canvassed  thoroughly. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  When  you  say  you  would  have  it  canvassed 
thoroughly,  does  that  involve  a personal  canvass  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  That  involves  a personal  canvass. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  For  what  purpose? 

Mr.  Gordon.  For  the  purpose  of  determining  of  what  political 
faith  the  respective  electors  in  the  precinct  were  or  are;  in  this 
instance,  what  faction  they  would  line  up  with. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is,  do  you  mean  by  that  the  number  of 
Republicans  that  could  be  relied  upon  to  support  the  Senator  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes;  and  the  number  that  were  against  him,  and  the 
ones  that  were  doubtful. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  do  you  estimate  that  would  cost  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  It  would  cost  anywhere  from  $20  to  $35. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Then  what  next  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Then  you  would  want  some  person,  after  this  canvass 
was  made,  to  interview  the  doubtful  voters,  talk  to  them,  and  keep 
track  as  to  whether  or  not  there  had  been  any  changes  from  the 
previous  canvass,  between  that  time  and  the  time  of  the  primary 
or  of  the  election. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  At  what  would  you  estimate  the  expense  of  that  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Men  vary  in  their  prices  for  work  of  that  character. 
I should  say  $10  would  be  a low  estimate  for  that. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  next? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Then  on  the  election  or  primary  day  you  would  need 
at  the  polling  place  two  or  more  carriages  and  a couple  of  men  to  go 
with  those  carriages  to  bring  out  the  voters;  two  or  three  men  at  the 
polls  to  meet  the  voters — at  the  legal  distance  from  the  polling 
place — and  a checker,  perhaps,  on  the  inside.  That  would  constitute 
the  force,  ordinarily. 

15235°— vol  1—11 19 


770 


GEORGE  H.  GORDON. 


Mr.  Littlefield.  At  what  would  you  estimate  that  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  It  depends.  Sometimes  men  who  are  competent  to 
do  that  work  charge  $10  per  day,  and  sometimes  they  would  charge 
$5  per  day.  I would  put  it  on  a basis  of  $5  per  day.  It  would  be 
probably  $40. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Would  you  include  advertising  and  publicity  in 
a proper  campaign? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I would  include  that,  but  not  in  this  estimate. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  have  not  included  it  in  the  estimate  that 
you  have  given  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No  ; I have  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  would  you  say  would  be  a reasonable 
estimate  of  the  expense  of  the  proper  advertising  and  publicity  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Circulating  literature,  etc.  ? I would  not  be  prepared 
to  say  about  that.  That  sort  of  literature  is  usually  circulated 
throughout  the  entire  county  or  throughout  the  entire  city.  What 
you  would  pay  to  a man  for  a precinct  I could  not  say. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  In  other  words,  that  is  not  ordinarily  done  by  the 
precinct  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  would  do  that  through  the  county? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Or  it  would  be  done  by  the  chairman  throughout  the 
city. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  In  conducting  a State  campaign,  would  there  be 
other  expenses  than  these  you  have  mentioned  that  would  be  not  only 
legitimate  but  necessary — that  is,  from  the  general  headquarters  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I should  think  there  would  be ; yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  the  estimates  that  you  have  given  include 
newspaper  advertising  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Or  the  circulation  or  the  publication  or  the 
printing  of  literature,  lithographs,  etc.  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Or  campaign  buttons  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Or  the  circulation  of  such  material  throughout 
the  State  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  They  do  not  include,  I take  it,  the  expense  of 
maintaining  a general  headquarters? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No,  sir.  Telegraph,  telephone,  stenographers’  hire, 
stationery,  postage — I do  not  consider  those. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  at  any  time  during  this  campaign  get, 
or  were  you  able  to  get,  anything  like  a reliable  list  of  the  Republican 
voters  who  could  be  relied  upon  to  support  the  senator  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Whom  did  Mr.  McConnell  support,  if  you  know  ? 
Who  was  the  opposing  candidate  to  Mr.  Mulder  in  this  campaign  there 
in  your  section  ? Mr.  Mulder  was  a candidate  for  the  assembly,  also  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I was  led  to  believe  that  he  was  supporting  Mr.  Hat- 
ton. I have  no  definite  information. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  know  whether  he  had  made  public 
announcement  as  to  the  fact  that  he  would  stand  by  the  result  of  the 
primary  ? 


GEORGE  H.  GORDON. 


771 


Mr.  Gordon.  He  had. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  So  that  Mr.  Mulder  and  Mr.  McConnell,  the 
opposing  Republican  candidates  for  the  assembly,  had  both  publicly 
stated  that  they  would  support  whoever  received  the  nomination  in 
the  primary? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  remember  whether  or  not  Mr.  McConnell 
actually  voted  for  Senator  Stephenson  on  the  first  ballot? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I do  not  know  as  to  that. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Mr.  McConnell  was  the  man  that  was  nominated 
and  ultimately  elected? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  is  a matter  of  record,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  The  record  would  be  the  best  evidence,  then. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  true. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  in  the  record  sent  to  us  by  the  governor  of  the 
State. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes.  I presume  it  is.  I have  not  looked  at 
that.  Mr.  Black  called  my  attention  to  it. 

Was  there  any  understanding,  Mr.  Gordon,  or  any  agreement  as 
between  yourself  and  Mr.  Mulder  as  to  whether  or  not  the  funds 
placed  in" his  hands  were  to  be  used  in  promoting  his  candidacy? 

Mr.  Gordon.  They  were  to  be  used  in  the  interest  of  Mr.  Stephen- 
son. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  what  the  fact  was  in  that  regard — whether 
anything  was  said  between  yourself  and  Mr.  Mulder  with  reference 
to  that  question. 

Mr.  Gordon.  I can  not  recall,  specifically,  now,  what  I said  to 
Mr.  Mulder  or  any  other  man;  but  when  I gave  a fund,  it  was  my 
custom  to  tell  the  man  that  I desired  him  to  do  what  he  could  in  the 
interest  of  Mr.  Stephenson. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  I understand  that  you  did  or  did  not  at  any 
time  during  this  campaign  report  to  Mr.  Edmonds  the  details  of  the 
work  you  were  doing  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No,  sir;  I did  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  Mr.  Edmonds,  at  any  time,  know  whom  you 
were  employing,  or  through  whom  you  were  using  the  funds  in  the 
interest  of  Senator  Stephenson,  so  far  as  you  know? 

Mr.  Gordon.  As  to  that  previous  question,  my  recollection  is  that 
once  or  twice  during  the  campaign  I made  a report  to  Mr.  Edmonds 
on  a blank  of  some  character.  I have  forgotten  what  the  report 
was. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  My  inquiry  was  as  to  whether  you  made  any 
report  to  him  as  to  the  details  in  connection  with  the  men  that  you 
were  employing. 

Mr.  Gordon.  No,  sir;  I did  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  For  instance,  so  far  as  you  know,  did  he  know 
that  you  were  employing  Van  Auken? 

Mr.  Gordon.  No,  sir;  he  did  not  know  any  men  that  I was  employ- 
ing. 


Hr.  Littlefield.  He  did  not  know  anything  about  any  of  the  men  ? 
Mr.  Gordon.  No. 


772 


GEORGE  H.  GORDON. 


Mr.  Littlefield.  Those  were  details,  then,  as  to  which  you  did 
not  consult  him  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I wish  you  would  state  to  the  committee  what 
your  judgment  is  about  the  relative  expense  to  which  a candidate  for 
the  senatorial  nomination  is  subjected  as  compared  with  the  expense 
to  which  a local  candidate  would  be  subjected  in  the  same  campaign 
to  get  the  same  result. 

Mr.  Gordon.  It  would  be  a great  deal  more  expensive. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  It  would  be  a great  deal  more  expensive  for 
whom  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  For  the  senatorial  candidate  than  for  the  local  man. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Will  you  explain  why  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  That  is  self-evident.  The  local  man  has  his  acquaint- 
ances in  the  county;  he  has  probably  run  for  office  before  on  the  ticket; 
he  has  relatives  and  friends  throughout  the  county;  whereas  the  man 
running  for  Senator,  in  most  localities,  would  not  have  any  personal 
acquaintances,  and  no  relatives,  and  no  friends  that  would  interest 
themselves  in  his  behalf,  unless  they  were  paid  for  it. 

Senator  Sutherland.  It  would  be  more  expensive  for  a man  who 
was  known  to  have  a lot  of  money  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I was  just  going  to  ask  him  about  that,  Senator. 

What  is  the  fact  about  that,  Mr.  Gordon  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I do  not  think  the  fact  that  he  had  a lot  of  money 
would  make  it  any  cheaper  for  him. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I do  not  suppose  you  can  do  anything  more  than 
to  approximate,  but  is  there  or  is  there  not  a substantial  difference 
between  the  results  that  a candidate,  for  instance,  for  county  sheriff, 
or  a candidate  for  a county  office,  could  legitimately  and  properly 
secure  by  the  expenditure  of  $10,  as  compared  with  that  same  expendi- 
ture in  the  interest  of  a senatorial  candidate  who  was  little  known 
in  the  section  ? 

Senator  Pomerene.  How  do  you  claim  that  to  be  pertinent? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  A little  later  I shall  show  some  of  the  expenses 
of  some  of  the  county  candidates,  as  bearing  upon  the  question 
whether  this  is  a disproportionate  expenditure. 

The  Chairman.  The  committee  will  pass  on  that. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  This  is  laying  the  foundation  for  that. 

I think  I appreciate  the  legal  features  of  the  situation,  but  I want 
to  see  that  the  committee  have  everything  that  can  throw  any 
legitimate  light  upon  this  question.  If  we  are  up  against  the  broad 
and  indefinite  proposition,  I am  going  to  do  the  best  I can  to  give 
this  committee,  and  ultimately  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  all 
the  information  at  our  disposal;  and  this  lays  the  foundation  for  that. 
That  is  the  only  purpose  of  it.  I do  not  know  but  that  it  is  so  obvious 
that  it  is  hardly  worth  calling  to  the  attention  of  the  committee,  but 
still  I wanted  the  record  to  show  that  we  were  not  unmindful  of  the 
existence  of  these  differences. 

The  Chairman.  The  testimony  could  only  be  admissible  if  this 
man  were  an  expert.  Every  member  of  the  committee  and  every 
member  connected  with  the  investigation  is  as  capable  of  forming  a 
judgment  just  as  valuable  as  that  of  any  other  man,  without  any 
testimony. 


GEORGE  H.  GORDON. 


773 


Mr.  Littlefield.  I have  no  doubt  about  that,  Mr.  Chairman,  but 
I want  to  clear  my  skirts.  Standing  here  in  a professional  capacity, 
I would  like  to  have  this  record  show  that  I have  in  mind  all  the 
considerations  that  are  proper  and  legitimate  for  consideration  by 
the  committee. 

Senator  Pomerene.  No  one  will  charge  you  with  overlooking  any- 
thing in  the  interest  of  your  client. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I appreciate  the  handsome  compliment  the 
Senator  pays  me;  but  that  will  hardly  have  the  effect  of  having  me 
fail  to  get  into  the  record  all  these  considerations,  so  far  as  I am  able 
to  do  so. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  would  rather  demonstrate  it  than 
have  it  admitted  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  To  be  perfectly  frank,  I want,  if  I can,  when  you 
get  through,  to  have  the  committee,  and,  ultimately,  the  Senate, 
have  all  that  they  can  have  of  the  proper  legal  atmosphere  and  the 
local  color,  so  far  as  is  legitimate  and  proper. 

The  Chairman.  I suppose  it  is  not  claimed  by  counsel  that  the 
conditions  in  that  regard  are  different  in  Wisconsin  from  those 
existing  in  any  other  State  in  the  country? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  No.  Human  nature  is  the  same  everywhere. 
There  are  lots  of  things  that  we  all  know  about. 

The  Chairman.  What  you  are  seeking  to  get  into  the  record  would 
probably  make  a very  proper  paragraph  in  a brief. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes,  Mr.  Chairman,  but  still  I do  not  know  just 
exactly  how  technical  some  distinguished  gentlemen  may  be  later 
on;  and  I do  not  like  to  have  them  say,  when  they  come  to  read  the 
brief,  ‘‘That  sounds  well  and  reads  well,  but  what  is  it  predicated 
upon  ? ” 

The  Chairman.  The  committee  is  desirous  of  not  enlarging  the 
scope  of  the  hearing 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I appreciate  that  fully,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  I 
have  no  desire  to  do  that. 

The  Chairman.  We  are  rather  inclined  to  give  the  benefit  of  any 
doubt  in  favor  of  the  admission  of  testimony;  but  we  want  to  keep 
it  within  reasonable  limits. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Up  to  date  we  have  not  the  slightest  cause  for 
complaint,  so  far  as  we  are  concerned,  in  regard  to  any  ruling  of  the 
committee  along  that  line;  and  we  shall  endeavor  to  keep  within  the 
legitimate  rules,  and  to  keep  everything  out  of  the  record  that  we  do 
not  think  is  really  necessary. 

I think  that  is  all,  Mr.  Gordon. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I have  just  a question  or  two  that  I wish  to 
ask  you,  Mr.  Gordon. 

Were  you  assisting  Mr.  Mulder  in  his  campaign? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Yes;  I think  I voted  for  Mr.  Mulder.  I do  not  think 
I did  much  of  anything  actively  for  him. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  contribute  any  money  to  his  cam- 
paign ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I think  I did. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  amount? 

Mr.  Gordon.  I can  not  tell  you. 

Senator  Pomerene.  From  your  own  personal  funds,  or  from  the 
funds  of  Senator  Stephenson  ? 


774 


D.  E.  RIORDAN. 


Mr.  Gordon.  From  my  own  funds. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Approximately  what  amount  ? 

Mr.  Gordon.  Probably  $10. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I think  that  is  all. 

(The  witness  was  thereupon  excused.) 

TESTIMONY  OF  D.  E.  RIORDAN. 

D.  E.  Riordan,  haying  been  previously  sworn,  was  examined  and 
testified  as  follows: 

The  Chairman.  State  your  place  of  residence. 

Mr.  Riordan.  Ashland,  at  present.  Eagle  River  three  months  of 
the  year. 

The  Chairman.  Your  present  home  is  where?  What  is  your  resi- 
dence to-day,  if  you  were  going  to  vote  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Eagle  River. 

The  Chairman.  How  long  have  you  been  acquainted  with  Senator 
Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  About  12  or  14  years. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  support  him  in  the  campaign  of  1908? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I did. 

The  Chairman.  During  the  primary  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I did. 

The  Chairman.  Had  you  supported  him  during  the  previous  cam- 
paign, when  he  was  elected  to  the  Senate  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  first  become  a supporter  of  Senator 
Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  About  the  time  the  national  convention  was  held 
in  Chicago  that  year? 

The  Chairman.  What  year  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  1908. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  fix  the  date  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I can  not  fix  the  date  exactly;  no.  It  was  in  June, 
I think. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I think  it  was  in  June,  was  it  not  ? 

Senator  Sutherland.  Yes. 

Mr.  Riordan.  I made  up  my  mind,  at  that  time,  to  support  him, 
in  case  he  should  announce  his  candidacy. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  convention  was  in  June,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  Oh,  yes;  the  last  week  in  June. 

Mr.  Riordan,  did  you  make  up  your  mind  because  of  anything  that 
occurred  at  Chicago  that  you  would  support  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  As  a result  of  conferences  I had  with  friends  of  mine 
there,  and  because  of  what  had  been  occurring  during  the  past  two 
years. 

The  Chairman.  Had  you  learned,  at  any  time  prior  to  those  oc- 
currences in  Chicago,  that  Senator  Stephenson  was  a candidate  or 
would  be  a candidate  for  reelection  to  the  United  States  Senate  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I was  not  certain  at  that  time.  His  friends  were 
urging  him  to  become  a candidate. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  first  enter  into  an  arrangement  to 
support  Senator  Stephenson,  and  with  whom  did  you  make  that 
arrangement  ? 


D.  E.  RIORDAN. 


775 


Mr.  Riordan.  I could  not  give  the  exact  date,  but  it  was  with 
Mr.  E.  A.  Edmonds,  and  some  time  in  the  latter  part  of  July;  about 
the  middle  of  July. 

The  Chairman.  Where  did  you  meet  Mr.  Edmonds? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I met  him  first  on  the  train,  I think;  on  the  North- 
western train. 

The  Chairman.  You  had  known  him  before  that  time? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes;  I have  known  him  for  many  years. 

The  Chairman.  At  the  time  you  met  Mr.  Edmonds,  or  rather  im- 
mediately prior  to  meeting  him,  had  you  made  up  your  mind  to 
support  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  can  not  fix  the  date,  you  say,  any  closer  than 
you  have  stated  it,  as  to  when  you  met  Mr.  Edmonds  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  No,  sir;  I could  not. 

The  Chairman.  Did  Mr.  Edmonds  give  you  $1,000  at  the  time  of 
the  first  meeting,  to  be  expended  on  behalf  of  Senator  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Riordan.  No,  sir;  he  did  not. 

The  Chairman.  You  had  more  than  one  meeting,  then,  with  Mr. 
Edmonds,  in  Milwaukee,  did  you  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes,  sir;  I had  several. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  he  pay  you  the  $1,000? 

Mr.  Riordan.  He  sent  me  $1,000, 1 should  say,  a week  or  two  later 
than  the  time  when  I agreed  to  assist  him. 

The  Chairman.  How  did  you  receive  that  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  By  American  Express. 

The  Chairman.  How  long  was  that  after  you  had  had  the  conver- 
sation with  him  in  which  you  agreed  to  support  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I should  think  it  was  a short  time.  I could  not 
say  exactly. 

The  Chairman.  Days  or  weeks  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Days;  a few  days;  perhaps  a week. 

The  Chairman.  The  money  was  sent  you  pursuant  to  an  under- 
standing that  you  had  when  you  met  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes,  sir;  he  said  he  would  send  me  $1,000. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  do  with  the  money  when  you 
received  it  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I put  it  in  the  safe. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  keep  it  separate  from  your  other  moneys  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I did  keep  that  separate;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman  That  is,  that  $1,000? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  he  give  the  date  when  he  received  that 
money  ? 

The  Chairman.  No.  I will  try  to  get  it  later.  He  says  he  can 
not  fix  the  date  now. 

Mr.  Riordan.  As  to  the  date,  it  was  about  the  22d  or  the  25th  of 
July. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  next  receive  a sum  of  money 
from  him  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I could  not  state. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  receive  it  on  August  4 ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  No;  I did  not.  It  was  later  than  that.  I under- 
stand the  draft  was  drawn  on  the  4th,  but  I was  out,  and  it  was 
some  time  before  I received  it. 


776 


D.  E.  RIORDAN. 


The  Chairman.  You  received  the  $1,300  which  the  record  already 
in  shows  was  sent  to  you  on  the  4th  of  August  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  made  $2,300  ? 

Mr.  It iordan.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  other  sums  of  money  did  you  receive? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I received  $900  more. 

The  Chairman.  You  received  that  in  two  payments  of  $400  and 
$500,  did  you  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  About  when  did  you  receive  that  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I received  that  sometime  after  the  20th  or  25th  of 
August;  I think  it  was  nearly  the  close  of  the  campaign  before  I 
received  that.  I think  it  was. 

The  Chairman.  You  had  all  of  this  money  before  the  direct 
primary  election  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  after  the  announced  candidacy  of  Senator 
Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  received  $2,300  of  it  after  the  filing  of  his 
nomination  papers,  did  you  not?  Your  testimony  would  so  show. 

Mr.  Riordan.  I do  not  remember  when  his  papers  were  filed. 

The  Chairman.  I make  that  statement  and  refer  you  to  the  testi- 
mony to  avoid  a long  inquiry  to  ascertain  the  fact. 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  There  is  no  controversy  about  it.  You  had  this 
money.  What  did  you  do  with  it  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I expended  it  in  the  interest  of  Senator  Stephen- 
son’s candidacy  for  Senator. 

The  Chairman.  When  you  received  or  arranged  to  receive  this 
money  from  Mr.  Edmonds,  for  what  purpose  did  he  say  he  was 
giving  you  the  money  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  To  take  charge  of  Senator  Stephenson’s  campaign 
in  the  counties  included  in  that  northern  portion  of  the  State. 

The  Chairman.  Name  those  counties. 

Mr.  Riordan.  Forest,  Florence,  Langlade,  Lincoln,  Iron,  Oneida, 
and  Vilas. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  expend  some  of  this  aggregate  sum  of 
money  in  each  of  those  counties? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes;  I spent  some  in  all  of  them,  but  not  very  much 
in  two  of  them. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  disburse  it  personally,  or  did  you  turn 
a portion  of  it  over  to  other  persons  to  be  disbursed  by  them  accord- 
ing to  their  judgment  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I did  turn  over  some  money  to  be  disbursed  on  the 
judgment  of  others. 

The  Chairman.  To  whom  did  you  turn  over  money  for  that  pur- 
pose? 

Mr.  Riordan.  You  mean,  to  give  the  names  of  those  that  I can 
remember  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  just  give  the  names  of  those  that  you  can 
remember,  and  the  amounts  that  you  gave  to  them. 

Mr.  Riordan.  Frank  Marto,  $75. 


D.  E.  RIORDAN. 


777 


The  Chairman.  You  might  just  as  well  as  you  go  along  tell  who 
he  was  and  where  he  lived  and  for  what  purpose  you  gave  him  the 
money. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Name,  address,  amount,  and  purpose. 

The  Chairman.  Yes.  In  each  case  when  you  give  the  name  just 
state  the  facts  in  regard  to  the  man;  who  he  was,  what  he  was  to  do, 
and  where  he  lived. 

Mr.  Riordan.  Frank  Marto  is  a newspaper  man.  He  runs  a 
newspaper  that  is  printed,  I think,  in  the  Italian  language,  at  Hurley, 
in  Iron  County. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose  was  he  to  expend  the  money,  or 
was  he  to  have  it  for  his  own  services  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  If  you  will  permit  me  to  make  a correction  there, 
Mr.  Chairman,  it  was  $100  instead  of  $75. 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Riordan.  Twenty-five  dollars  of  that  was  for  the  purpose  of 
printing  sample  official  ballots;  that  is,  samples  of  the  regular  official 
ballot  that  would  be  used  and  voted  on  the  primary  day,  with  the 
exception  that  there  was  to  be  a cross  printed  in  the  square  opposite 
the  name  of  Senator  Stephenson,  and  at  the  bottom  of  such  ballot  was 
to  be  printed  a statement — I could  not  give  the  exact  words  now, 
but  something  to  the  effect  that  if  they  desired  to  vote  for  Senator 
Stephenson,  to  make  a cross  as  indicated  on  the  blank.  These  were 
to  be  printed  on  colored  or  tinted  paper,  which  is  lawful. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  perform  those  services  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  If  you  will  permit  me,  Mr.  Chairman,  I would  like 
to  make  a further  statement  before  I answer  that,  and  I think  it  will 
be  better  for  the  committee. 

The  Chairman.  Very  well.  Proceed. 

Mr.  Riordan.  The  other  $75  was  to  be  used  in  picking  out  men 
in  that  locality,  residents  who  were  voters,  to  take  these  ballots  on 
election  day  and  attend  the  polls  in  the  different  precincts,  call  the 
attention  of  the  voters  to  Mr.  Stephenson  and  his  qualifications,  and 
tell  the  voter  if  he  desired  to  vote  for  him,  which  he  hoped  he  would, 
to  take  this  sample  ballot  to  the  booth  with  him,  which  would  enable 
him  to  properly  mark  the  ballot.  He  was  to  hire  as  many  men  as 
he  could  on  the  primary  day  to  perform  that  service. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  proceed  to  the  next  man  to  whom  you 
gave  money,  and  state  the  corresponding  facts  in  regard  to  him. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I do  not  know  that  he  gave  the  residence  of 
Mr.  Marto.  Was  it  Hurley  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Hurley;  in  Iron  County. 

On  the  same  day  I gave  to  Matt  Connor,  a resident  of  Hurley 

Senator  Pomerene.  In  what  county  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Iron  County.  Hurley  is  the  county  seat  of  Iron 
County,  in  the  center  of  a mining  district. 

I paid  to  Matt  Connor  on  the  same  day  $40,  with  the  understanding 
that  he  was  to  get  a supply  of  these  same  blanks  and  put  them  in  the 
hands  of  men  who  would  attend  the  polls  on  election  day  and  perform 
the  same  work  which  I have  stated  it  was  understood  would  be  done 
by  Marto. 

The  Chairman.  The  money  you  gave  him  was  for  his  personal 
services  in  that  matter?  And  did  it  include  the  payment  for  the 
printing  necessary  to  be  done,  or  did  you  pay  for  that  separately  ? 


778 


D.  E.  RIORDAN. 


Mr.  Riordan.  I paid  to  Marto,  in  the  first  instance,  $25,  which 

gaid  for  all  of  that  class  of  ballots  that  were  necessary  in  Iron  County, 
[e  had  the  official  plate  there;  and  they  were  not  expensive. 

The  Chairman.  The  amount  you  paid  to  this  man,  then,  was  for 
his  services? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I testified  that  it  was  for  the  purpose  of  emploving 
as  many  men  as  he  could  to  take  those  ballots  and  handle  them  at 
the  polls,  the  same  as  in  the  Marto  case. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  proceed.  That  makes  two  men  you 
have  accounted  for,  to  whom  you  paid  money.  Did  you  give  the 
name  and  address  of  this  man? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I did. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  This  man  Connor  was  from  Hurley,  Iron  County. 
Mr.  Riordan.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  In  order  that  there  may  not  be  any  confusion — 
I do  not  know  what  the  fact  may  be — I wish  to  say  that  we  do  not 
find  the  name  of  Hurley  here  under  Iron  County.  There  are  other 
towns  here,  and  I do  not  know  whether  there  has  been  any  change  of 
name,  or  whether  that  is  a localism.  What  is  the  fact  in  regard  to 
that,  Mr.  Riordan? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Hurley  is  the  name  of  the  post  office;  but  there  is 
a peculiar  form  of  government  there.  The  town  of  Vaughn  is  the 
town  in  which  it  is  located,  and  there  are  several  precincts  there, 
you  will  notice 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  there  are  three  precincts.  That  is  all 
right.  It  is  the  town  of  Vaughn. 

Mr.  Riordan.  We  have  a special  section  in  Wisconsin  that  per- 
mits cities  of  the  size  of  villages  and  larger  cities  to  have  within  their 
corporate  borders  as  high  as  12  or  14  government  townships,  each  6 
miles  square.  That  is  why  the  name  does  not  appear. 

The  Chairman.  Proceed. 

Mr.  Riordan.  I paid  to  the  editor  of  the  Rhinelander  New  North, 
at  Rhinelander,  Wis.,  whose  name  is  Lowell — I can  not  give  his 
initials — I can  not  state  now  whether  it  was  $20  or  $25,  for  print- 
ing sample  ballots  such  as  were  to  be  used  in  Oneida  County  on  elec- 
tion day,  with  a cross  opposite  the  name  of  Senator  Stephenson,  and 
a direction  to  the  voter  to  support  him,  and  instructions  as  to  how 
to  mark  his  ballot. 

About  the  same  time,  within  one  day,  if  not  the  same  day,  I paid 
to  Barney  Moran,  of  the  town  of  Pelican,  in  Oneida  County,  $50,  with 
the  understanding  that  he  was  to  employ  as  many  men  as  he 
could  to  attend  the  polling  places  or  precincts  outside  of  the  city  of 
Rhinelander  in  Oneida  County,  and  attend  the  polls,  using  those 
sample  ballots  in  advising  and  instructing  voters  to  vote  for  Isaac 
Stephenson. 

I paid  to  Frank  Trimble,  at  the  same  time — I am  not  able  to  say 
now  whether  it  was  $60  or  $75. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Of  what  place? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Of  Rhinelander,  Oneida  County.  He  was  to  select 
as  many  men  as  he  could  in  the  different  wards  in  the  city  of  Rhine- 
lander, to  handle  those  same  sample  ballots,  all  of  which  I had  pro- 
vided for  in  the  printing  done  by  Lowell. 

I paid  to  Stewart — I can  not  give  his  initials  now;  he  was  formerly 

chairman  of  the  county  committee  of  Langlade  County 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  spelled  S-t-e-w-a-r-t  ? 


D.  E.  RIORDAN. 


779 


Mr.  Riordan.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Of  what  place? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Of  Antigo,  Wis.  He  is  a prominent  business  man, 
in  the  furniture  business.  I do  not  just  recall  his  initials  now. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  was  the  amount  you  gave  him? 

Mr.  Riordan.  $185. 

The  Chairman.  Was  it  J.  D.  Stewart? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I could  not  say.  I do  not  remember  his  initials. 

The  Chairman.  He  received  money  from  you,  according  to  the 
testimony. 

Mr.  Riordan.  If  that  is  the  man,  that  is  correct.  I have  described 
his  location  and  his  business.  He  is  well  known  in  Antigo. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I notice  you  were  testifying  from  some  mem- 
oranda, Mr.  Riordan. 

Mr.  Riordan.  I am  referring  to  some  memoranda.  I recently 
went  over  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Are  those  original  memoranda  that  you  had  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  No;  these  are  some  memoranda  that  I took  from 
the  testimony  that  I gave  before  the  investigating  committee. 

I did  make  some  kind  of  a statement  and  file  it,  but  I am  unable 
to  find  it  printed  in  the  record. 

The  Chairman.  It  does  not  seem  to  be  in  the  record.  I have  had 
some  search  made  for  it. 

Mr.  Riordan.  It  was  handed  to  the  senatorial  committee  at  Madi- 
son; but  it  is  not  printed  in  the  volume. 

The  Chairman.  You  h&ve  examined  the  volume? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes,  sir.  I had  my  testimony  taken  from  there. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I did  not  mean  to  interrupt  you  further. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  know  whether  or  not  this  statement 
you  filed  was  marked  by  the  committee  as  an  exhibit  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I do  not  know.  I handed  it,  I think,  to  Senator 
Morris.  I am  not  certain  what  it  contained;  whether  it  contained 
the  items  made  up  in  the  testimony  which  I gave  and  verified,  or 
whether  it  was  simply  an  affidavit  to  the  effect  that  the  testimony 
I gave  contained  all  of  the  items  that  I was  able  to  remember. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  proceed. 

Mr.  Riordan.  I paid  to  Mr.  Stewart  $185  as  the  result  of  a con- 
ference with  him  and  other  Republicans  in  Langlade  County,  to  be 
used  by  him  and  others  who  were  present  at  said  conference  in  the 
employment  of  men  throughout  the  city  of  Antigo,  and  in  some  of 
the  towns  and  country  precincts  in  Langlade,  to  attend  the  polls  on 
the  primary  day,  and  to  handle  sample  ballots  such  as  I have  de- 
scribed here,  which  were  used  throughout  that  section. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  the  extent  of  his  employment  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  That  was  the  extent  of  his  employment. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  proceed. 

Mr.  Riordan.  I paid  to  the  Antigo  Journal,  or  the  publishers  of 
the  Antigo  Journal — I think  it  is  a corporation — either  $20  or  $25 
for  the  printing  of  those  sample  ballots  from  the  plates  which  they 
had.  I paid  to  the  Rogers  Printing  Co.  of  Eagle  River  $25  for 
printing  sample  ballots  such  as  I have  described  in  the  other  instance, 
to  be  used  at  the  polling  places  in  Vilas  County.  I paid  to  W.  H. 
Bissell  of  Arbor  Vitae,  in  Vilas  County,  to  be  used  in  employing 
men  for  distributing  in  Vilas  County  ballots  in  the  town  or  in  the 


780 


D.  E.  RIORDAN. 


precincts  of  Arbor  Vitae.  I might  add  here  that  he  did  not  take 
that  money  voluntarily.  I had  to  insist  upon  his  doing  so. 

The  Chairman.  I do  not  understand. 

Mr.  Riordan.  I had  to  insist  on  his  taking  the  money.  I mention 
that  because  he  is  a lumberman  and  a friend  of  Mr.  Stephenson’s. 

The  Chairman.  You  mean  you  had  to  insist  upon  his  taking  the 
money  ? 

Mr.  R iordan.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  He  ought  to  be  here  as  an  exhibit. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I call  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  the 
fact  that  we  have  developed  a number  of  people  in  various  sections 
who  worked  for  love  and  affection,  as  distinguished  from  sordid 
cash,  but  not  many,  it  is  true. 

The  Chairman.  Proceed. 

Mr.  Riordan.  I would  like  to  suggest  at  this  time  that  I paid  to 
a number  of  people  in  Vilas  County  sums  of  $5. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  For  the  purpose  of  attending  the  polling  places  on 
election  day  to  handle  these  sample  ballots  in  the  same  manner; 
but  I do  not  recall  their  names. 

The  Chairman.  But  it  was  in  every  instance  for  the  purpose  of 
handling  these  sample  ballots  in  the  manner  that  you  have  described  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes;  that  was  the  manner  in  which  I conducted 
the  campaign. 

The  Chairman.  To  whom  did  you  pay  the  largest  sum  of  money  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  In  all  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Riordan.  During  the  campaign  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  out  of  this  fund. 

Mr.  Riordan.  For  any  purpose  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Riordan.  $250  to  E.  A.  Everett,  of  Eagle  River. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  did  you  pay  him  that  sum  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  For  traveling  through  the  counties  of  Vilas,  Iron, 
and  Oneida,  and  ascertaining  as  far  as  he  was  able  the  sentiment  of 
the  people  as  he  went  along;  that  is,  those  who  were  for  and  against 
each  of  the  several  candidiates. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  report  to  you  a memorandum  of  people 
showing  the  result  of  that  work  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  He  made  two  such  trips  through  the  county. 
After  the  first  one  he  came  back  and  made  a report  to  me,  and  the 
second  time  he  came  back  and  made  a similar  report. 

The  Chairman.  Tell  us  who  he  was. 

Mr.  Riordan.  E.  A.  Everett  is  the  proprietor  of  the  Everett 
resort. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  that  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  That  consists  of  a large  hotel  dining  room  and 
about  40  cottages  on  the  Eagle  chain  of  lakes,  at  Eagle  River. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  a summer  resort  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  It  is  a summer  resort.  Prior  to  that  time  he  was 
a member  of  the  Wisconsin  Assembly. 

The  Chairman.  But  at  the  time  you  made  this  arrangement  with 
him  he  was  not  a public  officer  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  He  was  a candidate  for  public  office. 


D.  E.  RIORDAN. 


781 


The  Chairman.  What  office  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  The  office  of  member  of  the  assembly. 

The  Chairman.  At  the  time  you  paid  him  this  money  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I did  not  pay  him  the  money,  I see  by  my  testi- 
mony, until  the  31st  of  August. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Is  that  George  E.  Everett? 

Mr.  Riordan.  E.  A.  Everett. 

The  Chairman.  The  testimony  would  indicate  that  you  paid  it  to 
him  before  the  primary  election. 

Mr.  Riordan.  I think  a day  or  two  before  the  primary  election. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  He  was  a candidate  for  the  assembly? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Was  he  elected? 

Mr.  Riordan.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  When  you  paid  it  to  him,  did  you  know  that  he 
was  a candidate  for  the  assembly  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I think  I did,  certainly.  I surely  talked  with  him 
about  it. 

The  Chairman.  Was  he  announcing  for  whom  he  would  vote  in 
the  legislature  if  he  were  elected  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes;  he  was  to  vote  for  the  candidate  who  received 
the  primary  nomination. 

The  Chairman.  Without  regard  to  who  it  was  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes;  and  I would  like  to  add  there  that  the  man 
who  was  running  against  him  made  the  same  promise. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  was  his  name  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  D.  B.  Stevens. 

The  Chairman.  They  promised  to  abide  the  result  of  the  primary? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes.  The  campaign  was  made  with  that  under- 
standing. 

The  Chairman.  For  whom  did  they  assert  their  influence  during 
the  primary,  the  time  preceding  the  election? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I think  for  themselves  individually. 

The  Chairman.  Were  they  announcing  their  support  of  any  par- 
ticular candidate,  or  doing  anything  in  the  interest  of  any  particular 
candidate? 

Mr.  Riordan.  No;  I do  not  think  they  were. 

The  Chairman.  You  think  they  were  avoiding  any  such  action, 
do  you  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  they  might  draw  from  the  strength  of  all 
these  factions  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes.  And  if  the  chairman  will  permit,  I would 
like  to  say  that  this  trip  that  was  made  in  the  first  instance  by  Mr. 
Everett,  in  pursuance  with  this  agreement  1 made  with  him,  was 
made  early.  That  was  the  first  thing  I did  after  I agreed  with  Mr. 
Edmonds  to  support  Senator  Stephenson  and  to  do  some  work  for 
him  there — to  make  this  arrangement  with  Mr.  Everett  and  start 
him  out. 

The  Chairman.  You  paid  him  that  out  of  the  first  $1,000? 

Mr.  Riordan.  No;  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  pay  it  to  him  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I paid  that  by  check,  and  I gave  it  to  him  along 
late  in  August. 


782 


D.  E.  RIORDAN. 


The  Chairman.  You  promised  it  to  him? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I promised  to  him  at  once  before  I had  any  money 
from  Mr.  Edmonds  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  he  had  125  to  150  people  in  his  employ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  That  was  a mistake  of  the  reporter  in  taking  my 
testimony  in  the  investigation  before  the  joint  committee.  It  is  cor- 
rected later. 

The  Chairman.  I find  that  statement  near  the  top  of  page  2863 
of  that  testimony.  What  were  the  facts  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Those  were  guests,  and  not  people  in  his  employ. 

The  Chairman.  They  were  guests  from  all  over  the  country  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  From  all  over  the  country.  Perhaps  not  more  than 
5 per  cent  of  them  came  from  the  State  of  Wisconsin. 

The  Chairman.  Proceed.  To  whom  other  than  Mr.  Everett  did 
you  give  money  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  To  George  E.  O’Connor. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  did  you  give  him  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  $75. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  is  his  address  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Eagle  River,  Vilas  County,  Wis. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose  did  you  give  him  that  money  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  For  the  same  purpose  and  with  the  same  under- 
standing I had  with  Mr.  Everett,  excepting  that  he  was  to  take  a 
different  course  in  the  more  rural  parts  of  the  district — what  we  call 
the  mill  towns. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  said  here  in  your  testimony  before  the 
investigating  committee  that  the  understanding  with  him  was  that 
he  would  go  out  to  some  of  the  mill  towns  outside,  look  around,  and 
find  out  what  the  situation  was.  Is  that  the  fact  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes;  and  I was  looking  for  that  information  for  the 
purpose  of  knowing,  before  I undertook  to  do  anything  in  the  cam- 
paign, who  was  for  and  against  each  of  the  candidates. 

The  Chairman.  He  had  been  a supporter  of  Senator  Stephenson 
before  that  time? 

Mr.  Riordan.  He  had  always  been  a supporter  of  Senator  Stephen- 
son. His  father  was  a friend  of  Senator  Stephenson  in  the  early 
days. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  he  do  for  the  money  that  you  paid  him  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  He  took  the  train  and  went,  I think,  to  Hackley, 
Fosterville,  Arbor  Vitae,  and  several  of  those  small  towns. 

The  Chairman.  What  acts  or  things  did  he  do  at  those  places  in 
the  interest  of  Senator  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Riordan.  He  sat  down  and  visited  with  the  men  who  were 
prominent  and  influential  in  those  places,  discussed  the  approaching 
campaign  for  Senator,  and  made  a note  of  who  the  party  was  for 
and  his  reasons  for  it,  and  discussed  the  other  candidates  and  his 
reasons  for  being  against  them. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  report  that  to  you  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  He  brought  that  to  me. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  that  memorandum  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Oh,  no.  He  did  not  bring  me  any  more  than  a mere 
list  of  the  names.  We  are  well  acquainted  with  those  people,  and 
have  been  for  years — the  people  that  he  was  interviewing;  and  that 
was  all  I needed — just  the  name  and  an  indication. 


D.  E.  RIORDAN. 


783 


The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  what,  if  any,  inducements  he  offered 
those  people  for  their  support  of  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  He  did  not  offer  them  any. 

Mr.  Chairman.  It  was  purely  a question  of  talking  to  them? 

Mr.  Riordan.  That  was  it.  I did  the  rest  of  it  when  he  got  back. 

The  Chairman.  What  do  you  mean  by  that?  You  might  mean  a 
great  many  different  things. 

Mr.  Riordan.  I went  back  afterwards.  You  will  come  to  that 
part  of  my  testimony  further  on. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  take  it  up  now,  inasmuch  as  it  arises  at 
this  time. 

Mr.  Riordan.  I tried  by  the  best  arguments  I could  produce  to 
remove  any  reasons  they  had  for  not  supporting  Senator  Stephenson, 
and  to  urge  upon  them  such  reasons  as  I thought  would  be  likely  to 
influence  them,  and  which  I believed  to  be  true,  to  get  them  to  sup- 
port him. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  pay  anybody  any  money,  directly  or  indi- 
rectly, for  the  purpose  of  inducing  them  to  support  Senator  Stephen- 
son ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I did  directly,  and  in  a manner  that  I thought  was 
proper,  and  which  was  customary. 

The  Chairman.  Just  describe  how  you  did  it. 

Mr.  Riordan.  The  manner  in  which  I provided  for  the  employment 
of  men  to  handle  those  sanple  ballots  that  I caused  to  be  printed, 
and  to  use  them  on  election  day. 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  the  only  way  ? I asked  you  if  you  paid  any 
money  to  any  person  to  secure  their  influence  for  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I misunderstood  the  question.  I thought  you  said 
support. 

Mr.  Chairman.  Then  you  did  not  pay  any  person  any  money, 
directly  or  indirectly,  to  secure  the  support  of  such  person  for  Sena- 
tor Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  No;  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  now  proceed  with  any  other  person  to 
whom  you  remember  having  paid  portions  of  this  money  that  you 
received. 

Mr.  Riordan.  B.  F.  Jillson. 

The  Chairman.  Who  is  he  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  He  keeps  a hotel  at  Monico  Junction. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  did  you  give  him  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  $50. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose? 

Mr.  Riordan.  For  use  in  getting  out  the  vote  to  the  polls  and  to 
influence  them  with  the  use  of  the  ballots,  as  I have  suggested. 

The  Chairman.  Make  that  plain,  because  that  might  mean  many 
things.  You  say  “to  influence”  them  with  the  use  of  the  ballot. 
Do  you  mean  this  sample  ballot  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes;  I mean  this  sample  ballot. 

The  Chairman.  Is  there  anything  else?  Just  recall  the  question: 
Did  you  pay  them,  or  was  any  money  paid  them,  for  anything  else 
than  merely  to  handle  sample  ballots  in  the  manner  that  you  have 
described  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  And  to  talk  to  the  elector  within  a proper  distance 
of  the  polls. 


784 


D.  E.  RIORDAN. 


The  Chairman.  You  may  proceed  with  the  next  one  to  whom  you 
paid  money. 

Mr.  Riordan.  I paid  $50  at  the  same  time  to  parties  who  were  at 
his  hotel  who  came  there  to  me  from  Forest  County;  but  I am  unable 
to  give  their  names  or  the  amounts. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  money  did  you  pay  them? 

Mr.  Riordan.  $50.  I paid  that  to  parties  at  the  same  time  and 
at  the  same  place  that  I paid  Mr.  Jillson  the  $50. 

The  Chairman.  To  be  used  for  what  purpose  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  To  be  used  for  the  purpose  of  employing  men  at 
the  polling  places  across  the  line  in  Forest  County  on  election  day. 

The  Chairman.  To  do  what  on  election  day? 

Mr.  Riordan.  To  attend  the  polls  and  electioneer  for  Senator 
Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  Electioneer  in  what  manner? 

Mr.  Riordan.  In  any  lawful  and  proper  manner.  There  are  many 
ways,  I presume. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  admonish  them  as  to  the  manner  in 
which  they  were  to  electioneer,  and  instruct  them  as  to  the  law  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  In  regard  to  electioneering? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Riordan.  I think  I did  in  nearly  every  instance — especially 
in  one  particular,  and  that  was  not  to  attempt  to  talk  to  any  elector 
within  100  feet  of  the  polls. 

The  Chairman.  Do  Mr.  Berg  and  Mr.  Oberhalzer  come  within 
this  list  of  persons  to  whom  you  paid  money  for  this  purpose  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  No,  sir;  I did  not  pay  them  any  money  and  they 
did  not  do  any  work  for  me. 

The  Chairman.  Who  were  they? 

Mr.  Riordan.  They  were  former  game  wardens  and  used  to  be 
political  workers. 

(At  12.30  o’clock  p.  m.  the  subcommittee  took  a recess  until  2 
o’clock  p.  m.) 

AFTER  RECESS. 

The  recess  having  expired,  the  subcommittee  reassembled. 

TESTIMONY  OF  D.  E.  RIORDAN— Resumed. 

(By  request  the  reporter  read  the  last  few  questions  and  answers.) 

The  Chairman.  We  will  return  to  the  point  where  you  were 
interrupted. 

Mr.  Riordan.  Mr.  Chairman,  I think  I have  given 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  I have  here  is  that  he  paid  $50  to  sundry 
parties  at  the  hotel  at  some  place  where  he  met  Mr.  Jillson. 

The  Chairman.  I think  he  had  finished  that  item.  What  were 
you  proceeding  to  say  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  That  I believe  I have  given  the  names  of  all  the 
persons  I can  remember  to  whom  I gave  money. 

The  Chairman.  Referring  to  the  sum  remaining  unaccounted  for 
between  the  amount  received  by  you  and  the  amount  that  you  have 
accounted  for:  What  was  done  with  that  money? 


D.  E.  RIORDAN.  785 

Mr.  Riordan.  I figure  that  with  the  exception  of  between  $450 
and  $500,  it  was  expended  by  me. 

The  Chairman.  For  your  personal  expenses? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes,  sir;  traveling  expenses. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  expend  any  of  that  money  for  the  pur- 
pose of  corrupting  the  electors,  or  any  elector,  of  this  State  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  No,  sir;  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  pay  any  man  for  voting  for  or  supporting 
Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  No  sum  of  money  whatever? 

Mr.  Riordan.  No  sum  of  money  nor  anything  of  value. 

The  Chairman.  I believe  you  have  included  Frank  Martine  in 
your  list,  have  you  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes,  sir — Frank  Marteau. 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  it  is  Marteau. 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  already  included  him. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  do  you  spell  the  name? 

The  Chairman.  M-a-r-t-e-a-u.  He  seems  to  be  the  editor  of  an 
Italian  paper  at  Ironwood. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I got  the  name  as  “Marco.”  May  I ask  Mr. 
Riordan  this  question:  Did  you  get  this  man  Stewart’s  initials? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  are  they  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Arthur  D.,  of  Antigo,  Langlade  County. 

The  Chairman.  You  were  asked  on  March  25,  when  you  were 
before  the  legislative  investigating  committee,  whether  or  not  you 
had  completed  your  list  of  expenditures.  Were  you  at  that  time 
making  out  a list  of  expenditures  for  the  committee? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I was  endeavoring  to,  your  honor. 

The  Chairman.  Your  answer  was: 

No;  I haven’t  finished  it  yet. 

You  state  further: 

I was  making  it  from  memory,  largely;  that  is,  the  amounts  that  I have  paid  out 
along  the  lines  that  we  stated  yesterday  were  paid  out  in  cash. 

That  is  correct,  is  it  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  accounted  for  about  $1,200  of  this  money 
before  the  legislative  committee  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  have  you  accounted  for  before  this 
committee  ? The  same  amount  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I have  endeavored  to  do  so. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  not  added  any  items  to  the  expendi- 
tures that  you  have  stated  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Before  the  other  committee? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Riordan.  No,  sir;  I have  not. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  stated  the  same  expenditures  that  you 
gave  before  that  committee  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  So  far  as  I have  been  able. 

15235° — vol  1--11 50 


786 


D.  E.  RIORDAN. 


Mr.  Littlefield.  They  do  not  aggregate  the  same  in  my  footing. 

The  Chairman.  I want  to  test  that  matter  a little.  I am  laying 
the  foundation  for  it  now. 

At  that  time  it  was  stated  by  Senator  Husting  that  the  difference 
between  the  amount  you  received  and  the  amount  you  accounted  for 
was  about  $2,000.  That  you  denied.  You  were  asked  if  you  spent 
$3,200,  and  you  said  you  did  not;  that  you  had  received  $3,200. 
The  question  was  then  asked  you  in  this  form: 

And  you  account  for  twelve  hundred;  that  would  leave  two  thousand. 

Mr.  Ingalls  says: 

He  kept  some. 

The  next  question  was: 

You  kept  $500,  and  that  would  leave  $1,500  unaccounted  for? 

You  said: 

I accounted  for  it  by  spending  it. 

What  did  you  mean  by  that  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  That  was  in  line  with  my  testimony  preceding  that, 
your  honor,  wherein  I stated  how  I had  traveled  and  what  I had  done, 
and  that  my  incidental  expenses  and  traveling  expenses  and  other 
expenses  and  money  that  I gave  to  people  to  assist  me  in  making  that 
preliminary  organization  were  included  in  that. 

The  Chairman.  Then  did  you  keep  $500  as  compensation  for  your 
services  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I figured  that  I had  between  $450  and  $500  left  after 
I had  completed  the  campaign. 

The  Chairman.  Then  that  sum  of  $450  or  $500  you  kept  for  your 
services  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  already  stated  that  you  knew  that 
Everett  was  a candidate  when  you  gave  him  the  money  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  give  any  money  to  the  game  wardens  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  No,  sir;  I never  did. 

The  Chairman.  Or  to  the  deputy  game  wardens  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  There  is  a great  deal  of  this  testimony  that  relates 
to  another  campaign,  and  I am  trying  to  eliminate  it  entirely  from 
this  examination.  That  is  aH  I have  to  ask  the  witness. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I understand  you  received  $3,200  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  you  account  for  approximately  $1,200? 

Mr.  Riordan.  By  giving  the  name  of  the  person;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  then  you  retained  from  $450  to  $500  for 
your  own  compensation  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  would  be  in  the  neighborhood  of  $1,650 
to  $1,700,  leaving  a balance  of  about  $1,500.  Can  you  give  us  any 
account  for  that  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I can  state  what  I did,  and  let  the  committee  judge 
as  to  what  would  be  necessary  in  paying  the  expenses  incident  to  the 
doing  of  that. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  keep  any  memorandum  at  that  time  ? 


D.  E.  RIORDAN. 


787 


Mr.  Riordan.  I did  not,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Why  was  that  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  It  has  never  been  my  custom,  in  the  many  cam- 
paigns that  I have  gone  through  in  the  past,  in  spending  my  own 
money  when  a candidate  for  office.  I have  never  required  anyone 
to  account  to  me  for  any  money  that  they  expended  in  my  behalf,  or 
in  behalf  of  any  candidate  that  I might  be  interested  in. 

Senator  Pomerene.  It  is  somewhat  different  when  you  are  expend- 
ing your  own  funds  on  the  one  hand  and  the  funds  of  another  that 
have  been  intrusted  to  you  on  the  other  hand.  Are  you  a lawyer  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes,  sir;  not  in  general  practice,  however. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  I understand  you  to  say  that  you  were  or 
were  not  in  general  practice  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I am  not  in  general  practice. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  can  not  give  the  names  of  any  other  per- 
sons to  whom  this  money  was  paid  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I can  not.  I gave  my  best  recollection  at  the  time  I 
gave  my  testimony. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Of  this  $1,500,  did  you  give  part  to  other  men 
to  be  expended  in  behalf  of  Senator  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Not  very  much  of  it.  If  I did,  it  was  in  small 
amounts. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Then,  if  I understand  you  correctly,  the  most 
of  this  $1,500  would  go  to  the  “ultimate  consumer, ” as  he  has  been 
termed  here  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  A great  deal  of  it  went  for  what  I regarded  as  legiti- 
mate traveling  and  incidental  expenses,  incident  to  organizing  and 
going  through  that  vast  territory. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  is,  your  own  traveling  expenses  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  And  those  that  I asked  to  accompany  me  and  to 
come  to  meet  me. 

Senator  Pomerene.  How  much  of  it  went  to  pay  your  own  travel- 
ing expenses? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I did  not  keep  any  itemized  account. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Approximately? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I am  not  able  to  say. 

Senator  Pomerene.  A couple  of  hundred  dollars  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Oh,  yes;  more  than  that. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  other  men  did  you  have  traveling  for 
you  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I called  a great  many  men  to  me  from  all  over  the 
district,  and  when  they  came  I oftentimes  paid  their  expenses. 
Sometimes  they  came  without  the  payment  of  their  expenses.  If 
they  accepted  it,  I paid  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  you  are  not  now  able  to  give  any  more 
definite  information  than  you  have  as  to  where  this  money  went  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  No,  sir;  I am  not. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  understood  perhaps  50  or  60  days  ago 
that  there  would  probably  be  an  investigation  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  When  the  sergeant  at  arms  wired  me;  I do  not 
remember. 

Senator  Pomerene.  But  you  knew  that  as  a matter  of  common 
report  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes;  I did. 


788 


D.  E.  RIORDAN. 


Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  make  any  effort,  after  you  had  learned 
of  that  fact,  to  refresh  your  memory  as  to  these  expenditures  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I made  the  very  best  effort  that  I could  before  I 
testified  before  the  joint  investigating  committee  at  Madison,  shortly 
after  the  primary. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  have  made  no  investigation  since  for  the 
purpose  of  recalling  these  details? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I have  not  been  in  the  locality  where  I could  have 
done  so  if  I had  desired. 

Senator  Pomerene.  This  money  was  expended  in  how  many 
counties? 

Mr.  Riordan.  In  seven  counties,  including,  if  your  honor  will 
permit  me  to  say  so,  over  60,000  square  miles. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Six  thousand  square  miles,  you  mean,  do  you 
not? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Six  thousand,  I should  say.  They  are  large  coun- 
ties, and  are  not  densely  populated.  I should  like  to  add  this  state- 
ment, which  appears  in  my  testimony  before  the  joint  investigating 
committee:  The  campaign  which  I planned  in  the  beginning,  and 
tried  to  carry  through,  was  one  to  reach  the  votes  in  the  rural  dis- 
tricts, and  not  so  much  in  the  cities,  which  was  very  much  more 
expensive  for  the  reason  that  the  other  candidates  had  been  for  many 
months  working  in  those  centers,  because  they  were  easily  reached 
by  railway. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I think  that  is  all. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Mr.  Riordan,  was  there  any  arrangement 
between  yourself  and  Mr.  Everett,  when  you  gave  the  money  to 
him  for  use  in  the  interest  of  Senator  Stephenson,  with  reference  to 
the  particular  purpose  for  which  the  money  was  to  be  used  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I made  a definite  bargain  with  him  at  the  time  I 
agreed  to  pay  him  the  money. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  was  it  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I would  like  to  preface  it 

Senator  Pomerene.  Give  us  the  conversation  as  nearly  as  you  can. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes. 

Mr.  Riordan.  I said  to  him,  when  I returned,  after  talking  to  Mr. 
Edmonds— in  fact,  I had  talked  to  him  before  that;  after  the  national 
convention  in  Chicago — that  if  Mr.  Stephenson  became  a candidate 
I should  support  him.  We  discussed  it.  We  were  friends  and  neigh- 
bors. My  summer  home  was  near  bis  resort.  And  he  agreed  with 
me  very  fully. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Your  summer  home  was  near  Everett’s  resort  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes;  then  I asked  him,  after  I returned,  if  he  would 
not  go  out  and  make  an  inquiry  through  those  three  counties  and 
find  out  just  what  the  situation  was.  We  were  both  well  acquainted 
in  that  territory.  And  I asked  him  to  go  out  and  find  out  who  of 
our  friends  were  for  Stephenson,  who  for  Cook,  who  for  Hatton,  and 
who  for  McGovern;  and,  so  far  as  he  was  able,  their  reasons  for  sup- 
porting one  or  the  other  of  the  candidates ; that  this  would  enable  me 
to  go  out  and  do  some  effective  work;  and  that  I would  like  to  have 
that  information  before  I started,  as  it  would  save  me  a great  deal  of 
time,  and  I would  be  better  prepared  to  answer  their  arguments  as 
they  came  along. 


D.  E.  RIORDAN. 


789 


He  said  he  had  over  a hundred  people  there  in  his  resort — I think 
125,  at  the  time — and  that  his  time  was  valuable,  that  no  one  could 
take  his  place,  and  he  could  not  possibly  leave.  I finally  prevailed  on 
him.  In  fact,  I made  him  the  offer.  I said:  “You  can  hire  someone 
to  take  your  place,  and  then  you  can  go  out  and  make  that  inves- 
tigation and  report  to  me,  and  I will  pay  you  $250.”  I even  went 
so  far  as  to  talk  to  him  in  regard  to  his  being  a candidate,  and  the 
propriety  of  his  taking  the  money  because  of  that  fact. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  was  said  about  that  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I said  to  him:  “I  do  not  think  that  there  is  any 
violation  of  the  law  in  your  taking  this  money  and  doing  the  thing 
which  I have  requested  you  to  do,  because  you  personally  feel 
friendly  to  Mr.  Stephenson.  You  are  going  to  support  him  anyhow 
— that  is,  with  your  vote;  you  are  not  going  to  do  any  electioneering 
for  him,  or  anyone  else,  because  it  would  injure  you  to  do  so ; and  you 
must  agree,  if  elected,  to  support  the  candidate  who  is  successful  at 
the  primary.  ” 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  did  he  say  to  that? 

Mr.  Riordan.  He  said  he  thought  so  too.  And  that  is  not  all. 
He  made  that  investigation  and  made  that  report  to  me  in  the  most 
thorough  manner,  and  no  one  through  that  district  knew  what  his 
mission  was. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  long  was  he  engaged  on  the  two  trips  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I should  think  he  was  perhaps  10  days  the  first 
time,  and  perhaps  less  than  a week  the  second.  It  is  a large  district. 
It  must  be  124  miles  across,  by  railway,  one  way. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  If  I understand  you  correctly,  then,  he  was 
simply  ascertaining  the  conditions,  and  was  not  making  any  move- 
ment in  the  line  of  promoting  the  Senator’s  canvass? 

Mr.  Riordan.  No,  sir;  he  was  not  suggesting  to  anyone  that  they 
change  their  views  on  the  subject.  They  were  simply  discussing  the 
senatorial  situation,  which  was  very  much  talked  of  in  the  State  at 
the  time,  because  the  other  candidates  had  been  making  a very 
thorough  campaign  of  the  State  for  some  time ; and  it  was  a personal 
campaign,  not  a speaking  campaign.  It  was  a house-to-house  cam- 
paign, that  was  made  by  all  of  the  candidates  in  the  State. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  mean  by  that  a house-to-house  solicitation, 
in  a sense? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is,  so  far  as  they  did  solicit,  it  was  an  indi- 
vidual solicitation  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes,  sir;  it  was  not  the  customary  procedure  of 
hiring  halls  and  gathering  people  and  making  their  arguments  in  that 
manner. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  Mr.  Edmonds  know  about  the  details  of 
your  work  in  connection  with  the  management  of  these  seven  coun- 
ties, for  instance  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  As  to  the  details,  I should  say  no. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  he  know,  for  instance,  whether  you  had 
made  any  arrangement  with  Mr.  Marto,  or  with  Mr.  Connor,  or  with 
Mr.  Lowell,  or  with  Mr.  Trimble,  or  Mr.  Everett,  or  any  of  these 
gentlemen  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I do  not  think  that  he  did. 


790 


D.  E.  RIORDAN. 


Mr.  Littlefield.  You  do  not  think  you  reported  to  him  in  that 

detail  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Not  in  that  manner.  I met  him  here,  I think,  at 
least  once  a week,  and  went  over  the  general  situation  in  the  State 
with  him,  and  carried  on  a correspondence  throughout  the  State 
and  at  various  places  with  him,  in  respect  to  the  canvass  that  was 
being  made  in  other  districts;  and,  of  course,  at  such  times  I reported 
to  him  the  character  of  the  campaign  that  I was  making. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  So  that,  in  a general  way,  he  was  advised  of  what 
was  going  on  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  As  well  as  he  could  be,  in  the  position  he  occupied. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  much  of  your  time  was  occupied,  Mr.  Rior- 
dan, in  managing  this  campaign,  from  the  time  when  you  first  accepted 
the  responsibility  until  the  primary  dav  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I gave  it  practically  all  of  my  time. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Were  you  at  your  home,  or  were  you  traveling 
about  through  this  large  area? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I was  going  over  the  whole  district.  I tried  to  get 
to  every  place,  and  to  some  of  them  many  times. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I think  these  counties  are  equal  in  area  to  my 
State,  are  they  not? 

Mr.  Black/ Not  quite;  no. 

Mr.  Riordan.  If  you  could  examine  the  railroad  map,  you  would 
see  it  is  a very  difficult  matter  to  visit  the  different  localities.  It  is 
a new  country. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  These  seven  counties  would  have  an  area  prac- 
tically equal  to  the  area  of  the  States  of  Connecticut  and  Rhode 
Island,  would  they,  for  illustration  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Well,  I do  not  know. 

Senator  Pomerene.  He  has  given  it  in  square  miles.  lie  says  it 
has  an  area  of  about  6,000  square  miles. 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes.  I went  over  the  townships  on  the  State  map, 
because  of  some  of  the  testimony  that  was  given  here  yesterday. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  My  notes  do  not  show,  Mr.  Riordan,  that  you 
have  accounted  in  detail  for  as  much  as  you  accounted  for  before 
the  legislative  committee;  and  if  it  is  agreeable  to  the  committee  I 
should  be  glad  to  have  Mr.  Riordan  reexamine  his  testimony  before 
the  legislative  committee,  to  see  whether  it  refreshes  his  recollection ; 
so  that,  if  there  are  any  additional  details  he  would  like  to  add,  they 
can  be  added.  I do  not  want  to  ask  him  to  stop  to  do  it  now.  Is 
that  agreeable  to  the  committee? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I would  like  to  have  him  refresh  his  recollection, 
and  see  if  he  is  able  now  to  account  for  substantially  the  same  as 
then. 

Senator  Pomerene.  He  can  check  it  up. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I wish  you  would  do  that,  Mr.  Riordan,  because 
my  checking  only  shows  about  $1,000  instead  of  $1,200. 

Mr.  Riordan.  I think  in  my  testimony  before  the  legislative  com- 
mittee I stated  where  I had  expended  money  at  times,  just  the  par- 
ticular place,  when  I was  not  able  to  give  the  man’s  name,  but  could 
state  the  amount. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I should  be  glad  to  have  you  examine  your 
testimony  at  that  time,  so  as  to  refresh  your  recollection  as  to  the 
details. 


D.  E.  RIORDAN. 


791 


Mr.  Riordan.  I shall  be  glad  to  have  the  opportunity  to  do  that 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Of  the  $3,200  which  you  received,  you  have  no 
detailed  accounting  for  something  like  $1,500. 

Mr.  Riordan.  That  is  my  recollection. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  that  was  the  sum  that  was  expended  by 
you  in  the  work  that  you  were  doing  all  over  these  counties  during 
the  progress  of  the  campaign? 

Mr.  Riordan.  As  well  as  making  several  trips  to  other  places  in 
the  State. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Are  you  able  to  give  the  committee  any  approx- 
imation of  the  number  of  men  that  you  succeeded  in  employing  from 
time  to  time  as  you  traveled  about  the  seven  counties  ? I would  like 
to  get  an  approximation  of  that. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  mean  persons  whom  he  directly  employed  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes.  Let  me  see  if  I get  this  right.  I do  not 
wish  to  testify  for  the  witness.  Of  course,  Mr.  Riordan  does  not  need 
any  prompting  from  me.  The  understanding  I have  of  the  testimony 
is  that  you  went  over  the  State,  from  time  to  time,  and  employed 
men  yourself  to  do  various  kinds  of  work  to  which  you  have  called 
attention  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  In  various  sections  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  I want  to  find  from  you,  as  nearly  as  I can, 
by  approximation,  is  about  the  number  of  men  all  over  the  seven 
counties  that  you,  yourself,  personally  employed,  and  to  whom  you 
paid  money  for  their  services,  to  be  rendered  in  the  manner  in  which 
you  have  described. 

Mr.  Riordan.  I can  only  guess  at  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Give  the  best  impression  you  have.  Of  course 
it  must  be  an  approximation.  I understand  that. 

Mr.  Riordan.  Well,  I do  not  know. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  many  precincts  are  there  in  these  seven 
counties  ? Do  you  remember  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Over  100. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Have  you  any  recollection  as  to  whether  you 
had  one  man  to  a precinct,  or  more  or  less  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  In  the  precincts  where  I had  planned  to  do  the 
best  work  I had  more  than  one. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  have  any  men  employed  for  the  purpose 
of  procuring  names  to  nomination  papers  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  No,  sir;  I did  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  did  not  attend  to  that  feature  of  the  cam- 
paign ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I did  not  take  any  part  in  that.  If  I did,  there 
was  no  charge  made  for  it,  and  it  was  done  from  my  office. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  have  any  man  employed  for  the  pur- 
pose of  distributing  literature  of  a publicity  character? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I did;  and,  by  the  way,  that  is  something  that  I 
omitted  in  testifying  before  the  joint  investigating  committee. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Tell  this  committee,  as  fully  as  you  can,  what 
you  did  in  that  line. 

Mr.  Riordan.  As  I traveled,  in  places  that  I visited  where  I 
found  that  Senator  Stephenson’s  lithographs  and  advertising  matter 
were  not  as  conspicuous  as  those  of  others,  I made  arrangements 


792 


D.  E.  RIORDAN. 


here,  by  wire  and  by  telephone,  with  Mr.  Edmonds  to  send  such 
advertising  matter  from  place  to  place.  I paid  men  for  putting  that 
up,  and  I also  in  many  places  left  something  for  the  privilege  and  for 
the  trouble  of  keeping  it  up. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  do  you  mean  by  that  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Where  the  literature  was  once  posted,  there  was 
a time  when  it  would  be  torn  down  in  the  nighttime  and  made  to 
disappear;  and,  in  many  places,  I made  the  arrangement  that  if  it 
was  so  removed  it  would  be  replaced. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  whether  or  not  you  covered  the  seven 
counties  with  that  kind  of  work  as  well  as  you  were  able  within  the 
time  at  your  disposal. 

Mr.  Riordan.  There  were  arrangements  made  from  the  general 
office  here — from  the  headquarters — for  sending  that  stuff  out.. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  But  some  one  had  to  post  it  and  distribute  it  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Who  made  that  arrangement? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Mr.  Edmonds  endeavored,  through  the  office  here 
or  Mr.  Sacket,  to  see  to  that  posting  early;  but  in  many  places  that 
was  not  attended  to. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes. 

Mr.  Riordan.  And  where  it  was  not,  I looked  after  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Could  you  give  any  approximation  or  estimate 
of  the  expense  of  that  feature  of  the  work? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Only  to  guess  at  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  have  some  fair  judgment  about  that, 
have  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Every  approximation,  of  course,  must  have 
the  element  of  a guess. 

Mr.  Riordan.  That  is,  the  expense  of  posting  and  keeping  it  up  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  I want  to  get  at  from  you  is  this:  You 
were  going  about  doing  this  work,  employing  men,  in  order  to  see 
that  the  advertising  was  effectively  done.  That  is  what  it  really 
amounted  to,  is  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Give  your  best  judgment  as  to  about  what  that 
feature  of  the  cost  was,  that  you  yourself  attended  to. 

Mr.  Riordan.  I should  say  that  I paid  out,  directly,  not  less  than 

$100. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  For  that  purpose  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  make  any  canvass  of  these  seven 
counties  for  the  purpose  of  having  intelligent  information  as  to  how 
many  of  the  Republicans  in  those  counties  could  be  relied  upon  to 
support  the  Senator  as  an  original  proposition? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I tried  to. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  I mean,  now,  is  a careful  canvass. 

Mr.  Riordan.  No,  sir;  I did  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Why  not  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Because  I did  not  have  either  the  time  or  the 
money. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  whether  an  essential  factor  of  an  intelli- 
gent, effective,  and  thorough  campaign  is  a preliminary  canvass  for 
the  purpose  of  ascertaining  what  the  conditions  are. 


D.  E.  RIORDAN. 


793 


Mr.  Riordan.  What  do  you  mean  by  a preliminary  canvass  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  A preliminary  canvass  of  the  voters.  I do  not 
mean  the  primary  election. 

Mr.  Riordan.  That  is,  to  get  a list  of  the  names  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Surely;  and  to  ascertain  how  many  of  the 
Republicans  can  be  relied  upon  to  support  the  candidate  that  you 
represent.  That  is  what  I mean  by  a preliminary  canvass. 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  whether  or  not  that  is  an  essential  feature 
in  any  successful,  thorough  campaign. 

Mr.  Riordan.  It  certainly  is. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  I understand  that  the  reason  why  you  were 
not  able  to  do  that  in  this  instance  was  on  account  of  the  short  time 
at  your  disposal  and  the  fact  that  you  had  not  the  funds  necessary 
therefor  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I talked  that  over  with  Mr.  Edmonds,  not  only 
with  reference  to  the  seven  counties  that  I was  attempting  to  organize, 
but  with  respect  to  the  rest  of  the  State;  and  we  made  up  our  minds 
that  there  would  be  no  use  attempting  to  do  anything  of  that  sort. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Why  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  For  lack  of  time  and  for  lack  of  money;  no  matter 
how  much  Mr.  Stephenson  might  be  willing  to  contribute. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  or  not  consider  that  a legitimate  and 
necessary  feature  of  a successful  and  thorough  campaign? 

Mr.  Riordan.  In  years  gone  by  I have  always  regarded  it  so. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  is  your  age,  Mr.  Riordan  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I am  48  years  old. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Have  you  always  lived  in  this  vicinity  where 
you  now  live  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  long  have  you  lived  there  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Eighteen  years. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  During  that  18  years  is  it  or  not  a fact  that 
you  have  been  actively  engaged  in  political  matters  in  all  the  cam- 
paigns that  have  been  carried  on  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  From  1894  until  1908,  with  the  exception  of  1906, 
I took  quite  an  active  part. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  During  all  that  period  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Are  you  or  are  you  not  familiar  with  the  various 
details  that  are  necessarily  involved  in  a thorough,  effective,  and 
legitimate  campaign  for  the  purpose  of  getting  the  voters  to  the  polls 
on  election  day  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I can  not  say  that  I am.  I have  my  ideas  about 
how  to  conduct  a campaign. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Are  you  familiar  with  the  methods  that  have 
been  in  vogue  in  this  vicinity,  where  you  have  been  living  for  the 
last  18  years? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes,  sir;  I am. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  I suppose  there  is  no  doubt  that  they  are 
the  same  methods  that  are  employed  throughout  the  State  and 
everywhere  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Well,  I think  it  is  more  difficult  and  more  expensive 
in  the  northern  part  of  the  State  than  it  is  in  the  southern  part. 


794 


D.  E.  RIORDAN. 


Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  on  account  of  its  being  a sparsely  settled 
section  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Not  only  that,  but  because  of  the  different  class  of 
people.  In  the  southern  part  of  the  State,  the  population  is  made  up 
more  of  farmers  and  factory  laborers;  in  the  northern  part  of  the 
State  the  people  are  more  engaged  in  mining,  lumbering,  and  that 
class  of  work. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I see. 

Mr.  Riordan.  And  I think  it  is  more  expensive  to  make  a cam- 
paign in  that  section  of  the  country  than  it  is  in  the  southern  places, 
that  have  been  settled  for  a longer  time. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Have  you  been  a member  of  the  State  senate? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  many  times  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I was  there  from  1896  until  1904. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Eight  years  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is,  two  full  terms  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  have  a four  years’  term  here  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  the  senators  are  alternately  elected  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is,  the  senators  are  elected  every  two  years, 
but  in  different  districts  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  is  the  method  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  The  senators  are  elected  one  year  from  the  odd- 
numbered  districts,  and  two  years  from  that  time  those  from  the 
even-numbered  districts  are  elected. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Does  that  result  in  about  half  the  senators 
being  elected  at  each  election  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  About  half.  We  have  33  members. 

Senator  Pomerene.  While  you  are  on  that  subject:  The  assembly- 
men  are  elected  every  two  years,  are  they  not  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  have  biennial  elections  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes,  sir;  they  hold  for  one  term  only. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I infer,  from  what  you  say,  Mr.  Riordan 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  say  they  are  elected  for  only  one  term  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  The  assemblymen  are  elected  for  one  session  of  the 
legislature  only. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  is,  they  may  not  succeed  themselves? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Oh,  yes;  they  may. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  In  addition  to  those  detailed  matters  involved 
in  a thorough  and  effective  and  legitimate  political  organization 
for  the  purpose  of  getting  a result  at  the  polls,  I suppose  there  are 
expenses  connected  with  a senatorial  campaign  in  the  primary  that 
are  general  in  their  character,  such  as  advertising  and  circularizing 
by  literature,  postage,  telephone  messages,  telegrams,  and  all  the 
incidental  expenses  connected  with  the  general  headquarters  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I suppose  that  is  understood. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Or  course  that  is  a well-known  fact  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes. 


D.  E.  RIORDAN. 


795 


Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  I infer  from  what  you  say,  Mr.  Riordan, 
that  you  discussed  thoroughly  with  Mr.  Edmonds,  in  the  early  part 
of  this  campaign,  the  character  of  the  organization  and  of  the  cam- 
paign to  be  carried  on  in  the  interest  of  the  Senator  in  connection 
with  this  primary  election? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I did. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And,  in  connection  with  that  discussion,  you 
discussed  this  question  of  whether  or  not  it  would  be  feasible  to  take 
the  initial  step  by  having  this  careful,  house-to-house  canvass  made  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I did.  , 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Will  you  be  kind  enough  to  state  to  the  com- 
mittee what,  in  your  judgment,  a thorough  and  effective  and  legiti- 
mate senatorial  campaign,  conducted  like  this  of  Senator  Stephen- 
son— I mean,  under  the  circumstances  existing  in  that  campaign — - 
with  three  other  candidates  in  the  field,  beginning  as  he  did,  with  an 
effective  organization  such  as  is  utilized  when  it  is  desired  to  get  the 
last  and  best  ultimate  results  at  the  end  of  a campaign,  would  cost 
in  the  State  of  Wisconsin  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I do  not  know.  I would  not  want  to  make  an 
estimate  in  a case  of  this  kind,  where  there  were  four  candidates; 
three  already  in  the  field,  two  of  them  wealthy  men,  well  acquainted, 
having  been  very  active  in  State  politics  in  the  past,  and  with  the 
existing  conditions  with  respect  to  factions  in  the  State,  I would 
rather  not  express  myself  on  that. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  would  you  say  about  the  necessity  of  an 
expenditure  of  at  least  $107,000? 

The  Chairman.  I think  the  committee  will  have  to  draw  the  line 
against  that  question.  This  is  a question  of  fact,  and  does  not  need 
particularly  to  be  established  by  the  testimony  of  an  expert.  The 
question  is:  What  did  this  campaign  cost,  and  was  the  expenditure 
a legitimate  one  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I appreciate  that,  Mr.  Chairman,  but  if  the 
general  proposition  is  to  be  involved  that  a certain  expenditure 
creates  a certain  presumption,  it  seems  to  me  it  is  not  only  proper 
but  rather  incumbent  on  us  to  show  that  a thorough  and  effective 
campaign,  if  we  can  show  it,  would  undoubtedly  cost  considerably 
more — for  the  purpose  of  meeting  the  general  presumption. 

The  Chairman.  I think  that  should  be  established  by  a proof 
of  facts  as  to  what  it  would  cost.  That  is,  whether  another  man 
expended  a large  or  a small  sum  of  money  would  have  nothing 
whatever  to  do  with  it  in  determining  whether  or  not  the  expenditure 
in  this  case  was  a legitimate  one.  It  is  not  a question  of  matching 
pocketbooks. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I understand,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  it  is  not  a 
question  of  matching  pocketbooks,  but  I suppose  we  have  a perfect 
right  to  show  what  the  conditions  are,  what  it  is  necessary  to  do  in 
order  to  carry  on  a thorough,  effective,  lawful,  legitimate  campaign, 
and  from  that 

The  Chairman.  That  is  not  the  question. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I appreciate  that  I have  gone  a little  further. 
I have  put  a more  general  question.  But,  of  course,  the  result  of 
the  proof  of  details  would  be  the  conclusion  that  I have  been  asking 
the  witness  to  make.  Of  course  you  gentlemen  of  the  committee 
will  appreciate  that  I can  not  be  expected  to  demonstrate  this  to 
dollar  or  to  a cent. 


796 


D.  E.  RIORDAN. 


The  Chairman.  It  would  open  up  a very  large  field  of  inquiry, 
and  it  is  not  within  the  rule  of  the  investigation.  The  investigation 
is  as  to  what  was  done ; and  to  that  will  be  applied  the  rule  of  law. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  quite  true,  Mr.  Chairman,  but  what  I 
am  trying  to  get  at,  if  I make  myself  clear,  is  the  suggestion  that 
may  be  made  that  the  expenditure,  in  and  of  itself,  raises  an  im- 
proper presumption. 

I desire  to  show,  by  such  witnesses  as  I am  able  to  produce,  who 
have  the  best  knowledge  obtainable  upon  that  subject  matter,  that 
the  conditions  $re  such  that  that  proposition  can  not  be  predicated 
upon  that  expenditure. 

The  Chairman.  I do  not  think  it  raises  a presumption.  It  only 
calls  for  proof. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I do  not  know  that  that  really  changes  the  situa- 
tion much,  Mr.  Chaiiman.  It  embarrasses  us  just  as  much  whether 
it  raises  a presumption  or  calls  for  proof.  It  puts  the  burden  on  us, 
exactly  the  same,  in  either  case.  1 want  to  do  the  best  I can,  with 
such  testimony  as  may  be  relevant  and  material,  to  place  upon  the 
record  what  seems  to  be  the  evidence  that  tends  to  show  that  no 
such  presumption  could  be  attached  to  these  particular  expenditures. 

The  Chairman.  I was  going  to  suggest  that  this  might  lead  to  a 
comparison  of  expenditures,  and  open  up  the  held  of  inquiry  as  to 
what  some  other  man  had  expended  at  some  time.  That  is  to  be 
avoided. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Surely.  I appreciate  that;  and  that  I do  not 
propose  to  go  into. 

On  the  general  proposition  of  what  would  be  the  reasonable  expense 
of  such  a campaign,  evidence  such  as  you  have  suggested  would  not 
be  admissible,  because  it  would  not  tend  to  prove  the  proposition 
one  way  or  the  other.  The  mere  fact  that  a man  spent  or  did  not 
spend  a certain  amount,  standing  by  itself  alone,  accomplishes  no 
result  and  gets  nowhere.  It  does  not  advance  the  argument. 

I suppose  I could,  of  course,  approach  this  by  showing  in  detail 
about  what  the  probable  expense  would  be  of  all  these  various  steps, 
as  I have  already  undertaken  to  show  by  one  witness;  but  what  I 
was  trying  to  do  by  Mr.  Riordan,  without  taking  'that  time,  was  to 
get  from  him,  with  his  practical  knowledge  and  experience,  after 
having  discussed  the  very  matter  with  Mr.  Stephenson’s  manager, 
an  opinion  as  to  what  the  probable  cost  would  be.  I do  not  under- 
take to  say  that  it  forecloses  it,  but  it  does  seem  to  me  that  it  has 
some  tendency  to  throw  light  upon  the  issue. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Suppose,  Mr.  Littlefield,  for  the  moment,  we 
assume  that  $100,000  is  a reasonable  amount  for  any  man  to  expend 
in  a campaign  for  the  United  States  Senatorship.  If  your  position 
be  true,  then  it  must  follow  that  the  man  who  did  not  have  the 
$100,000  would  not  be  able  to  enter  into  this  campaign  at  all,  or 
take  any  part  in  it  with  a reasonable  prospect  of  winning. 

Does  not  that  follow  as  a sequence  of  your  position  ? 

Mr.  Liltlefield.  Very  likely. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Do  you  think,  then,  that  that  would  be  a 
proper  criterion 

Mr.  Littlefield.  It  does  not,  in  the  slightest  degree,  affect  the 
admissibility  of  the  evidence,  in  my  judgment,  if  the  Senator  desires 
me  to  answer  the  specific  proposition.  What  is  or  is  not  a proper 


D.  E.  HI CVRD  AN. 


797 


sum  to  expend  stands  by  itself,  alone.  For  the  consequences  that 
flow  from  it  we  are  not  responsible.  If  it  should  turn  out  that,  in 
order  to  make  a thorough  and  effective  campaign  here  for  the  pri- 
mary a man  had  to  go  through  these  22  precincts  with  the  most 
thorough  kind  of  a canvass  that  could  be  made,  we  all  know  what  an 
expensive  proposition  that  would  be.  I know,  and  I suppose  every 
member  of  this  committee  knows,  if  in  the  last  analysis  it  was  de- 
sired to  get  every  vote  in  the  State  of  Wisconsin  that  would  be  legiti- 
mately obtainable,  to  get  the  vote  of  every  man  who  could  properly 
be  induced  to  support  the  candidate,  by  legitimate  suggestion  and 
proper  argument — we  all  know  just  exactly  how  we  would  begin  to 
do  that  work.  And  it  makes  no  difference  how  many  candidates 
there  were.  When  we  began  to  do  it  and  proceeded  to  do  it,  it 
would  be  a matter  of  no  consequence  whatever  as  to  whom  it  elimi- 
nated or  whom  it  included.  It  would  not  affect  the  legitimacy  of  the 
expenditures.  Here  are  details  that  are  not  only  proper  to  be  done, 
but,  if  you  are  going  to  get  the  ultimate  result,  necessary  to  be  done. 
And  because  some  other  man  can  not  do  them  is  no  reason  why  they 
should  not  be  done.  Of  course  that  raises  the  question  as  to  whether 
or  not  some  other  man  can  do  them. 

I can  imagine  a man  not  having  a dollar  in  his  pocket,  who  could 
probably  stand  up  against  the  most  effective  organization  and  carry 
a primary.  I shall  not  describe  him.  I do  not  admire  him.  I 
know  him.  There  are  many  of  him.  He  is  not  peculiar  to  Wiscon- 
sin. He  inhabits  too  many  places  in  the  Republic  now.  That  kind 
of  a poor  man  is  the  kind  of  a poor  man  that  would  make  a campaign 
very  much  more  effective  than  the  man  who  was  able  to  go  out  and 
hire  men  and  employ  people  to  distribute  his  literature,  hire  men  to 
see  that  the  proper  men  go  to  the  polls  and  see  that  the  proper 
watchers  are  on  duty,  to  get  out  the  vote.  I can  imagine,  in  the  case 
of  that  sort  of  a man,  that  the  less  dollars  he  had  in  the  world — and 
perhaps  the  more  he  owed — I will  put  it  that  way;  I know  some  men 
of  whom  it  is  true  that  the  more  they  owe,  and  the  less  they  are 
worth,  from  any  point  of  view,  financial  or  otherwise,  unfortunately, 
the  more  they  appeal  to  an  electorate.  And  they  would  be  very 
dangerous  men. 

To  carry  out  the  suggestion  that  has  been  made,  I know  that 
reference  was  had  to  the  case  of  an  average  poor  man.  It  is  a matter 
of  no  consequence,  so  far  as  we  here  are  concerned,  and  it  does  not 
affect  the  legitimacy  or  the  propriety  of  this  expenditure,  as  to 
whether  or  not  Jones  or  Brown,  a worthy  poor  man,  entitled  on 
general  principles  to  the  support  of  his  fellow  citizens,  could  or  could 
not  carry  on  a canvass  and  make  his  organization.  The  question  is: 
Is  such  an  organization  legitimate  ? Is  it  lawful  ? Is  it  right  ? Can 
anybody  criticize  it  ? No  power  on  earth,  I take  it,  can  prevent  a man 
who  wants  the  suffrages  of  the  people  of  Wisconsin  in  the  primary  from 
hiring  every  man  that  is  necessary,  if  need  be,  to  see  every  Republican 
voter,  and  ask  him  whom  he  is  ready  to  support.  I think  that  is 
lawful;  I believe  it  to  be  right.  That  is  an  expenditure,  probably,  in 
which  a poor  man  can  not  engage,  but  any  man  who  has  the  money  to 
do  it  can  engage  in  it  rightfully  and  properly,  without  the  slightest 
question,  either  in  the  primary  or  in  an  ordinary  election.  There  is 
no  chairman  of  a political  committee  who  is  worth  his  salt,  or  who  is 
entitled  to  hold  his  place,  who,  if  the  means  are  within  his  disposal, 


798 


D.  E.  RIORDAN. 


does  not  begin  his  campaign  in  precisely  that  way.  That  is  common, 
ordinary  knowledge. 

What  I want  to  get  at  is  this:  I would  like  to  get  into  this  record 
as  to  this  State,  with  its  2,200  precincts,  estimates  from  people  who 
know  best,  so  far  as  we  know,  who  can  give  the  best  information  on 
the  point  what  it  would  cost  (the  money  to  be  legitimately  expended) 
to  go  into  details  and  make  the  canvass  and  organization  thorough 
and  effective.  I am  one  of  those  who  happen  to  believe  that  anything 
that  is  worth  doing  at  all  is  worth  doing  well.  If  there  are  100  votes 
that  will  support  me  in  a campaign,  I want  those  100  votes;  and 
if  there  are  500  votes,  I want  the  500  votes.  I should  want  to  do 
everything  that  was  legitimate  and  proper  and  necessary  to  ascertain 
their  existence,  and  see  that  on  election  day  those  votes  were  regis- 
tered for  me.  That  is  expensive.  I agree  with  the  Senator  in  that. 
There  is  not  any  question  that  the  ordinary  poor  man  can  not,  prob- 
ably, compete  on  that  proposition.  But  that,  if  the  committee 
please,  does  not  invalidate  the  expenditure  of  the  man  who  has  the 
means,  provided  he  keeps  himself  within  legitimate  and  proper  lines. 
Do  I make  myself  clear? 

Senator  Pomerene.  I understand  your  position. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  my  position.  Of  course  $107,000  is  a 
large  sum  of  money,  and  there  are  a great  many  things  to  be  taken 
into  account  in  connection  with  its  expenditure.  It  is  incumbent 
upon  us  to  show  the  size  of  this  State.  One  hundred  and  seven 
thousand  dollars  might  be  a large  sum  to  expend  in  Delaware  or  in 
Rhode  Island.  It  might  be  a small  sum  to  expend  in  New  York.  It 
might  be  a reasonably  legitimate  sum  to  expend  in  Wisconsin.  There 
are  a great  many  features  involved  in  it. 

Of  course  if  the  committee  feels  that  I am  pressing  it  too  far,  I will 
not  insist  upon  the  testimony;  but  this  is  rather  a general  proposition. 
If  we  are  to  be  embarrassed  later  on  by  the  suggestion  that  $107,000 
has  been  expended,  and  that  that  of  itself  not  only  casts  a burden 
upon  us,  but  also  raises  a presumption  of  unlawful  and  corrupt  ex- 
penditure, then  I want  to  do  everything  that  is  legitimate  and  within 
my  power  to  show  that  under  these  conditions  such  a presumption 
should  not  arise.  If  I am  wrong  in  the  method  I am  undertaking  to 
employ,  of  course  I subject  myself  very  cheerfully  to  the  ruling  of  the 
committee.  But  I want  to  do  the  best  I can  along  that  line. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Congress  has  recently  declared  that  the 
expenditure  of  a sum  exceeding  $10,000  would  be  unreasonable  for 
a senatorial  primary  or  election. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I do  not  know  that  Congress  has  declared  that. 
Congress  has  declared  that  in  excess  of  $10,000  shall  not  be  expended. 
Of  course  that  proceeds  upon  the  assumption  that  a larger  sum  than 
that  might  be  unreasonable.  It  does  not  demonstrate  that  the 
expenditure  of  a larger  sum  would  be  unlawful.  I think  we  should 
have  considerable  care  as  to  the  ultimate  result  that  flows  from 
legislation.  While  $10,000  may  be  fixed  arbitrarily  by  the  statute, 
fixed  of  course  after  this  campaign — and  I hope  any  alleged  reasons 
that  the  legislation  may  be  predicated  upon  may  not  prove  to  be 
retroactive  and  ex  post  facto  in  its  operation  on  the  Senator — it 
seems  to  me  that  no  man  can  contend  even  for  a moment  that  an 
expenditure  beyond  that  sum  is  per  se  corrupt.. 

1 dissent  from  the  proposition  that  it  is  within  the  power  of  a 
legislature  to  lay  down  an  arbitrary  rule,  and  say  that  expenditure 


D.  E.  RIORDAN. 


799 


beyond  that  line  is  corrupt,  and  that  expenditure  within  that  line 
is  honest.  It  is  competent  for  the  legislature  to  say  that  one  can  not 
expend  any  more  than  a particular  sum,  and  to  impose  a penalty  for 
doing  so. 

Senator  Sutherland.  It  would  be  unlawful  to  expend  any  more. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  and  to  impose  a penalty  for  expending  it. 
But  when  the  statute  prohibits  the  expenditure,  that  is  what  makes 
it  unlawful.  Independently  of  the  provisions  of  the  statute,  to  say 
that  $10,000  is  a maximum,  and  that  $11,000,  as  to  the  extra  $1,000, 
would  be  corrupt,  is  absurd  from  a logical  standpoint. 

I grant  you  that  the  legislature  can  arbitrarily  do  a great  many 
things,  and  that  for  a violation  of  its  prohibitions  it  can  undoubtedly 
impose  penalties.  I trust  that  I have  as  profound  an  admiration 
as  anyone  for  the  omniscient  wisdom  of  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States.  The  experience  I have  had  with  it  does  not  detract  from  my 
views  in  that  regard,  though  I do  not  shed  the  information  I acquired 
when  I was  in  it,  by  any  means;  and  the  fact  that  I am  out  of  it  does 
not  allow  me  to  discredit  the  body  by  any  means.  But  I deny  that 
the  Congress  can  give  a corrupt  character  to  the  expenditure  beyond 
a certain  sum,  because  that  is  simply  preposterous  and  absurd.  It 
can  make  the  expenditure  beyond  a certain  sum  unlawful;  but  I am 
speaking  now  of  moral  turpitude. 

Of  course  I am  not  going  to  discuss  the  reasons  why  Congress  is 
justified  in  making  those  limitations.  But  we  are  confronted  here 
with  this  proposition;  and  I know  that  the  committee  is  going  to 
give  me  every  legitimate  opportunity  of  which  I can. avail  myself 

The  Chairman.  If  you  will  permit  an  interruption,  Mr.  Littlefield, 
I have  not  been  convinced  that  Congress  was  justified  in  enacting  the 
statute  to  which  you  refer. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Oh,  I do  not  criticize  the  Congress. 

The  Chairman.  I have  not  been  convinced  that  it  was  justified  in 
enacting  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I may  say  that  I was  advised  of  the  chairman’s 
views.  Whatever  our  personal  feelings  may  be,  I do  not  hesitate  to 
assert  the  distinction  I make,  because  in  my  judgment  it  is  unanswer- 
able. The  Congress  of  the  United  States  can  not  eliminate  the  opera- 
tion of  reason  and  its  application  to  conditions  as  they  exist.  It  can 
define  what  it  wants  to  prohibit,  and  it  can  impose  penalties,  but  it 
can  not  do  the  other  thing.  The  very  fact  that  Congress  has  seen  fit 
to  enact  this  limit  should  not  alter  the  scope  of  this  investigation  as 
far  as  we  are  concerned. 

The  Chairman.  And  it  will  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I know  it  will  not;  but  I want  the  committee  to 
have  it  in  mind,  because  while  it  will  not  narrow  it  the  fact  that  Con- 
gress has  fixed  a limit  of  $10,000  will  inevitably  embarrass  us.  It 
can  not  help  it.  And  when  this  case  is  presented  with  an  expenditure 
of  $107,000,  the  simple  statement  of  it  tends  to  embarrass  us,  and 
improperly  embarrass  us. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  not  the  amount  expended  under  the  law  that 
we  are  considering.  It  is  the  character  of  the  expenditure. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  If  the  amount  can  be  eliminated  so  that  it  does 
not  disturb  me  hereafter  in  the  trial  of  this  case — if  the  matter  of 
the  amount  can  be  eliminated  on  the  assumption  that  it  does  not 
create  a presumption  of  unlawfulness  and  that  what  we  have  to  meet 
is  expenditures  per  se — then,  of  course,  we  have  cleared  away  a great 


800 


D.  E.  RIORDAN. 


deal  of  difficulty.  But  if  I am  to  meet  later  on  the  suggestion  that 
the  amount  in  and  of  itself,  standing  alone,  creates  a presumption 
of  fraudulent,  corrupt,  and  criminal  conduct,  then  I want  to  go  the 
extreme  length  in  showing  that  the  expenditure  of  this  amount  under 
these  circumstances,  taking  everything  into  account,  for  a legitimate 
and  lawful  and  justifiable  purpose,  is  not  excessive.  I do  not  know 
that  I make  myself  clear  to  the  committee,  but  that  is  precisely  what 
I want  to  show. 

I should  not  feel  justified  in  allowing  the  case  to  go  along  and  the 
record  to  be  put  in  before  the  committee  without  doing  my  very 
utmost,  as  the  representative  here  of  Senator  Stephenson,  to  meet 
any  possible  criticism  that  may  be  made.  Of  course  I know  how 
this  thing  drifts  about.  We  all  know  that  these  figures  get  all 
around  the  community.  The  country  is  simply  saturated  with  a 
proposition  of  that  kind.  I want  to  be  in  a position  to  avail  myself 
of  every  legitimate  factor  in  showing  that  when  the  situation  is  fully 
understood,  when  the  people  know  and  the  Senate  knows  what  it  is 
necessary  to  do,  how  it  has  to  be  done,  and  what  it  would  cost  to  do 
it  in  a legitimate  and  lawful  way,  every  one  will  understand  that 
such  an  expenditure  was  not  excessive,  and  was  not  in  and  of  itself 
corrupt.  If  we  can  show  that  in  order  to  accomplish  the  results  it 
would  aggregate  this  sum  and  more,  then  I feel  bound,  if  the  com- 
mittee please,  to  do  my  very  best  to  do  it.  I feel  that  we  can  do  it. 
It  may  be  that  we  can  not,  but  I feel  that  we  can;  and  if  we  can,  the 
responsibility  is  on  me  to  do  it.  Of  course  the  committee  will  appre- 
ciate that  I can  not  insist  that  I come  on  all  fours  within  the  appli- 
cation of  some  strict  legal  rule.  We  have  not  been  conducting  the 
inquiry 

The  Chairman.  No  strict  rule  of  evidence  should  apply  or  will  be 
applied  to  the  introduction  of  testimony  in  explanation  of  the  ex- 
penditures made  in  this  case.  We  are  here  to  listen  to  just  that 
class  of  testimony  within  liberal  rules — testimony  that  will  explain. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Will  the  committee  put  this  ruling  upon  the 
record — that  they  do  not  care  to  hear  anything  upon  the  proposi- 
tion as  to  whether  or  not  the  expenditure  of  the  $107,000  is,  per  se, 
or  does,  per  se,  raise  an  unlawful  and  corrupt  presumption  ? 

The  Chairman.  The  committee  will  not  hold  that  it  raises  a pre- 
sumption in  the  legal  sense  of  the  application  of  that  term.  The 
committee  has  not  gone  further  than  to  say  that  it  merely  requires 
proof  as  to  the  nature  of  the  expenditure.  It  would  require  proof 
if  the  expenditure  were  $10  and  the  expenditure  were  challenged. 
It  will  require  proof  when  the  expenditure  is  a hundred  and  more 
thousands  of  dollars,  and  the  legality  of  that  expenditure  is  chal- 
lenged. The  committee  has  not  gone  further  than  that. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  I understand  that  so  far  as  we  are  concerned 
we  can  safely  rest  upon  that  proposition,  and  that  the  record  will 
show  that  ? That  will  place  me  in  a position  where  I may  not  find  it 
necessary  to  go  into  the  general  question. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  you  mean  by  that  that  you  may  safely 
rest  upon  the  assumption  that  no  unfavorable  deduction  will  be 
made  from  the  fact  that  this  large  amount  of  money  was  expended  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  exactly  what  I mean. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I would  not  want  to  say  that. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I do  not  ask  the  Senator  to  say  it. 


D.  E.  RIORDAN. 


801 


Senator  Sutherland.  I would  not  want  to  join  in  any  such  ruling. 
I do  not  think  that  because  a man  has  expended  $100,000  it  follows 
that  the  expenditure  of  that  money  was  unlawful.  I think  a man 
may  spend  $100,000  or  $200,000  and  have  every  cent  of  it  expended  in 
a perfectly  legal  way.  But  speaking  only  for  myself,  I think  that 
the  expenditure  of  such  a vast  sum  of  money  as  $100,000  in  a primary 
campaign  is  an  unreasonable  expenditure.  I can  not  in  any  way  con- 
ceive how  the  expenditure  of  such  a large  sum  of  money  as  that  can  be 
called  a reasonable  expenditure;  and  I think,  at  least  in  that  aspect 
of  it,  that  it  calls  for  some  sort  of  an  explanation.  I sympathize 
entirely  with  the  laws  that  have  been  passed  in  some  of  the  States 
which  have  limited  the  amount  that  may  be  expended  by  any  can- 
didate for  the  Senate  or  any  candidate  for  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives. I think  they  are  very  wise  laws;  and  I think  the  amounts  that 
have  been  fixed  in  the  act  of  Congress  and  the  amounts  fixed  in  the 
various  State  laws  in  some  degree,  at  least,  indicate  what  is  a rea- 
sonable expenditure.  I do  not  mean  to  say  that  it  is  controlling, 
because  I do  not  think  it  is;  but  it  is  at  least  an  indication  of  what 
may  be  regarded  as  a reasonable  expenditure.  I think,  so  far  as  I 
am  concerned,  that  it  would  be  well  to  put  on  the  record  any  evi- 
dence which  you  may  have  that  would  indicate  that  this  expendi- 
ture was  reasonable.  I am  not  prepared  to  assent  to  the  proposition 
that  the  expenditure  of  such  an  amount  without  explanation  is 
reasonable.  In  saying  that,  I do  not  mean  to  in  any  manner  prejudge 
this  case. 

,Mr.  Littlefield.  Precisely.  I understand  that  perfectly. 

Senator  Sutherland.  It  has  nothing  to  do  with  what  I might 
finally  find  as  far  as  the  question  of  this  election  is  concerned.  I am 
simply  dealing  with  that  one  phase  of  it.  If  the  condition  that  you 
suggest  exists — that  under  the  direct  primary  system  the  election  or 
the  nomination  is  open  only  to  the  demagogue  or  the  millionaire — 
then  we  have  reached  a very  unhappy  pass.  I am  not  an  admirer 
of  the  primary  system.  I think  it  does  tend  in  that  direction. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  As  far  as  I am  concerned,  I have  not  the  burden 
of  taking  care  of  primary  legislation.  It  is  a matter  of  the  greatest 
indifference  to  me.  I am  endeavoring,  as  far  as  I can,  to  look  after 
the  rights  of  Senator  Stephenson  under  these  conditions.  If  the 
development  of  the  facts  give  rise  to  an  unfortunate  conclusion  or 
an  unfortunate  inference  so  far  as  the  primary  law  is  concerned,  that 
we  can  not  help. 

With  that  suggestion  I shall  endeavor  to  get  along.  Of  course  I 
shall  try  not  to  take  up  undue  time;  but  so  far  as  we  can  I should  like 
to  get  evidence  here  (and  I think  we  can  do  it)  that  will  satisfy  this 
committee,  and  ultimately  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  while 
they  may  say  more  money  was  expended  than  ought  to  have  been 
expended,  that  the  conditions  are  such  that  it  was  lawfully  and  right- 
fully expended.  There  is  a very  broad  distinction  between  an  unrea- 
sonable amount  and  a corrupt  amount.  I want  to  make  the  record 
such  that  carrying  this  thing  out  to  its  last  detail  the  committee  can 
say  that  legitimately  and  properly  this  would  call  for  the  expenditure 
of  a much  larger  sum  than  the  Senator  expended  without  indulging  in 
any  corrupt  or  improper  expenditure.  What  consequences  would 
result  from  that,  so  far  as  I am  concerned,  are  absolutely  immaterial. 

15235°— vol  1—11 51 


802 


D.  E.  RIORDAN. 


I want  to  show  it,  if  I can,  for  the  purpose  of  leaving  the  Senator 
where  he  ought  to  be  left  if  the  facts  are  as  I state  them. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Let  me  interrupt  a moment.  The  question 
that  is  before  us  is  one  as  to  the  admissibility  of  expert  testimony. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I do  not  know  that  there  is  any  objection 
to  your  showing  to  the  committee  the  amount  of  territory,  for 
instance,  that  Mr.  Riordan  had  to  cover,  the  amount  of  voters  lie 
had  to  see,  and  facts  of  that  kind.  But  you  now  come  to  the  question 
whether  a certain  expenditure  would  be  reasonable  or  unreasonable. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Not  quite  that,  if  the  committee  please. 

Senator  Pomerene.  In  effect  it  is  that.  It  leads  to  that  conclusion. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Whether  it  is  lawful  or  unlawful.  I think,  if  the 
committee  will  permit,  that  there  is  a profound  distinction. 

Senator  Pomerene.  It  is  a question  as  to  whether  or  not  this  was 
a reasonable  expenditure,  or  what  amount  would  be  a reasonable 
expenditure. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  No  ; I beg  your  pardon,  if  the  Senator  w ill  excuse 
me.  I shall  not  put  that  question  to  any  witness. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  is  the  question  that  was  put  to  this 
witness. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  If  I put  that  question,  I did  not  understand  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I will  ask  the  reporter  to  repeat  the  question. 

(The  reporter  read  as  follows:) 

“What  would  you  say  about  the  necessity  of  an  expenditure  of  at 
least  $107,000 ?” 

Senator  Pombrene.  It  is  in  effect  what  I was  seeking  to  state.  If 
your  position  is  to  control,  then  it  must  follow  of  necessity  that  there 
is  one  rule  to  apply  to  the  man  who  is  worth  $100,000,  another  rule 
to  apply  to  the  man  who  is  worth  $1,000,000,  another  rule  to  apply 
to  the  man  who  is  worth  $10,000,000,  and  still  another  to  the  man 
wdio  is  worth  $100,000,000.  It  seems  to  me  that  looking  at  this 
matter  as  lawyers,  we  must  come  to  the  conclusion  that  that  could 
not  shed  very  much  light  either  to  this  committee  or  to  the  Senate 
in  ultimately  passing  on  this  question. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I do  not  concede  the  conclusion  that  the  Senator 
draws,  and  for  this  reason:  In  my  judgment,  of  necessity  quite  a 
different  question  is  raised.  To  bring  this  down  to  a concrete  illus- 
tration, let  us  suppose  it  takes  three  men  to  canvass  a precinct,  at  an 
expense  of  $30.  That  expenditure  would  not  be  $40  if  the  candidate 
were  worth  $1,000,000.  It  would  not  be  $60  if  he  were  worth 
$10,000,000.  I bring  it  down,  not  to  the  ability  of  the  candidate  to 
spend,  which  is  the  criterion  suggested  by  the  Senator,  but  to  the 
necessity  of  an  expenditure  to  produce  the  result.  If  it  takes  10  men 
to  canvass  a precinct,  if  it  takes  3 men  to  get  the  voters  out  to  the 
polls,  or  4 men  to  watch,  it  does  not  cost  a man  who  is  worth  $10,000,- 
000  or  $40,000,000  any  more  than  it  does  a man  who  is  worth  $1,000,- 
000  or  $100,000.  My  criterion  is  not  the  ability  of  the  man  to  spend. 
If  the  committee  got  that  impression  from  me,  I certainly  was  very 
unfortunate  in  expressing  my  views. 

My  criterion  is  the  expenditure,  precisely  the  same  as  though  it 
required  a certain  amount  of  forage  in  carrying  on  a campaign. 
Suppose  it  required  100  barrels  of  flour.  That  would  not  cost  a man 
worth  $1,000,000  any  more  than  it  would  cost  a man  worth  $100,000. 


D.  E.  RIORDAN. 


803 


Ten  watchers  would  cost  the  same  under  any  circumstances,  except 
of  course  with  the  qualification  that  if  a candidate  has  means  these 
men  would  be  liable  to  charge  more;  but  that  is  not  a feature  to  take 
into  account.  I predicate  my  proposition  not  upon  the  ability  of  the 
man  to  pay,  not  upon  whether  he  has  SI  or  $10,000,000,  but  upon  the 
expense  that  it  is  necessary  to  incur  to  lawfully  and  legitimately 
produce  the  result. 

That  is  what  I intended  to  be  understood  as  saying,  and  that  is 
what  I mean  to  say  now.  If  a man  has  not  the  money  to  hire  men 
to  do  the  work,  and  the  men  will  not  do  it  without  being  hired,  then 
the  man  can  not  get  the  work  done.  That  follows  just  as  surely  as 
night  follows  the  day.  But  it  does  not  change  the  amount  to  be 
expended  as  bearing  upon  the  ability  of  the  man  to  expend.  The 
great  question,  the  only  question,  is,  how  much  would  it  require,  with 
legitimate  expenditure,  with  the  necessary  organization,  to  produce 
the  ultimate  result  ? 

The  Chairman.  Suppose  we  pass  upon  each  question  as  it  arises. 
Let  the  last  question  be  read. 

(The  reporter  read  as  follows:) 

“What  would  you  say  about  the  necessity  of  an  expenditure  of  at 
least  $107,000  V’ 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is,  to  make  a thorough,  effective  campaign, 
and  get  at  the  ultimate  result. 

Mr.  Riordan.  For  the  United  States  Senate,  you  mean,  under  the 
primary  law  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes. 

Mr.  Riordan.  I should  say  that  he  could  not  make  a very  thorough 
campaign  with  it  under  the  Wisconsin  primary  law. 

The  Chairman.  That  answers  the  question. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  as  far  as  I want  to  go.  I understood  that 
you  stated  that  there  were  no  game  wardens  who  took  any  part  in  this 
campaign.  I do  not  wish  to  go  into  detail,  but  I want  to  ask  this 
general  question,  as  bearing  on  the  propriety  of  the  employment  of 
J.  W.  Stone:  What  is  the  fact  with  reference  to  the  employment  of 
the  game-warden  force  as  a political  factor  in  the  State  of  Wisconsin 
during  the  last  8 or  10  years  ? 

The  Chairman.  The  witness  will  not  be  called  upon  to  answer  that 
question.  The  question  of  employing  game  wardens  is  not  material. 
It  would  open  up  a branch  of  inquiry  as  to  which  the  committee  is 
sufficiently  advised  from  the  record,  that  it  is  not  desirable  to  go  into 
at  this  time. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I did  not  intend  to  go  into  it.  I would  not 
under  any  circumstances. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Riordan,  w7as  any  money  expended  by  you  in 
the  campaign  for  Senator  Stephenson,  either  directly  or  indirectly, 
for  the  purpose  of  bribing  or  corruptly  influencing  any  elector  in  the 
primary  election  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Within  his  knowdedge,  I assume  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes.  In  the  first  place  I asked  him  about  money 
expended  by  him.  I mean  your  personal  expenses  now. 

Mr.  Riordan.  In  answer  to  that  I vmuld  say  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Was  any^  money  expended  by  the  gentlemen  to 
whom  you  intrusted  funds  in  the  interest  of  the  Senator  in  the  cam- 


804 


D.  E.  RIORDAN. 


paign,  to  your  knowledge,  for  the  purpose  of  direct!}7  or  indirectly 
bribing  or  corrupting  electors  in  the  primary  election  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  There  was  not. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Mr.  Riordan,  was  any  money  spent  for 
liquors  or  cigars  during  the  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes;  there  was  some. 

Senator  Sutherland.  By  whom  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  I will  answer  that  question  in  this  way:  I carried 
some  cigars  with  me,  and  I treated  gentlemen  to  cigars  now  and  then, 
when  I met  them,  in  discussing  the  matter.  I will  say  this,  however: 
There  was  no  money  given  to  anyone  to  buy  liquor  or  cigars  with. 

Senator  Sutherland.  How  about  liquors  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Or  liquor,  either. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Was  there  any  spent  for  liquors? 

Mr.  Riordan.  There  might  have  been  a drink  bought,  here  and 
there,  occasionally;  but  there  was  no  saloon  campaign  made.  It 
was  conducted  in  a dignified  and  respectable  manner. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Can  you  give  an  approximate  idea  of  how 
much  was  spent  altogether  in  that  way? 

Mr.  Riordan.  For  liquor? 

Senator  Sutherland.  Yes. 

Mr.  Riordan.  Of  the  funds  intrusted  to  me? 

Senator  Sutherland.  Yes. 

Mr.  Riordan.  I should  say  there  was  not  to  exceed  $50. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Not  to  exceed  $50  out  of  the  $3,200? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Out  of  the  $3,200,  that  went  to  buy  liquor. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  you  think  the  expenditure  of  $107,000 
would  not  be  sufficient  in  the  primary  election  to  make  an  effective 
campaign?  Do  I understand  you  to  say  that? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Under  the  circumstances  surrounding  the  campaign 
made  here  in  1908? 

Senator  Sutherland.  Under  the  direct  primary  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Under  the  direct  primary,  yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  do  you  think  would  be  an  amount 
that  would  give  vou  an  effective  campaign? 

Mr.  Riordan.  It  would  depend  somewhat  upon  the  length  of  time. 

Senator  Sutherland.  We  will  say  under  the  circumstances  here 
in  this  particular  campaign. 

Mr.  Riordan.  I think  $200,000  could  have  been  spent  legitimately. 

Senator  Sutherland.  There  were  four  candidates  before  the 
primary  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  If  eacli  of  them  carried  on  an  effective  cam- 
paign, that  would  mean  spending  $800,000  in  the  primary  election 
for  Senator  alone? 

Mr.  Riordan.  That  would  be  a different  situation  from  that  which 

E revailed  here,  Senator.  In  this  instance  the  other  candidates  had 
een  perfecting  their  organizations,  some  of  them  for  two  years. 
Some  of  them  had  the  benefit  of  four  or  five  years’  work.  That  was 
cumulative.  They  had  such  an  organization  there  that  if  one  should 
start  out  as  Mr.  Stephenson  did,  without  any  combination  or  organ- 
ization, and  start  right  at  the  beginning  and  do  it  all  in  60  days,  it 
would  take  more  than  twice  or  three  times  the  amount. 


D.  E.  RIORDAN. 


805 


Senator  Sutherland.  But  if  Mr.  Stephenson  found  it  necessary  to 
spend  $200,000  to  make  an  effective  campaign,  would  not  the  others 
as  well  have  to  spend  a similar  amount? 

Mr.  Riordan.  They  would  if  they  were  endeavoring  to  make  it  in 
the  same  length  of  time,  Senator. 

Senator  Sutherland.  If  they  had  a longer  time  in  which  to  make 
the  campaign,  the  expenses  would  simply  be  carried  over  a longer 
period.  Would  not  that  be  all  the  difference? 

Mr.  Riordan.  No;  I do  not  so  understand  it.  I think  there  are 
men  in  this  State  who  have  been  carrying  on  the  campaign  so  long 
that  they  could  get  along  with  a very  much  less  amount. 

Senator  Sutherland.  If  $800,000  were  spent  in  the  primary  cam- 
paign to  employ  electors  to  do  work  for  each  candidate  m the  various 
precincts,  practically  the  entire  electorate  of  the  State  would  be  in 
one  of  these  four  machines,  would  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  That  is  true.  The  party  for  whom  they  were  going 
to  cast  their  vote  would  be  known  the  night  before;  and  there  would 
be  some  one  there  on  election  day  to  see  that  none  of  those  missed 
getting  to  the  polls,  or  that  they  were  not  taken  away  from  the  place 
where  they  were  supposed  to  be  the  night  before. 

Senator  Sutherland.  There  would  not  be  any  other  voters  left 
to  be  brought  in  to  the  polls;  they  would  already  be  in  the  organ- 
ization, would  they  not  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  All  of  that  party  and,  under  the  Wisconsin  primary, 
a great  many  of  the  other  party  also. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Mr.  Riordan,  how  was  the  item  of  $400  paid  to 
you  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  The  item  of  $400  and  the  item  of  $500 — if  you  will 
permit  me  to  put  them  together,  one  to  A.  C.  Miller,  of  Ashland,  and 
the  other  to  T.  I.  Laughlin,  of  Eagle  River — were  sent  to  me  by  Mr. 
Edmonds. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  A.  C.  Miller,  or  A.  D.  Miller? 

Mr.  Riordan.  A.  C.  Miller. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I have  it  here  “A.  D.  Miller.”  Is  he  a member 
of  the  Price  & Taylor  Co.  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  No,  sir.  Mr.  A.  C.  Miller  was  the  stenographer  and 
clerk  in  my  office  at  Ashland. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  So  that  one  came  through  A.  C.  Miller  ? 

Mr.  Riordan.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  remember  the  amount  of  that? 

Mr.  Riordan.  It  w~as  either  $400  or  $500. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  the  other  came  through  Mr.  T.  I.  Laughlin  ? 
- Mr.  Riordan.  T.  I.  Laughlin,  who  was  vice  president  of  the  Eagle 
River  Land  Co.,  of  which  I am  president,  and  had  charge  of  my  office 
at  Eagle  River. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Your  attention  was  called  to  the  employment 
of  a man  by  the  name  of  Everett,  I believe,  who  was  a candidate  for 
the  assembly.  Were  any  of  these  other  men  whom  you  employed 
candidates  for  the  assembly? 

Mr.  Riordan.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  He  was  the  only  one? 

Mr.  Riordan.  He  was  the  only  one. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  is  all. 

The  Chairman.  The  witness  is  excused. 


806 


v 


WILLIAM  L.  ESSMANN. 


Mr.  Riordan.  Will  my  presence  be  further  required,  Mr.  Chairman  ? 
The  Chairman.  We  will  send  for  you  if  we  need  you  further.  You 
do  not  need  to  remain  in  attendance. 

Mr.  Riordan.  I can  go  home,  then  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I do  not  know*  but  that  Mr.  Riordan  would  like 
to  know  whether  Mr.  Essmann  found  his  statement  in  the  papers  on 


The  Chairman.  We  are  going  to  put  Mr.  Essmann  on  the  stand 
right  now. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Then  Mr.  Riordan  can  remain  here. 

The  Chairman.  You  can  remain  here  if  you  prefer  to  do  so. 

TESTIMONY  OF  WILLIAM  L.  ESSMANN— Recalled. 

William  L.  Essmann,  being  recalled,  testified  as  follows: 

The  Chairman.  What  is  your  official  position  ? 

Mr.  Essmann.  Superintendent  of  public  property  of  the  State. 

The  Chairman.  As  such  official,  have  you  the  exhibits  and  papers 
introduced  in  evidence  before  the  joint  committee  of  the  legislature 
appointed  in  1909  to  investigate  the  election  of  Senator  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Essmann.  I have  all  those  in  my  possession. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  indexed  and  arranged  those  papers  in 
such  way  as  to  make  them  readily  available? 

Mr.  Essmann.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  you  have  all  that  were  left  in  your 
possession.  Do  you  know  of  others  in  the  possession  of  some  one? 

Mr.  Essmann.  I have  been  unable  to  ascertain. 

The  Chairman.  Where  would  you  be  able  to  ascertain,  if  at  all  ? 

Mr.  Essmann.  I think  from  the  chairman  of  the  committee, 
Mr.  Marsh. 

The  Chairman.  Where  is  he  ? 

Mr.  Essmann.  He  lives  in  Neillsville. 

The  Chairman.  Would  it  be  necessary  for  you  to  go  to  Neillsville 
to  ascertain,  or  could  you  do  it  by  communication — telephone  or 
otherwise  ? 

Mr.  Essmann.  I called  him  1 J 1 1 1,1 


were  two  trunks  left  in  my  p , ^ ^ 7 

one  of  them  had  nothing  in  it  pertaining  to  this  investigation,  and 
one  of  them  did. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  examined  those  trunks  to  which  he 
referred  as  containing  all  of  these  exhibits? 

Mr.  Essmann.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  here  in  the  court  room  all  that  you 
found  in  those  two  trunks? 

Mr.  Essmann.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Tell  us  how  you  have  arranged  them,  so  that  we 
may  identify  them  and  use  them. 

Mr.  Essmann-.  The  official  stenographer  prepared  an  index;  and 
they  are  all  listed  as  exhibits  in  the  last  four  pages  of  this  book, 
running  from  Exhibit  1 to  Exhibit  474. 


file. 


to  know  anything  about  it. 


WILLIAM  L.  ESSMANN. 


807 


The  Chairman.  Have  you  all  of  those  exhibits  here  ? 

Mr.  Essmann.  I have  all  except  what  I have  written  here  on  this 
paper. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  you  have  all  except  those  enumerated 
on  the  paper  in  your  hand  ) 

Mr.  Essmann.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Just  have  that  paper  marked  Exhibit  No.  1 in 
connection  with  your  testimony. 

(The  paper  referred  to  was  marked  “ Exhibit  No.  1,  Essmann.”) 

The  Chairman.  We  understand  you  to  say  that  those  marked  on 
the  paper  are  not  found  in  the  trunk? 

Mr.  Essmann.  In  this  trunk;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  How  many  are  there  ? 

Mr.  Essmann.  There  are  about  12  or  13. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  the  names  of  the  exhibits  there  ? 

Mr.  Essmann.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Read  them,  please. 

Mr.  Essmann.  Exhibit  43,  Thomas  Reynolds’  statement  of  ex- 
pense. Exhibit  49,  detail  statement  of  Senator  Stephenson’s  expense. 
Exhibits  50  to  59,  stubs  of  cashier’s  checks  produced  by  Mr.  Puelicher. 
Exhibit  65,  check  to  W.  L.  Smith.  Exhibit  113,  letter  accompany- 
ing No.  112.  Exhibit  114,  account  of  W.  R.  Knell  found  in  record 
on  page  3874.  Exhibit  452,  statement  of  J.  W.  Stone.  Exhibit  455, 
voucher  of  W.  C.  Haslem  for  February,  1908.  Exhibit  456,  voucher 
of  W.  C.  Haslem  for  May,  1908.  Exhibit  463,  voucher  of  Thomas  M. 
Purtrie — record,  page  7245.  Exhibit  469,  stub  of  check  of  A.  S. 
Herbert  from  E.  A.  Edmonds.  Exhibit  470,  vouchers  of  Frank 
Brown.  Exhibit  471,  poll  list  produced  by  George  Beyers. 

The  Chairman.  With  reference  to  the  Stone  exhibit — is  that 
J.  W.  Stone? 

Mr.  Essmann.  That  is  the  ex-game-warden. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  made  diligent  search  to  find  that 
exhibit  ? 

Mr.  Essmann.  Yes,  sir.  I went  through  the  box  three  or  four 
times. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  it  is  not  in  your  custody? 

Mr.  Essmann.  It  is  not  in  my  custody. 

The  Chairman.  Has  it  been  in  your  custody,  do  you  know? 

Mr.  Essmann.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  a list  of  the  exhibits  prepared  in  the 
order  of  their  number? 

Mr.  Essmann.  Yes,  sir;  I have  them  all  written  out. 

The  Chairman.  Produce  the  list,  please,  for  identification,  and 
have  it  marked  “Exhibit  2”  in  connection  with  your  testimony. 

(Mr.  Essmann  produced  the  list  of  exhibits,  and  it  was  marked  by 
the  secretary  Exhibit  2.) 

The  Chairman.  We  are  now  dealing  with  Exhibit  2.  The  reporter 
will  mark  those  as  a part  of  the  testimony.  They  will  be  a part  of 
the  record  and  copied  into  it. 


808 


WILLIAM  L.  ESSMANN, 


(Exhibit  2 is  in  words  and  figures  as  follows:) 

Index, 
volume  i. 


3age. 

Exhibit 

No. 

36 

1 

84 

2-24 

113 

25 

117 

26 

120 

27 

131 

28 

134 

29 

148 

30 

149 

31 

150 

32 

160 

33 

178 

34 

188 

35 

188 

36 

190 

37 

191 

38 

192 

39 

225 

41 

229 

42 

378 

43 

495 

44 

Remarks. 


Statement  of  Senator  Stephenson  (money  paid  out  by  him). 

Vouchers  in  connection  with  above. 

Certified  copy  of  Stephenson’s  campaign  expenses. 

Jacob  Rummell,  statement  election  expenses. 

Melvin  A.  Hoyt,  statement  election  expenses. 

Book  containing  expense  account  of  F.  E.  McGovern,  found  in  record  at  page  1895. 
Bundle  of  checks  introduced  by  McGovern  in  connection  with  No.  28. 

Checks  introduced  by  McGovern. 

Original  checks  introduced  by  McGovern. 

E.  E.  McGovern,  statement  election  expenses. 

Neal  Brown,  statement  election  expenses. 

Letter  containing  Cook’s  contract  with  William  C.  Cowling. 

Vouchers  introduced  by  S.  A.  Cook. 

Itemized  statement  of  checks  sent  W.  C.  Cowling  as  per  Cook’s  statement  to  secretary  of 
state  Sept.  29, 1908. 

Receipt  of  Louis  Sorenson  (introduced  by  S.  A.  Cook). 

Statement  of  checks  to  W.  C.  Cowling  since  making  statement  to  secretary  of  state  on 
Sept.  29, 1908,  in  connection  with  Cook’s  campaign. 

S.  A.  Cook,  statement  election  expenses. 

W.  H.  Hatton,  statement  election  expenses. 

Additional  items  of  No.  41. 

Thos.  Reynolds,  statement  of  expenses. 

Receipt  of  Rodney  Sacket  for  $98,083.72  received  of  J.  H.  Puelicher. 


VOLUME  II. 


576 

45 

642 

46 

721 

47 

829 

48 

897 

49 

1228 

50-59 

1247 

60 

1249 

61 

1377 

62 

1316 

63 

1324 

64 

1350 

65 

1353 

66 

1380 

67 

1380 

68 

1380 

69 

1381 

70 

1382 

71 

1383 

72 

1384 

73 

Letter  from  C.  K.  Lush  introduced  by  Hatton. 

Charges  preferred  by  John  J.  Blaine. 

Account  of  Rodney  Sacket. 

Resolution  offered  by  Mr.  Bray,  found  in  the  record  at  page  827. 
Detailed  statement  of  Stephenson  expenditures. 

Stubs  of  cashier’s  checks  produced  by  J.  H.  Puelicher. 

Directory  of  Wisconsin  Legislature— 1909. 

Bundle  of  checks  produced  by  J.  H.  Puelicher. 

Account  of  C.  C.  Wellensgard. 

Bill  of  Koch  Advertising  Bureau,  (Stephenson). 

Bill  of  Koch  Advertising  Bureau  (Stephenson). 

Check  to  W.  L.  Smith. 

Bill  of  E.  B.  Usher  (Stephenson). 

Bill  of  Kuryer  Publishing  Co.  (Stephenson). 

Bill  of  Griffiths  (Stephenson). 

Bill  of  Jewish  Courier  (Stephenson). 

Bill  of  Superior  Tidende  (Stephenson). 

Bill  of  Courier  Printing  House  (Stephenson). 

Bill  of  Norden  Tribune  (Stephenson). 

Bill  of  C.  Rasmussen  Publishing  Co.  (Stephenson). 


VOLUME  III. 


1492 

74 

1492 

75-77 

1494 

78 

1662 

79 

1512 

80 

1513 

81 

1537 

82 

1659 

83 

1778 

84 

1807 

85 

1808 

86 

1875 

87 

2046 

88 

2050 

89 

2168 

90 

2110 

91-92 

2109 

93 

2141 

94 

2219 

95 

2237 

96 

2238 

97 

Letter  from  J.  A.  Stone  produced  by  John  J.  Blaine,  appears  in  record  at  page  1429. 
Memorandum  produced  by  J.  J.  Blaine,  appears  in  record  at  page  1456. 

Supplemental  statement  of  W.  H.  Hatton. 

Account  of  W.  C.  Cowling. 

Bundle  of  checks  on  Stephenson  National  Bank  signed  by  J.  A.  Van  Cleve. 

J.  A.  Van  Cleve,  statement  of  election  expenses  in  Marinette  County,  appearing  in  record 
at  page  1738. 

Account  of  J.  A.  Van  Cleve. 

Original  letter  signed  by  J.  A.  Stone,  produced  by  J.  J.  Blaine. 

Check  on  Corn  Exchange  Bank  to  F.  J.  Epling  for  $200,  No.  681. 

Check  to  H.  L.  Ekern  for  $1,000,  dated  May  14, 1908. 

Check  to  H.  L.  Ekem  for  $1,000,  No.  5005,  dated  Jan.  4,  1908. 

Bundle  of  checks  relating  to  Hatton  campaign,  produced  during  examination  of  C.  K. 
Lush. 

Account  rendered  to  W.  C.  Cowling  by  George  D.  Orput. 

Letter  to  W.  C.  Cowling  from  C.  D.  Orput. 

Letter  to  P.  J.  Koehler,  introduced  by  W.  C.  Cowling. 

Letters  from  Dr.  F.  H.  Gehbe  to  Cowling,  appear  in  record  at  pages  6666  and  6667. 

Bill  of  Dr.  F.  H.  Gehbe  to  W.  C.  Cowling,  appears  in  record  at  page  6667. 

Letters  produced  by  W.  C.  Cowling,  being  correspondence  with  Franz  Heyden. 

Account  of  W.  J.  McElroy  appears  in  record  at  page  2264. 

319  checks,  bank  book,  and  papers  produced  by  W.  J.  McElroy. 

Letter  introduced  by  W.  C.  Cowling. 


WILLIAM  L.  ESSMANN, 


809 


VOLUME  IV. 


Page. 

Exhibit 

No. 

Remarks. 

2273 

98 

Letter  and  affidavit  from  J.  P.  Peterson,  Polk  County. 

2276 

99 

Statement  of  W.  L.  Houser. 

2243 

100 

Letter  from  Knute  Johnson,  pertaining  to  Hatton  campaign. 

2410 

101 

Requisition  produced  during  examination  of  Mr.  Shape. 

2468 

102 

Letter  to  Dresser  from  Tsaac  Stephenson. 

2561 

103 

Account  of  L.  B.  Dresser,  appearing  in  the  record  at  page  2653. 

2561 

104 

List  of  counties  to  be  visited  by  members  of  State  board  of  control. 

2561 

105 

Same  as  No.  104. 

2670 

106 

List  of  game  wardens,  appearing  page  2843. 

2915 

107 

Statement  of  S.  L.  Perrin. 

2916 

108 

Checks  from  which  No.  107  was  made  up. 

3076 

109 

Account  of  J.  W.  Miller  relating  to  Stephenson  campaign. 

VOLUME  V. 


3181 

110 

Receipts  of  poll  workers  in  Dane  County  produced  by  A.  R.  Ames. 

3317 

111 

Account  of  C.  H.  Russell. 

3433 

112 

Account  of  C.  E.  Brady,  Manitowoc,  appears  in  the  record  at  page  6668. 

3444 

113 

Letter  accompanying  No.  112. 

Account  of  W.  R.  Knell,  found  in  the  record  on  page  3874. 

3805 

114 

VOLUME  VI. 


4170 

115 

List  of  men  who  worked  for  Stephenson  during  the  month  of  August  and  week  of 
primaries,  appears  in  record  at  page  4265. 

July,  August  and  1 week  in  September  appears  in  record  on  page  4266. 

4170 

116 

4281 

117 

Account  of  C.  M.  Hambright. 

4296 

119 

Letter  to  John  Aylward  from  Lester  Tilton. 

4357 

120 

Affidavit  of  Lester  Tilton. 

4609 

121 

Statement  of  W.  W.  Powell. 

4628 

122 

Bill  from  members  of  State  barbers’  board  to  W.  W.  Powell. 

4695 

123 

Bills  of  Cantwell  Printing  Co.  (Hatton). 

4701 

124 

Bill  to  W.  H.  Hatton  from  Geo.  N.  Wood. 

4744 

125 

Account  of  Geo.  B.  Hudnall. 

4745 

126 

Bill  of  Sullivan  Printing  Co. 

4746 

127 

Account  of  Fred  Hess. 

4748 

128 

Account  of  C.  W.  Miller. 

4752 

129 

Bill  of  Geo.  F.  Cooper  to  W.  S.  Braddock. 

4753 

130 

Account  of  Henry  Krumrey. 

4754 

131 

Account  of  C.  E.  Broughton. 

4757 

132 

Account  of  C.  F.  Stout. 

4787 

133 

Bunch  of  letters  produced  by  Van  Slyke,  from  W.  H.  Dick. 
Account  of  C.  F.  Stout,  complete  (includes  No.  132). 

4866 

134 

4869 

135 

Affidavit  of  C.  F.  Stout. 

4873 

136 

Statement  of  money  received  by  W.  J.  McElroy  rendered  to  Hatton. 

4956 

137 

Letter  to  C.  F.  Stout  from  J.  J.  Blaine. 

4957 

138 

Letter  to  C.  F.  Stout  from  W.  H.  Dick. 

VOLUME  VII. 


4979 

5031 

5039 

5039 

5045- 

50451 

5066- 

5134 

5135 
5183 
5185- 
5186 
5221 
5228 
5260 
5276 
5310 


139 

141 

141 

142 


Letter  from  J.  A.  Stone  to  W.  H.  Dick,  Sept.  2, 1908. 
“Directions  to  H.  E.  Bates,”  from  J.  A.  Stone. 
Mailing  list. 

Letter  accompanying  same.  Letter  No.  1. 


143 


Letter  No.  2. 


>144-183 

184 

185 

| 180-188 

189 

190 

191 

192 

193 


Correspondence  between  J.  A.  Stone  and  W.  H.  Dick. 

Poster  “To  the  readers  of  the  Milwaukee  Free  Press.” 

Account  of  C.  E.  Broughton. 

Letters  produced  by  C.  E.  Broughton  pertaining  to  campaign. 

Account  S.  H.  Cady. 

Letter  to  Taylor  from  W.  H.  Dick  confirming  contract  of  Taylor  with  Powell. 
Copy  of  statement  rendered  to  W.  H.  Dick  by  Taylor. 

Letter  to  C.  H.  Stevens  from  W.  H.  Dick. 

Account  of  E.  L.  Tracy 


Page. 

5310 

5620 

5399 

5411 

5417 

5441 

5442 

5467 

5468 

5473 

5475 

5479 

5481 

5485 

5487 

5530 

5532 

5536 

6539 

5545 

6547 

5548 

5550 

5552 

5552 

5561 

5583 

5585 

5586 

5597 

5624 

5627 

5628 

5629 

5634 

5639 

5641 

6645 

5647 

5652 

5656 

5658 

5663 

5669 

5674 

5675 

5682 

5683 

5695 

5699 

5704 

5705 

5711 

5714 

5717 

5720 

5721 

5738 

5739 

5742 

5743 

5744 

5746 

5751 

5753 

5754 

5756 

5758 

5759 

6763 

6767 

5769 

5780 

5782 

5784 

5788 

5790 

5702 


WILLIAM  L.  ESSMANN, 


volume  vii — continued. 


Remarks. 


Letter  accompanying  No.  193. 

Expense  and  per  diem  voucher  of  E.  L.  Tracy. 

Letter  dated  July  20, 1908,  addressed  “Dear  Jim.” 

Letters  between  C.  F.  Stout  and  Cooledge. 

Letters  between  C.  F.  Stout  and  W.  H.  Dick. 

Letter  from  C.  F.  Stout  to  James  Hanson,  Ephraim,  Wis. 
Letters  between  C.  F.  Stout  and  W.  H.  Hatton. 

Letter  from  C.  F.  Stout  to  C.  K.  Hayes. 

Letters  between  C.  F.  Stout  and  C.  A.  Ingram. 

Letter  from  C.  F.  Stout  to  W.  A.  Kay. 

Letters  between  C.  F.  Stout  and  E.  G.  Keup. 

Letter  from  E.  J.  Keyes  to  C.  F.  Stout. 

Letters  between  C.  F.  Stout  and  Anton  Kuckuk. 

Letter  from  Frederick  Kull  to  C.  F.  Stout. 

Letters  between  C.  F.  Stout  and  C.  K.  Lush. 

Letters  between  C.  F.  Stout  and  D.  J.  Morris. 

Letters  between  C.  F.  Stout  and  Thos.  Morris. 

Letters  between  C.  F.  Stout  and  Frank  Mueller. 

Letters  between  C.  F.  Stout  and  O.  L.  Olen. 

Letters  between  C.  F.  Stout  and  W.  M.  Perry. 

Letter  between  C.  F.  Stout  and  W.  W.  Powell. 

Letter  to  C.  F.  Stout  from  Geo.  Quinn. 

Letter  from  T.  M.  Thomas  to  C.  F.  Stout. 

Letter  to  C.  F.  Stout  from  John  O.  Thomas. 

Letters  to  C.  F.  Stout  from  T.  M.  Thomas. 

Letters  between  C.  F.  Stout  and  G.  B.  Hudnall. 

Letter  from  C.  E.  Broughton  to  F.  E.  McGovern. 

Letter  from  C.  E.  Broughton  to  Herman  L.  Essmann. 
Letter  from  C.  E.  Broughton  to  Zeno  M.  Host. 

Letter  to  J.  A.  Stone  from  John  Strange. 

Letters  between  J.  A.  Stone  and  G.  E.  Scott. 

Letter  from  Walter  Pietch  to  J.  A.  Stone. 

Letter  from  J.  A.  Stone  to  John  Strange. 

Letters  from  J.  J.  Blaine  to  J.  A.  Stone. 

Letters  between  M.  L.  Bunnell  and  J.  A.  Stone. 

Letter  to  W.  S.  Braddock  from  J.  A.  Stone. 

Letters  between  H.  J.  Clark  and  J.  A.  Stone. 

Letter  from  F.  E.  Cabanis  to  J.  A.  Stone. 

Letters  between  S.  A.  Cook  and  J.  A.  Stone. 

Letters  between  G.  C.  Cox  and  J.  A.  Stone. 

Letter,  Jeff  Crawford  and  Stone. 

Letters  between  W.  H.  Dick  and  J.  A.  Stone. 

Letters  between  E.  F.  Dithmar  and  J.  A.  Stone. 

Letters  between  J.  T.  Dithmar  and  J.  A.  Stone. 

E.  F.  Dithmar  and  J.  A.  Stone. 

Letters  between  R.  I.  Dugdale  and  J.  A.  Stone. 

Letter,  H.  L.  Ekem  and  J.  A.  Stone. 

Letters  between  W.  L.  Essmann  and  J.  A.  Stone. 

Letters  between  F.  C.  Falconer  and  J.  A.  Stone. 

Letters  between  C.  C.  Gittings  and  J.  A.  Stone. 

Letter,  G.  C.  Harney  and  J.  A.  Stone. 

Letters  between  W.  H.  Hatton  and  J.  A.  Stone. 

Letter,  W.  D.  Hoard  and  J.  A.  Stone. 

Letters  between  R.  M.  LaFollette  and  J.  A.  Stone. 

Letters  between  Lenroot  and  J.  A.  Stone. 

Letter,  Henry  Lockney  and  J.  A.  Stone. 

Letters  between  F.  E.  McGovern  and  J.  A.  Stone. 

Letter,  D.  McGregor  and  J.  A.  Stone. 

Letter,  S.  M.  Marsh  and  J.  A.  Stone. 

Letter,  C.  J.  Meyer  and  J.  A.  Stone. 

Letter,  Thos.  Morris  and  J.  A.  Stone. 

Letter,  R.  J.  Nye  and  J.  A.  Stone. 

Letters  between  W.  J.  Pearce  and  J.  A.  Stone. 

Letters  between  G.  A.  Parham  and  J.  A.  Stone. 

Letter,  D.  T.  Parker  and  J.  A . Stone. 

Letter,  G.  H.  Parham  and  J.  A.  Stone. 

Letter,  D.  T.  Parker  and  J.  A.  Stone. 

Letter,  Geo.  O.  Pretzsch  and  J.  A.  Stone. 

Letters  between  Edward  Pollock  and  J.  A.  Stone. 

Letters  between  O.  G.  Rewey  and  J.  A.  Stone. 

Letter,  M.  A.  Reynolds  and  J.  A.  Stone. 

Letters  between  Alfred  Rogers  and  J.  A.  Stone. 

Letter,  O.  J.  Schuster  and  J.  A.  Stone. 

Letter,  G.  E.  Scott  and  J.  A.  Stone. 

Letters  between  John  A.  Sholts  and  J.  A.  Stone. 

Letter,  S.  S.  Squires  and  J.  A.  Stone. 

Letter,  Edmund  Steidtman  and  J.  A.  Stone. 

Letter,  Peter  O.  Stenrue. 


WILLIAM  L.  ESSMANN, 


811 


volume  vii — continued. 


Page. 

Exhibit 

No. 

Remarks. 

5794 

423 

Letter,  S.  S.  Squires  and  J.  A.  Stone. 

5794 

424-425 

Letter,  John  M.  Swingle  and  J.  A.  Stone. 

5797 

426 

Letter,  John  0.  Thomas  and  J.  A.  Stone. 

5799 

427-428 

Letters  between  R.  N.  Van  Doren  and  J.  A.  Stone. 

5801 

429-431 

Letters  between  L.  F.  Wells  and  J.  A.  Stone. 

5807 

432 

Letter,  Frank  J.  Kimball  and  J.  A.  Stone. 

5808 

433-434 

Letters  between  P.  C.  Wilder  and  J.  A.  Stone. 

5811 

435-436 

Letters  between  Fred  Wilkins  and  J.  A.  Stone. 

5816 

437 

Letter,  F.  M.  Wilcox  and  J.  A.  Stone. 

5822 

438 

Statement  of  W.  W.  Lindsay. 

5856 

439 

Letter  from  M.  H.  Whittaker  to  W.  W.  Powell,  inclosing  bill. 

5856 

440 

Check  signed  W.  H.  Hatton,  payable  to  M.  H.  Whittaker. 

5857 

441 

Letter  from  M.  H.  Whittaker  acknowledging  check. 

5857 

442 

Bill  of  Whittaker  to  Powell  for  $13.85. 

5858 

443 

Bill  of  Henry  Heine,  M.  H.  Whittaker,  and  George  F.  McDonough,  for  $32.40,  to  W.  W. 
Powell. 

VOLUME  VIII. 


5918 

444 

Receipted  bill  produced  by  G.  B.  Hudnall. 

5938 

445 

Letter  from  Dr.  J.  J.  McGovern  to  Henry  Krumrey. 

5940 

446 

Answer  of  Henry  Krumrey  to  No.  445. 

5946 

447 

Check  to  J.  S.  Craig  for  $82,  signed  by  J.  W.  Stone. 

5948 

448 

Check  to  J.  T.  Porter  for  $80.25,  signed  by  J.  W.  Stone. 

5949 

449 

Check  to  C.  R.  Fridley  for  $187.05,  signed  by  J.  W.  Stone. 

5990 

450 

Statement  of  P.  J.  Koehler. 

6072 

451 

Letter  to  P.  J.  Koehler  from  W.  C.  Cowling. 

6072 

452 

Statement  of  J.  W.  Stone. 

6159 

453 

Statement  of  W.  C.  Haslam. 

6186 

454 

Letter  from  W.  C.  Haslam  to  J.  W.  Stone,  asking  for  leave  of  absence. 

6215 

455 

Voucher  of  W.  C.  Haslam  for  February,  1908. 

6218 

456 

Voucher  of  W.  C.  Haslam  for  May,  1908. 

6233 

457 

Note  for  $1,000,  Wisconsin  National  Building  & Loan  Association,  signed  by  F.  E. 
McGovern. 

6234 

458 

Note,  Marshall  & Ilsley  Bank,  for  $600,  signed  by  F.  E.  McGovern. 

6334 

459-460 

Letters  from  J.  A.  Stone  to  S.  A.  Towne. 

6369 

461a 

Telegram  from  Jas.  Fenelon  to  T.  F.  Ramsey. 

6370 

461b 

Envelope  containing  No.  461a. 

6371 

462 

Answer  to  461a. 

6464 

463 

Voucher  of  T.  M.  Purtell  appears  in  record  at  page  7245. 

6540 

464 

Affidavit  of  W.  H.  Hatton. 

6565 

465 

Letter  from  Win.  M.  Perry  to  S.  A.  Cook. 

6626 

466 

Stub  of  check  dated  8/31,  signed  Thos.  Morris. 

6641 

467 

Dodger  sent  out  by  Thos.  Morris  in  behalf  of  W.  H.  Hatton. 

6643 

468 

Check  of  Thos.  Morris  to  F.  Geisenheimer  for  $5. 

VOLUME  IX. 


6838 

469 

6981 

470 

6898 

471 

6917 

472 

6976 

473 

7167 

474 

Stub  of  check  to  A.  I.  Hulbert  from  E.  A.  Edmonds. 

Voucher  of  Frank  Brown. 

Poll  list  produced  by  Geo.  Beyers. 

Stub  of  check  to  D.  J.  O’Connor  from  E.  A.  Edmonds. 

Affidavits  of  Blewett,  Swett,  Morse,  Piggott,  and  DeSteese,  of  Fond  du  Lac. 

Resolution  introduced  by  Mr.  Ingalls  providing  for  the  taking  of  depositions  before  the 
committee. 


The  Chairman.  What  have  you  now  in  addition  to  these  two 
exhibits  ? 

Mr.  Essmann.  I have  prepared  here  an  index  to  the  names  of  the 
individuals. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  mark  that  Exhibit  3 in  connection  with 
your  testimony. 


812 


WILLIAM  L.  ESSMANN, 


(The  index  of  the  names  of  the  individuals  was  marked  Exhibit  3 
and  is  in  words  and  figures  as  follows:) 


Ay  1 ward,  Jno 

Ames,  A.  R 

Brady,  C.  E 

Bray  resolution 

Blewett 

Blaine,  J.  J 

Courier  Printing  House 

DeSleese 

Dresser,  L.  B 

Directory 

Eckern 

Epline 

Fenelon,  James 

Game  wardens 

Griffith,  Thos.  J 

Hambright,  C.  M 

Haslam,  W.  C 

Jewish  Courier 

Kuryur  Publishing  Co. 

Miller,  J.  C 

Morse 


119 

110 

112 

48 

473 

74-76 

71 

473 

104, 105, 102, 103 

60 

84,85,86 

84,  85,  86 

461-A-B 

106 

68 

117 

453-4 

69 

67 

109 

473 


Norden  Tribune 72 

O’Connor,  D.  J.,  check  stub. ...  472 

Piggott 473 

Peterson,  J.  P 98 

Pjrrin,  S.  L 107 

Puelicher.  J.  H 61 

Russel,  C.  H Ill 

Ramsey,  T.  F 461-A-B 

Rasmussen  Publishing  Co 73 

Swett 473 

Sacket,  R 44-47 

Stone,  J.  A 74-83,  459,  460,  454 

Stone,  J.  W 447-8-9 

Stephenson,  Senator 1-25 

Superior  Tidende 70 

Tilton,  Jno.,  letter 119 

Tilton,  Lester,  affidavit 120 

Usher,  Ellis  B 63-4-6 

Van  Cleve,  J 80-81 

Way  land,  C.  C 11&-116 

Wellensgard,  C.  C 62 


The  Chairman.  Have  you  there  now  all  of  the  exhibits  referred  to 
in  Exhibit  2 ? 

Mr.  Essmann.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Will  you  leave  them  with  the  clerk  of  the  com- 
mittee? They  will  be  accounted  for  and  returned  to  you  as  public 
documents  when  the  committee  has  had  proper  copies  made  of  them. 

Mr.  Essmann.  I will  leave  the  key  with  Mr.  Smith. 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

(Mr.  Essmann  handed  the  trunk  key  to  the  secretary  of  the  com- 
mittee.) 

Mr.  Essmann.  I have  here  also  a resolution  fixing  the  penalty 
imposed  on  E.  A.  Edmonds,  adjudged  in  contempt  of  the  senate.  It 
was  not  indexed,  and  no  record  was  made  of  it  in  any  way;  but  it 
was  found  in  the  box. 

The  Chairman.  The  committee  will  need  that  document.  It 
belongs  to  the  Senate. 

Mr.  Essmann.  I have  here  also  the  expense  account  of  Mr.  Wheeler, 
with  checks,  which  is  not  marked  in  the  exhibits. 

The  Chairman.  Is  it  enumerated  upon  your  list  ? 

Mr.  Essmann.  Not  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  It  will  be  marked  “ Exhibit  4,”  and  it  will  be 
properly  catalogued  by  the  clerk  of  the  committee. 

(The  Wheeler  expense  account  was  marked  “ Exhibit  4.”) 

Mr.  Essmann.  I have  here  also  the  “ Report  of  the  Senatorial  Com- 
mittee on  Investigation/ ’ which  is  not  marked. 

The  Chairman.  That  may  be  marked  “Exhibit  5.” 

(The  report  of  the  senatorial  committee  on  investigation  was 
marked  “Exhibit  5,”  and  is  in  words  and  figures  as  follows:) 


Report  op  Senatorial  Committee  on  Investigation. 


To  the  honorable  the  Senate  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin : 

The  senatorial  investigating  committee  beg  leave  to  report  the  following  resolution 
unanimously  adopted  by  said  committee  this  19th  day  of  May,  1909,  with  the  recom- 
mendations therein  contained : 

RESOLUTION. 

Whereas  the  work  of  the  joint  committee  appointed  by  the  two  houses  of  the  legis- 
lature to  investigate  the  recent  senatorial  primary  campaign  was  delayed  and  bin- 


WILLIAM  L.  ESSMANN. 


813 


dered  by  those  members  of  the  committee  who  were  opposed  to  a thorough  investiga- 
tion of  said  primary,  and  who  voted  for  Isaac  Stephenson  for  United  States  Senator 
on  every  ballot  while  they  were  investigating  him,  including  the  ballot  on  which  he 
was  elected ; and 

Whereas  this  committee  subsequently  appointed  by  the  senate  to  investigate  said 
senatorial  primary  and  the  election  of  Senator  Stephenson  by  the  legislature  to  the 
United  States  Senate  has  been  unable  to  secure  the  attendance  of  several  witnesses, 
notably — 

Senator  Stephenson  himself,  who  was  excused  temporarily  under  promise  on  his 
part  to  return  at  any  time  upon  request,  but  who  now  refuses  to  return  and  testify,  and 
who  is  in  Washington,  D.  C.,  beyond  the  reach  of  a subpoena; 

Rodney  A.  Sackett,  who  was  also  excused  upon  the  same  agreement,  and  who  is 
now  in  Washington,  D.  C.,  beyond  the  reach  of  a subpoena,  and  refuses  to  return  and 
testify; 

Arthur  Lambeck,  who  was  one  of  the  Stephenson  managers,  and  who  is  also  in  Wash- 
ington beyond  the  reach  of  a subpoena; 

J.  H.  Puelicher,  of  Milwaukee,  who  appeared  before  the  joint  committee,  and  after 
having  testified  in  part  was  excused  by  the  committee  upon  his  urgent  request  to  be 
permitted  to  visit  his  sick  father  in  Chicago,  and  who  shortly  thereafter,  without 
returning  to  Madison  and  without  notice  to  the  committee,  left  for  Europe,  where  he 
has  since  been  and  now  is  beyond  the  reach  of  a subpoena,  as  the  committee  is  informed 
and  believes; 

Robert  Shields,  of  Superior,  Wis.,  whom  the  committee  is  informed  visited  Senator 
Stephenson  in  the  city  of  Washington,  D.  C.,  after  the  beginning  of  the  investigation 
and  returned  just  prior  to  the  election  of  Isaac  Stephenson  and  acted  as  the  agent  of 
said  Stephenson  in  his  candidacy  for  United  States  Senator  during  the  primary  cam- 
paign and  supported  him  before  the  legislature,  and  who  has  since  left  the  State  of 
Wisconsin,  and  for  whom  a subpoena  was  issued  which  has  been  returned  to  the  com- 
mittee unserved, the  sheriff  of  Douglas  County  reporting  to  the  committee  as  a reason 
for  his  not  being  able  to  serve  such  subpoena  that  said  Shields  does  not  return  nearer 
to  his  home  at  Superior  than  the  city  of  Duluth,  which  is  beyond  the  reach  of  a sub- 
poena of  this  committee; 

Henry  Hetting,  of  St.  Croix  Falls,  Wis.,  who  is  now  in  Winnipeg.  Canada,  and  who, 
the  evidence  shows,  received  a large  sum  of  "Stephenson  campaign  money  from  the 
president  of  the  State  board  of  control,  and  who  acted  as  a campaign  manager  and 
disburser  for  Senator  Stephenson  during  the  primary  campaign; 

L.  W.  Thayer,  of  Ripon,  Wis.,  who  also  received  a large  amount  of  Stephenson  cam- 
paign money,  and  acted  as  his  campaign  manager  during  the  primary  campaign,  and 
who  has  been  and  now  is,  as  the  committee  is  informed  and  believes*  in  Arizona  ever 
since  this  committee  was  appointed; 

Whereas  subpoenas  have  been  issued  for  Assemblyman  Thomas  Ramsey,  Joseph  T. 
Farrell,  Silas  A.  Towne,  Lawrence  Ledvina,  William  Reader,  J.  E.  Thomas,  L.  H. 
Bancroft,  and  Frank  Smith,  upon  some  of  whom  subpoenas  have  been  duly  served, 
and  whose  testimony  is  necessary  in  order  to  enable  the  committee  to  make  the  full 
and  complete  investigation  which  they  have  been  instructed  to  make;  and 

Whereas  the  assemblymen  above  named  upon  whom  subpoenas  have  been  served 
have  claimed  to  be  privileged  as  members  of  the  legislature  and  have  refused  to 
appear  and  testify;  and 

Whereas  a resolution  has  been  adopted  by  the  assembly  indicating  that  all  of  the 
assemblymen  who  have  been  or  may  hereafter  be  subpoenaed  will  claim  such  privi- 
lege and  refuse  to  testify;  and 

Whereas  said  privilege,  if  it  exists,  will  continue  during  the  balance  of  this  legis- 
lative session  and  for  15  days  thereafter; 

Now,  to  the  end  that  the  committee  may  be  continued  beyond  this  session  of  the 
legislature  and  that  the  committee  may  be  invested  with  the  power  and  authority 
to  subpoena  and  examine  witnesses  after  the  close  of  the  present  session  of  the  legis- 
lature, up  to  and  including  the  special  session  if  necessary:  Now  therefore  be  it 

Resolved,  That  the  facts  as  aforesaid  be  reported  to  the  senate  for  its  action  in  the 
premises  with  the  recommendation  that  the  powers  of  said  committee  be  so  extended 
and  that  said  committee  be  authorized  to  make  and  file  its  final  report  with  the  legis- 
lature at  its  next  special  session,  or  at  any  time  prior  to  said  special  session  if  sooner 
completed,  with  the  governor. 

Mr.  Essmann.  I have  here  a whole  box  of  receipts  and  bills  of  the 
Stephenson  campaign,  which  is  not  marked. 

The  Chairman.  Have  they  been  arranged  in  order  and  classified? 


814 


WILLTAM  L.  ESSMANN. 


Mr.  Essmann.  No;  I have  gone  through  them,  and  they  are  just 
simply  receipts  of  bills  that  were  paid.  They  were  not  marked  as 
exhibits  in  the  original  investigation,  and  I did  not  mark  them. 

The  Chairman.  They  will  be  left  with  the  clerk  of  the  committee, 
and  will  be  classified.  They  are  not  to  be  taken  out  of  the  possesssion 
of  the  clerk  of  the  committee  until  after  they  have  been  arranged. 

Mr.  Essmann,  you  testified  in  this  case  on  a former  occasion,  did 
you  not? 

Mr.  Essmann.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  In  regard  to  the  facts,  or  your  knowledge  of  the 
facts  relative  to  the  campaign.  Did  you  support  Senator  Stephenson 
in  his  campaign  for  the  Senate  ? 

Mr.  Essmann.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Whom  did  you  support? 

Mr.  Essmann.  I managed  the  campaign  of  Francis  E.  McGovern. 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  that  the  record  seems  to  show.  This  com- 
mittee is  not  investigating  the  campaign  of  Mr.  McGovern.  You  are 
excused  for  the  present,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Just  a moment,  if  the  chairman  please;  I take 
it,  Mr.  Essmann,  that  you  have  made  a careful  search  of  this  box 
for  all  papers  that  have  any  relation  to  the  Stephenson  inquiry  ? 

Mr.  Essmann.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  It  seems  that  a letter  from  one  J.  A.  Stone  to 
J.  J.  Blaine  was  handed  by  Mr.  Blaine  to  Mr.  Marsh,  the  chairman  of 
that  investigating  committee,  since  which  time  no  one  has  seen  it. 
Did  you  find  any  letter  like  that  in  your  search  ? 

Mr.  Essmann.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  know  the  letter,  I suppose? 

Mr.  Essmann.  I would  know  it;  yes,  sir.  I am  familiar  with  the 
proceedings. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Have  you  seen  the  letter  from  Mr.  J.  A.  Stone 
to  J.  J.  Blaine  since  the  meetings  of  the  committee? 

Mr.  Essmann.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Apparently  a great  many  of  these  papers  which 
were  handed  to  the  committee  were  not  marked  as  exhibits.  That  is 
true,  is  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Essmann.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is,  in  the  papers  that  you  produce  here 
there  are  a large  number  of  papers  that  did  not  seem  to  be  marked 
by  the  committee  as  exhibits,  and  were  not,  therefore,  formally 
referred  to  in  that  investigation.  I am  correct  about  that,  am  I? 

Mr.  Essmann.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  the  box  that  you  have  there,  holding  a lot 
of  bills,  is  an  illustration  of  papers  of  that  kind? 

Mr.  Essmann.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  I understand  there  are  no  such  papers  outside  of 
the  box? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  No.  I am  simply  developing  the  fact  that  the 
committee  had  a lot  of  material  put  in  their  hands  that  they  did  not 
identify  and  did  not  mark,  and  there  is  no  way  of  tracing  it.  That 
is  true;  is  it  not? 

The  Chairman.  He  has  classified  the  papers  by  putting  them  in 
a box  by  themselves. 


WILLIAM  L.  ESSMANN. 


815 


Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  certainly.  Did  you  carefully  examine  all 
the  papers  in  this  box  with  reference  to  whether  or  not  this  letter  of 
Mr.  Blaine  was  there  ? I do  not  know  that  your  attention  was  called 
to  that. 

Mr.  Essmann.  There  are  several  letters  here  from  Mr.  Blaine. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  But  no  letter  to  Mr.  Blaine  from  Mr.  Stone  ? 

Mr.  Essmann.  From  J.  A.  Stone? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes. 

Mr.  Essmann.  I think  that  letter  is  here. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Oh,  it  is  ? Will  you  be  kind  enough  to  show  it 
to  me  ? 

The  Chairman.  Is  it  enumerated  among  the  exhibits  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I do  not  know. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  are  referring  to  the  letter  a part  of  which 
was  introduced  the  other  day  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  that  is  it  exactly.  What  I want  to  get  at 
is  the  date  of  it.  There  is  nothing  in  the  proceedings  thus  far  to  show 
the  date.  All  that  appears  in  the  proceedings  thus  far  is  an  excerpt 
from  the  letter,  minus  the  date. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Is  it  your  claim  that  there  is  anything  further 
in  the  letter  that  should  be  in  evidence? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I do  not  know.  I want  to  see  the  whole  letter. 
I do  not  know  what  the  context  shows. 

The  Chairman.  I should  like  to  suggest  that  the  witness  has  testi- 
fied that  everything  outside  of  that  box  is  enumerated  in  the  schedule 
that  he  has  given  us,  and  we  will  find  it  there. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  If  that  is  the  fact,  very  well.  I simply  wanted 
to  develop  the  fact  whether  it  was  or  was  not  here. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  have  the  box  carefully  investigated. 

Mr.  Essmann.  Here  is  a letter  [producing  it]. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  This  is  Exhibit  74.  That  is  not  it.  What  I 
want  is  the  original. 

Mr.  Essmann.  That  is  the  only  thing  that  is  here. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  only  paper  you  find  is  a copy  ? 

Mr.  Essmann.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  So  that  the  original  of  this  letter,  although 
handed  to  the  chairman  of  the  committee,  apparently  did  not  come 
into  your  possession  ? 

Mr.  Essmann.  All  I have  is  there  produced. 

The  Chairman.  The  witness  testified  that  he  made  a copy  of  certain 
parts  of  the  letter,  and  handed  it  to  the  chairman. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes.  Then  he  afterwards  testified,  on  my  ex- 
amination, that  he  delivered  the  original  to  the  chairman  of  the  com- 
mittee; and  the  original  is  what  I want  to  see. 

The  Chairman.  We  may  find  that  in  the  box. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  witness  says  it  is  not  in  the  box. 

The  Chairman.  This  witness  does  not  knowT  what  is  in  that  box. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Oh,  you  mean  in  this  box  with  the  receipts  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  there  anything  in  the  box  but  receipt^  ? 

Mr.  Essmann.  I do  not  know.  I know  there  are  receipts  in  there. 
I have  not  examined  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  have  not  examined  the  contents  of  the  box 
in  detail  ? 


816 


WILLIAM  L.  ESSMANN. 


Mr.  Essmann.  I think  there  is  nothing  there  but  receipts  from  Mr. 
Puelicher,  Mr.  Sacket,  and  Mr.  Knell. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  have  not  gone  in  detail  over  the  papers  in 
the  box? 

Mr.  Essmann.  I do  not  think  you  will  find  any  letters  in  the  box. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  We  can  see  about  that,  of  course.  But  so  far  as 
you  know  there  is  not  any  letter  there  ? 

Mr.  Essmann.  So  far  as  I know  there  are  not  any  letters  there. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I should  now  like  to  see  what  information  we 
€an  get  about  the  principal  exhibit  in  this  case.  See  if  I have  the 
identity  right:  The  proceedings  of  the  committee  show  Exhibit  49, 
and  an  immense  amount  of  time  has  been  spent  in  this  hearing  on 
Exhibit  49;  and  it  is  described  here  on  page  588  as  “Edmonds’ 
expense  account.  ” I should  like  to  have  that  exhibit. 

Mr.  Essmann.  Exhibit  49  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I think  that  is  one  that  you  are  not  able  to  find. 

Mr.  Essmann.  No,  sir;  that  is  not  here. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  have  any  knowledge  of  this  principal 
exhibit  in  the  case? 

Mr.  Essmann.  No,  sir;  I do  not  know  anything  about  that. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Can  you  give  the  committee  or  give  me  any 
information  that  would  enable  me  to  find  out  where  that  original 
exhibit  now  is? 

Mr.  Essmann.  Unless  you  should  get  it  from  the  members  of  the 
joint  committee  or  the  secretary. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  As  I understand  it,  you  have  already  been  in 
telephonic  communication  with  Chairman  Marsh  ? 

Mr.  Essmann.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  he  has  no  knowledge  on  the  subject  except 
that  his  recollection  is  that  two  boxes  were  left,  substantially,  I 
suppose,  in  the  custody  of  the  superintendent  ? 

Mr.  Essmann.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I do  not  know  that  you  were  the  superintendent 
at  that  time.  Were  you? 

Mr.  Essmann.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  So  that  you  simply  succeeded  some  other  gentle- 
man who  held  the  office  ? 

Mr.  Essmann.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  you  have  taken  whatever  you  found  in  his 
hands  ? 

Mr.  Essmann.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  the  only  suggestion  you  can  give  us  as  to 
ascertaining  the  whereabouts  of  that  original  exhibit  ? 

Mr.  Essmann.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  examine  the  other  trunk  with  such  care 
that  you  feel  able  to  confidently  state  that  this  letter  from  Mr.  Stone 
to  Mr.  Blaine  is  not  to  be  found  in  it  ? 

Mr.  Essmann.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  feel  very  certain  of  that? 

Mr.  Essmann.  It  is  not  there. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is,  we  can  rest  upon  that  ? 

Mr.  Essmann.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  we  can  also  rest  upon  the  fact  that  Exhibit 
49  is  not  in  that  trunk? 


D.  J.  O’CONNOR. 


817 


Mr.  Essmann.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  all  except  that  Mr.  Riordan  wanted  to 
know  if  you  found  his  statement. 

Mr.  Essmann.  It  was  not  in  the  box. 

(The  names  of  D.  J.  O’Connor  and  George  Beyers  were  called. 

Mr.  O’Connor  and  Mr.  Beyers  responded  to  their  names,  and  the 
oath  was  administered  to  them  by  the  Chairman.) 


D.  J.  O’CoNnon,  haying  been  previously  sworn,  was  examined  and 
testified  as  follows: 

The  Chairman.  You  are  a practicing  physician,  are  you? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  How  long  have  you  been  such  practicing  physician  ? 
Mr.  O’Connor.  About  15  years. 

^ 11  reside  ? 


e you  resided  there  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Five  years  last  February. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  take  any  part  in  the  senatorial  primary 
contest  during  the  year  1908,  at  which  Senator  Stephenson  was  a 
candidate  for  nomination? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  I did. 

The  Chairman.  What  part  did  you  take  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  I do  not  know  how  I can  answer  that  without 
going  into 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  do  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  I made  a canvass  of  our  county,  Outagamie 
County. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  enter  into  an  arrangement  with  Mr. 
Edmonds  as  Senator  Stephenson’s  representative  by  which  you 
were  to  take  part  in  the  campaign  in  that  county  in  the  interest  of 
Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  make  that  arrangement  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Six  or  seven  weeks  before  the  primary. 

The  Chairman.  Where  did  you  make  it  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  In  Milwaukee. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  come  to  Milwaukee  for  the  purpose  of 
making  such  an  arrangement  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  No,  sir;  but  I received  a letter  from  Mr.  Edmonds 
previous  to  my  visit. 

The  Chairman.  Pursuant  to  that  letter  you  came  to  Milwaukee. 
What  arrangement  did  you  make  with  Mr.  Edmonds  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  I was  to  go  around  the  county  and  visit  the  dif- 
ferent people  there  throughout  the  country,  interest  them  in  Mr. 
Stephenson’s  campaign,  and  put  up  some  of  his  literature,  if  it  was 
not  already  put  up. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  to  expend  any  money  on  behalf  of 
Senator  Stephenson  in  doing  the  things  that  you  mention  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  In  the  first  arrangement  I was  to  have  $500. 
After  I returned  home  I received  a letter  from  Mr.  Edmonds  to  “call 
the  deal  off,”  as  he  expressed  it. 

15235°— VOL  1—11 52 


TESTIMONY  OF  D.  J.  O’CONNOR. 


818 


D.  J.  O'CONNOR. 


The  Chairman.  Then  you  did  not  receive  the  $500  ? 

Mr.  O'Connor.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  afterwards  renew  the  arrangement 
through  Mr.  Way  land  ? 

Mr.  O'Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Wayland  was  representing  Senator  Stephenson 
or  Mr.  Edmonds ; was  he  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  It  was  so  stated  to  you  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  arrangements  did  you  make  with  Mr.  Way- 
land  ? 

Mr.  O'Connor.  He  told  me  to  continue  to  do  what  I could  for  Mr. 
Stephenson’s  election,  and  when  I got  through  he  would  pay  me  what 
money  was  expended. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  C.  C.  Wayland,  was  it? 

Mr.  O'Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  know  him  personally  ? 

Mr.  O'Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  How  long  have  you  known  him  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  About  four  years,  I think;  since  he  first  came  to 
Appleton. 

The  Chairman.  Is  he  the  witness  who  testified  before  this  sub- 
committee, or  were  you  not  present  when  he  testified  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  I was  not  present.  I met  him  here,  though. 

The  Chairman.  What  arrangement  did  you  make  with  Mr.  Way- 
land  with  reference  to  payment  for  your  services  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  He  told  me  that  when  I got  through,  any  money  I 
expended,  he  would  see  that  it  was  paid  back. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you,  pursuant  to  that  arrangement  with  Mr. 
Wayland,  receive  any  money  from  the  Stephenson  campaign  fund  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Some  time  after  the  primary  I received  three  hun- 
dred and  seven  dollars  and  some  cents. 

The  Chairman.  $307.30  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  the  amount  stated  in  your  former  testi- 
mony. Before  receiving  this  sum  of  $307.30,  had  you  expended 
money  out  of  your  own  pocket  on  account  of  Senator  Stephenson’s 
campaign  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  had  you  expended  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  That  sum. 

The  Chairman.  You  rendered  an  account,  and  the  account  was 
paid  ? Is  that  true  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  make  out  that  account  yourself  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Was  it  in  typewriting,  or  did  you  write  it  out? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  I think  it  was  written  out  with  a pencil  on  a pad. 

The  Chairman.  Where  is  it  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  I brought  it  up  to  Mr.  Wayland’s  office,  and  he 
asked  me  what  the  amount  was.  I told  him,  and  I had  down  there 
what  it  was  for. 


D.  J.  O'CONNOR.  819 

The  Chairman.  You  had  the  statement,  and  he  paid  you  on  the 
statement  that  you  rendered  in  writing  ? Is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  No,  sir.  I received  the  payment  several  days 
afterwards.  He  said  he  would  take  it  up  with  Mr.  Edmonds,  and  I 
would  get  paid. 

The  Chairman.  But  the  payment  was  based  upon  the  statement 
in  writing  which  you  rendered  of  the  expenses  which  you  had  incurred  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  where  that  statement  is  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  I do  not. 

The  Chairman.  You  left  the  statement  with  Wayland? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  It  was  a statement  or  memorandum.  I do  not 
even  remember  whether  or  not  I left  it  there. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  No;  I do  not.  I took  it  to  his  office,  though. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  remember  the  items  of  expense  which 
you  had  incurred,  as  set  out  in  that  statement  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  I can  remember  that  they  were  cigars  and  liquor 
and  automobile  hire  and  moneys  expended  on  an  auto  trip  through- 
out the  county. 

The  Chairman.  When  you  testified  before  the  joint  committee,  did 
you  have  the  memorandum  that  you  had  used  in  settling  with 
Wayland  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  gave  items  before  that  committee.  Did  you 
give  them  from  your  memory  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  So.ne  of  them;  yes,  sir — in  fact,  all  of  them. 

The  Chairman.  I have  before  me  your  testimony  given  on  that 
occasion.  I have  also  a memorandum  made  by  the  witness  which  I 
think  he  is  entitled  to,  inasmuch  as  he  made  it,  to  refresh  his  memory. 
[The  Chairman  handed  the  memorandum  to  the  witness.]  Will  you 
now  give  us  the  items  of  expenditure  made  by  you  on  behalf  of  Senator 
Stephenson  ? Just  give  us  the  items  in  the  order  that  you  have  them 
there. 

Mr.  O’Connor.  There  was  one  cigar  bill  of  $52  or  $62. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  it  in  the  statement  that  you  have  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  This  is  the  statement  here.  One  bill  of  cigars,  if  I 
remember  correctly,  was  $52  or  $62. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  purchase  those  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Immediately  after  returning  from  Milwaukee,  be- 
fore receiving  the  letter  I referred  to. 

The  Chairman.  In  what  month  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  I think  it  was  the  latter  part  of  July. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  do  with  those  cigars  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  I had  some  in  the  office,  and  I gave  them  around  to 
different  fellows. 

The  Chairman.  What  do  you  mean  by  the  “ different  fellows?” 
Who  were  these  people  to  whom  you  gave  the  cigars  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Why,  just  as  I met  the  men. 

The  Chairman.  Were  they  electors  in  the  State  of  Wisconsin? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir;  they  were  all  men  in  that  county. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose  did  you  give  these  cigars  ? Just 
tell  us  the  conditions  or  circumstances  under  which  you  did  it. 


820 


D.  J.  O’CONNOR. 


Mr.  O’Connor.  I just  asked  them  to  have  a cigar,  and  handed  it  to 
them;  or  I asked  them  if  they  would  have  a cigar,  if  they  were  up  at 
the  office,  and  had  a box  there. 

The  Chairman.  Were  these  distributed  in  ymir  office  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Some  of  them;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  accompany  this  act  of  giving  them  cigars 
with  any  conversation  on  behalf  of  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  I do  not  recall  any  instance,  though  I might  have. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  tell  them  why  you  were  giving  them  cigars  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  No,  sir;  I do  not  think  so. 

The  Chairman.  How  many  cigars  did  you  get  for  $62  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  I think  there  were  about  a thousand  cigars,  and  I 
returned  a few  of  them  afterwards — I do  not  know  how  many ; about 
350,  I think,  or  400. 

The  Chairman.  To  whom  did  you  return  them  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  To  the  person  I bought  them  from — to  the  drug  store. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  tell  how  many  you  returned  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Either  350  or  450. 

The  Chairman.  Of  the  thousand  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  that  you  spent  about  twenty  or  thirty  or 
forty  or  fifty  dollars  before  you  made  the  arrangement  with  Mr.  Way- 
land  on  the  strength  of  your  tentative  arrangement  with  Mr.  Edmonds? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  expend  that  for  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  I think  it  was  for  those  cigars. 

The  Chairman.  No  ; it  is  a separate  item.  The  cigars  follow.  On 
page  4406  of  the  testimony  you  say,  in  accounting  for  this  money,  that 
you  went  on  this  trip  in  the  interest  of  Senator  Stephenson.  You  were 
asked  how  many  days  you  were  in  making  the  trip  and  you  said  just 
one  day,  in  an  automobile.  You  were  asked  whether  that  was  the 
only  time  that  you  were  out  of  town  on  Mr.  Stephenson’s  campaign, 
and  you  said : 

A.  No;  I went  out  to  Horton ville  one  Sunday;  went  out  on  the  train. 

Q.  How  much,  about,  was  that  whiskey  bill? — A.  Oh,  I don’t  remember. 

Q.  Were  they  bottles  or  gallons? — A.  I don’t  remember.  I might  be  able  to  get  the 
bill  of  that. 

Q.  Can  you  approximate  it?  Do  you  know  about  how  much  it  was? — A.  No;  I 
couldn’t. 

Q.  Whether  it  was  $20,  or  thirty  or  forty  or  fifty? — A.  Maybe  it  was  $20;  I don’t  know. 

Did  you  so  testify  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Was  that  true? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  you  paid  $15  for  the  automobile. 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  We  come  now  to  the  $62  item  for  cigars.  The 
question  is: 

Q.  That  bill  for  cigars  was  included  in  the  $62  bill,  wasn’t  it? — A.  I don’t  know; 
there  was  two  or  three  bills. 

Q.  Did  you  have  more  than  $62  worth  of  cigars  in  the  campaign? — A.  Yes;  there  was 
some  returned  after  I got  through ; and  I bought  some  at  the  Sherman  House,  and  some 
at  Woelze  Bros.,  and  some  at  Camps  & Sackstetter’s. 

Is  that  correct  ? 


821 


D.  J.  O'CONNOR. 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Then  you  were  asked  if  that  was  the  only  large  bill 
of  cigars  that  you  bought — that  $62  bill.  You  say: 

A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  was  a thousand? — A.  Something  like  that. 

Then  we  come  down  to  subsequent  testimony,  on  page  4407.  The 
question  is: 

Q.  That  day  at  Hortonville,  and  this  day  out  in  the  automobile,  were  practically 
the  only  days  you  spent  away  from  Appleton? — A.  Yes;  sir. 

Q.  Where  was  the  rest  of  the  money  expended? — A.  It  was  expended  on  this  trip. 
Q.  Three  hundred  and  seven  dollars? — A.  Whatever  it  was. 

Q.  On  that  one-day  trip? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Did  you  pay  any  money  to  any  persons? — A.  No,  sir. 

Is  that  correct? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Except  the  $15  for  the  automobile  hire;  that  is  all. 
The  Chairman.  I have  passed  the  $15  item. 

Mr.  O’Connor.  No,  sir;  I did  not  pay  any  money  to  anyone — 
no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  testify  as  I have  read  from  the  record? 
Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  true  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  asked  the  question: 

Q.  Did  you  pay  any  money  to  any  persons? 

You  say: 

A.  No,  sir. 

That  is  what  you  have  just  said. 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  true,  is  it  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman  (reading): 

Q.  Then  in  what  manner  was  this  amount  of  money  expended  in  two  days,  $300, 
less — you  have  here  about  $100;  that  would  leave  about  $207.  Did  you  spend  that  all 
in  two  days? — A.  Yes,  whatever  the  difference  was.  There  is  a good  many  saloons 
up  there,  and  road  houses. 

Did  you  so  testify? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  true  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman  (reading): 

Q.  Did  you  attend  the  picnic? — A.  I was  at  their  picnic,  but  didn’t  spend  any 
money  up  there. 

Is  that  true? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman  (reading) : 

Q.  So  you  expended  $200  in  one  day? — A.  I don’t  know  whether  it  was  two  hun- 
dred, or  what  it  was.  The  difference  from  those  cigars. 

That  is  correct,  is  it?  You  so  testify  now? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 


822 


D.  J.  O’CONNOR. 

The  Chairman  (reading) : 

Q.  Can  you  name  any  place  where  you  spent  any  considerable  amount? — A.  No, 
sir;  some  places  a dollar,  and  $2,  and  some  places  50  cents;  just  as  it  happened  to  be, 
the  number  of  people  there,  and  the  number  of  saloons  in  those  little  villages. 

Do  you  so  testify  now  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman,  (reading): 

Q.  Did  you  make  any  speeches,  or  talks? — A.  No,  sir;  I am  not  a politician. 

Q.  What  did  you  say  when  you  “set  them  up”? — A.  Why,  I was  given  to  under- 
stand that  Mr.  Stephenson’s  lithographs  were  already  distributed  throughout  the 
county,  and  in  these  places  I didn’t  find  any;  and  I asked  if  they  had  any  objection  to 
me  putting  those  up  back  of  the  bar,  and  no  one  refused;  and  I would  buy  a drink,  and 
sometimes  I bought  two  or  three  drinks,  if  there  was  a crowd  in  there. 

Did  you  so  testify? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  true,  is  it  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman  (reading): 

Q.  You  kept  no  track  of  it.  How  could  you  present  a bill  to  Mr.  Wayland?  Was 
that  just  an  estimate  of  what  you  spent? — A.  No.  I think  there  was  $135  cash  I had 
in  my  pocket,  without  the  automobile,  which  was  $15.  I think  it  was  $150  I had  that 
day  when  I left  the  office.  - 

Is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman  (reading) : 

Q.  And  you  spent  all  that  in  one  day? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman  (reading) : 

Q.  On  this  automobile  trip? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  That  was  $150? — A.  Whatever  it  was;  something  like  that;  yes. 

Is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  were  asked  by  a member  of  the  committee: 

Q.  Who  was  with  you  on  that  trip? — A.  This  automobile  driver,  a fellow  by  the 
name  of  Van  Nistleroy. 

Is  that  right? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman  (reading): 

Q.  Did  you  campaign  at  all  with  Senator  Lehr? — A.  No. 

Q.  Did  you  support  him? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  Who  did  he  stand  for;  for  what  senatorial  candidate? — A.  I don’t  know. 

The  Chairman.  What  candidate  did  you  stand  for  on  that  trip  ? 
Mr.  O’Connor.  Mr.  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  stand  for  Mr.  Stephenson  because  you 
had  received  this  money  from  Mr.  Wayland? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Had  you  supported  Senator  Stephenson  before  ? 
Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  When  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  I had  always  known  Mr.  Stephenson’s  family. 
My  father  used  to  lumber  in  the  same  community  with  Mr.  Stephen- 


D.  j.  o'connor.  823 

son  a good  many  years  ago,  and  1 had  always  heard  him  spoken  of 
in  very  friendly  terms. 

The  Chairman.  Would  you  have  supported  Mr.  Stephenson  in  the 
absence  of  any  arrangement  with  Mr.  Edmonds  or  Mr.  Wayland? 

Mr.  O'Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  were  asked  the  question: 

Q.  Now,  I have  got  it  here:  $97  for  whiskey,  cigars,  and  auto,  as  you  have  stated 
it? — A.  That  $62  was  cigars  at  one  store. 

That  is  correct,  is  it  ? 

Mr.  O'Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman  (reading) : 

Q.  Now,  can’t  you  tell  us  how  much  you  invested  in  cigars  altogether,  so  we  can 
get  some  idea  of  how  much  money  you  expended  that  afternoon? — A.  I think  there 
was  about  fifty  some  odd  dollars  at  the  Sherman  House. 

Where  was  the  Sherman  House  ? 

Mr.  O'Connor.  The  Sherman  House  was  a hotel  at  Appleton. 

The  Chairman.  How  did  you  spend  that  money  at  the  Sherman 
House  ? 

Mr.  O'Connor.  I got  some  cigars  there  at  the  Sherman  House. 

The  Chairman.  Some  cigars  in  addition  to  this  $62  worth  of 
cigars  ? 

Mr.  O'Connor.  Yes,  sir;  there  were  some  cigars  bought  at  the 
Sherman  House. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  get  $50  worth  of  cigars  at  the  Sherman 
House?  You  say  here  you  think  you  spent  fifty  some  odd  dollars 
at  the  Sherman  House. 

Mr.  O’Connor.  There  were  some  cigars  and  liquor  bought  there; 
yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  liquor  did  you  buy  there  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  I do  not  remember. 

The  Chairman.  What  kind  of  liquor  did  you  buy  ? 

Mr.  O'Connor.  It  was  just  treating,  as  I would  go  in  there  and 
find  somebody  in  there. 

The  Chairman.  Was  it  beer,  or  whisky,  or  wine? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  I suppose  they  drank  beer  and  whisky  both. 

The  Chairman.  Who  were  these  people  that  drank  on  that  occa- 
sion with  you  ? 

Mr.  O'Connor.  Town  people,  residents. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  invite  them  in  to  drink  ? 

Mr.  O'Connor.  I might  have,  sometimes. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  find  people  in  the  barroom  when  you 
went  there  upon  whom  you  spent  $50  ? 

Mr.  O'Connor.  I might  have  invited  some  of  them  if  they  were 
standing  in  there;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  How  many  drinks  could  you  buv  for  $50  at  that 
bar? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  It  would  depend  upon 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I think  the  chairman  misunderstands.  I under- 
stood Mr.  O’Connor  to  say  he  bought  cigars  and  drinks  for  the  $50. 

The  Chairman.  I am  asking  him  how  many  drinks  of  whisky  he 
could  buy  for  $50. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I suppose  that  is  a proper  abstract  proposition. 

The  Chairman.  Oh,  yes. 


824 


D.  J.  O'CONNOR. 


Mr.  O’Connor.  It  would  depend  upon  what  they  drank. 

The  Chairman.  I want  to  get  at  about  the  number  of  people  you 
were  treating  there.  Were  there  100  people  whom  you  treated  on 
that  occasion? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  At  different  times  ? 

The  Chairman.  No;  during  that  one  afternoon  in  the  Sherman 
House,  where  you  say  you  spent  about  fifty  some  odd  dollars. 

Mr.  O’Connor.  That  was  not  on  any  one  afternoon.  That  was 
during  the  time  of  this  primary. 

The  Chairman.  But  the  question  was: 

Q.  Now,  can’t  you  tell  us  how  much  you  invested  in  cigars  altogether,  so  we  can 
get  some  idea  of  how  much  money  you  expended  that  afternoon? — 

Referring  to  the  afternoon  that  you  were  there. 

Mr.  O’Connor.  The  afternoon  that  I was  on  this  auto  trip,  the 
money  expended  in  the  Sherman  House  was  for  a supper  for  this  auto 
driver  and  myself.  That  is  the  only  money  that  was  spent  in  there 
that  day  not  mentioned  in  here. 

The  Chairman.  What  explanation  have  you  to  make  of  your  tes- 
timony there,  when  you  say — 

I thin  there  was  about  fifty  some  odd  dollars  at  the  Sherman  House. 

That  is  what  you  said  when  you  were  accounting  for  your  expendi- 
tures. 

Mr.  O’Connor.  That  was  money  expended  during  the  time  of  this 
primary,  from  day  to  day  as  I would  happen  in  there. 

The  Chairman.  Is  the  Sherman  House  in  the  city  where  you  live? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  All  right.  You  say  further: 

I don’t  remember  how  much  at  Woelze  Bros.’;  somewhere  around  $50;  something 
like  that;  I don’t  know. 

Was  that  also  scattered  along  during  the  campaign? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir.  That  is  a drug  store. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  said  above  that  during  the  time  of  this 
trip,  from  about  noon  until  about  half  past  10  or  11  o’clock  at 
night,  you  spent  the  balance  of  the  $307  after  deducting  the  cigars. 
Is  that  true  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  What  is  that  question  again,  please  ? 

The  Chairman.  In  answer  to  a question  as  to  how  long  this  trip 
upon  which  you  went  lasted,  you  said : 

A.  From  about  noon  until  half  past  10  or  11  o’clock  at  night. 

Then  the  question  was  asked: 

Q.  During  that  time  you  say  you  spent  the  balance  of  the  $307? — A.  The  difference 
in  those  cigars  and  whisky;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  spent  the  balance  of  the  $307  in  one  afternoon 
and  night,  then  ? Is  that  true  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Then  comes  this  question: 

Q.  You  can’t  make  it  any  more  definite  than  you  have  made  it  now? — A.  No,  sir. 
I knew  how  much  cash  I had,  about.  I think  it  was  $150  cash. 

Q.  Now,  I have  got  it  here,  $97  for  whisky,  cigars,  and  auto,  as  you  have  stated  it. — 
A.  That  $62  was  cigars  at  one  store. 


D.  J.  O’  CONNOR. 


825 


Q.  Now,  can’t  you  tell  us  how  much  you  invested  in  cigars  altogether,  so  we  can  get 
some  idea  of  how  much  money  you  expended  that  afternoon? — A.  I think  there  was 
about  fifty  some  odd  dollars  at  the  Sherman  House.  I don’t  remember  how  much  at 
Woelze  Bros.’;  somewhere  around  $50;  something  like  that;  I don’t  know. 

Are  you  not  referring  to  your  expenditures  in  that  one  afternoon  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  The  question  was  as  to  how  much  you  had  ex- 
pended that  afternoon. 

Mr.  O’Connor.  When  I was  before  that  committee 

The  Chairman.  I will  read  a little  further. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  He  was  going  to  say  something  about  “when  he 
was  before  the  committee.  ” I do  not  know  what  he  was  going  to  say. 

Mr.  O’Connor.  When  I was  before  that  committee,  I understood 
them  to  ask  me  what  money  was  expended  on  this  afternoon,  and  ar 
little  further  in  the  testimony  I testified  to  what  cash  I had  in  my 
pocket  unexpended.  But  this  money  spent  at  the  Sherman  House 
and  at  Woelze  Bros.’  drug  store  was  money  that  was  expended  during 
the  entire  course  of  the  primary  campaign. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  proceed  a little  further: 

Q.  At  the  Sherman  House? — A.  At  Woelze  Bros.’. 

That  is  referring  to  the  last  item  of  $50. 

Q.  You  think  about  $50? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  For  cigars  also? — A.  Cigars,  and  some  whisky  there,  too. 

Q.  That  would  include  the  $20  for  whisky  you  have  already  testified  to? — A.  Yes, 
sir. 

Q.  And  you  recollect  that  you  had  $150  in  your  pocket  when  you  left  Appleton? — 
A.  Something  like  that;  I wouldn’t  be  positive. 

Q.  And  spent  it  all  that  afternoon? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Is  it  true  that  you  spent  $150  that  afternoon? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  For  drinks  and  cigars? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  In  treating  men  in  the  saloon  at  the  Sherman 
House  and  in  Woelze  Bros.’  ? Is  that  correct? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  No;  this  afternoon  that  I testified  to  was  this  trip 
throughout  the  countjq  where  I was  riding  in  the  county  some  150  or 
160  miles.  I spent  that  afternoon. 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  all  the  connection  you  had  with  the 
Stephenson  campaign? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  received  that  money  on  an  account  rendered 
by  you.  In  what  manner  did  you  receive  it? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  I do  not  know  whether  it  was  a check  or  a draft. 
It  was  left  at  my  office  during  my  absence. 

The  Chairman.  From  whom  did  you  receive  it? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  I think  Mr.  Edmonds  signed  the  check. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Edmonds  signed  the  check? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir;  I think  it  was. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  tell  why  the  $500  agreement  was  can- 
celed . 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Why  it  was? 

The  Chairman.  Why  was  that  agreement  canceled? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  I do  not  know. 


826 


D.  J.  O'CONNOR. 


The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  talk  to  Mr.  Edmonds  about  it? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  No.  I did  not  see  Mr.  Edmonds  again  until  three 
or  four  weeks  afterwards,  and  I never  mentioned  it  to  him,  and  he 
did  not  mention  it  to  me  afterwards.  Mr.  Edmonds  asked  me  the 
day  I was  there  what  I thought  it  would  cost  to  go  over  this  county 
and  make  a thorough  campaign  and  talk  on  that  line. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  told  him  $500  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  No;  I told  him  a great  deal  more  than  that.  He 
thought  $500  would  be  about  enough  to  spend  up  there,  with  what 
they  were  going  to  spend  through  Mr.  Wayland. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  undertake  to  organize  that  place  and 
make  a campaign  for  $500  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  No,  sir;  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  agree  with  Mr.  Edmonds  that  you 
would  do  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  He  limited  me  to  that  amount,  and  I said  I would 
do  what  I could  with  it. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  spent  it  in  one  day,  did  you,  or  two 
days  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  No,  sir;  I spent  about  $135  that  day,  and  the  rest 
I spent  during  this  time,  during  the  primary  campaign — I do  not 
know  how  many  weeks  it  was ; four  or  five  weeks,  or  whatever  time 
it  was. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  say  you  are  a practicing  physician? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  In  active  practice  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Now  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  then  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  How  long  have  you  been  practicing  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Since  1896. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Have  you  been  in  active  practice  all  the 
time  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  I was  in  the  hospital  for  two  or  three  years  after 
that. 

Senator  Sutherland.  After  this  trip  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  No,  sir;  before. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Before  the  trip  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  spend  any  of  this  $307  for  any- 
thing except  whisky  and  cigars  and  automobiles  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  I bought  a supper  for  myself  and  the  driver  that 
night. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Supper  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  For  you  and  the  driver? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  At  night? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  About  half  past  7 or  8 o’clock. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  was  after  the  trip  was  practically  over  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  I tliink  it  was. 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  was  it — a wine  supper  ? 


D.  J.  o’  CONNOR.  827 

Mr.  O’Connor.  No,  sir;  it  was  a supper,  I guess,  that  cost  about 
SI. 60  for  the  two  of  us. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  spent  $1.60  for  food,  as  1 understand 
you  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  would  leave  $305.40  for  whisky  and 
cigars  and  automobiles  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  you  think  you  spent  a little  too  much 
for  food  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  No;  I did  not  think  anything  about  it. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  do  not  recall  spending  any  of  the 
money  for  anything  else  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  That  is  all  it  was  spent  for. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is,  you  spent  $305.40  for  an  auto- 
mobile and  for  whisky  and  cigars  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  that  was  your  notion  of  furthering 
the  interests  of  Senator  Stephenson  in  this  campaign ; was  it  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  That  is  the  way  they  make  a campaign  up  in  that 
territory. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is  the  way  you  made  it,  at  all  events  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  That  is  customary  up  there. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Just  to  get  an  automobile  and  go  through 
the  county  on  a big  drunk?  Is  that  the  way  they  do  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  No;  I do  not  think  anyone  got  drunk.  I never 
drink  anything  at  all  myself. 

Senator  Sutherland.  How  much  would  it  take  to  make  anybody 
drunk  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  There  are  probably  150  saloons  up  through  that 
county. 

Senator  Sutherland.  150  saloons  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  not  drink  at  all  on  the  trip  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  No;  I never  diink  anything;  no,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  did  not  drink  anything? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  I never  do;  no,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  leave  a lot  of  sober  men  in  your 
train  as  you  went  through  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Two  or  three  glasses  of  beer,  it  they  drank  it  in  a 
country  saloon,  would  not  seem  to  make  anyone  drunk. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  spent  $135,  all  except  $1.60  for  food, 
on  intoxicating  liquors,  and  nobody  was  drunk? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  I did  not  see  anyone. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  do  not  know  why  this  first  contract 
with  Mi . Edmonds  was  broken  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  No,  sir;  I do  not. 

Senator  Sutherland.  It  was  broken  the  very  next  day? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Well,  I would  not  say;  I think  it  was  within  a 
day  or  two  that  I got  the  letter. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Just  a moment,  Doctor.  As  bearing  upon  the 
character  of  the  trip  that  you  took  on  this  afternoon,  will  you  not  be 
kind  enough  to  begin  and  state  to  the  committee  as  nearly  as  you  can 


828 


D.  J.  O'CONNOR. 


where  you  started  from  and  where  you  went,  and  go  right  through 
the  trip  and  state  what  you  did — the  places  that  you  visited  and 
what  you  did  at  each  place,  so  far  as  you  can  remember  ? My  object 
is  to  have  the  committee  understand  just  exactly  the  nature  of  the 
trip  that  you  were  engaged  on  and  just  what  you  did  on  it. 

Mr.  O’Connor.  I took  a great  many  of  Mr.  Stephenson’s  litho- 
graphs and  pamphlets  and  cards  into  each  road  house  or  saloon  or 
stopping  place.  I had  been  informed  that  this  county  had  been  well 
covered  with  his  literature.  When  I got  out  there  I did  not  find  any 
of  it.  I inquired  if  they  had  any  objections  to  putting  any  of  this 
stuff  up,  and  they  did  not;  so  I put  up  these  different  pieces  of  liter- 
ature, and  distributed-  them  to  the  farmhouses  that  I rode  past.  It 
is  customary  in  that  community  to  buy  a drink  at  each  one  or  every 
one  of  those  places;  and  every  one  of  the  county  politicians  were 
going  around  and  had  their  cards  at  the  same  time,  and  they  were 
doing  the  same  thing. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  say  you  would  buy  a drink.  I want  you  to 
tell  us  just  exactly  what  you  did.  You  went  into  a saloon  or  road 
house  and  asked  for  the  privilege  of  putting  up  the  Senator’s  liter- 
ature. Am  I right  about  that  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  His  lithographs,  etc.  Did  you  or  did  you  not 
find  the  literature  of  the  other  distinguished  gentlemen  who  were  also 
running  for  the  Senate  more  or  less  distributed  in  these  same  saloons  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  It  was  all  there,  yes,  sir;  except  Mr.  Stephenson’s. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  it  not  a fact  that  the  principal  or  only  store 
or  place  of  resort  up  there  in  that  section  is  the  saloon  or  road  house 
that  you  speak  of  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  it  or  not  a fact  that  that  is  where  you  would 
expect  to  meet  the  people  of  the  vicinity  as  they  came  in  to  visit  or 
meet  each  other? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I do  not  know  what  the  fact  is,  but  is  that  the 
fact  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  the  fact. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  the  road  house  or  saloon  anything  but  a 
saloon  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  That  is  all.  Some  of  them  have  a store  on  one 
side  and  a saloon  on  the  other.  Some  of  them  run  a hotel  and  saloon. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  With  reference  to  this  question  of  treating;  you 
would  go  into  a saloon  or  road  house  and  ask  permission  to  put  up 
the  literature  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  or  not,  on  those  occasions,  treat  any- 
body? If  so,  who,  how  many,  and  to  what? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  I would  ask  whoever  was  present  to  have  a drink, 
and  they  drank  whatever  they  wanted. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  did  you  say? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  I asked  anyone  present  to  have  a drink,  and  they 
would  drink  what  they  wanted. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  They  would  drink  what? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Some  of  them  drank  beer,  some  whisky;  some 
cigars. 


D.  j.  o'connor.  829 

Mr.  Littlefield.  On  the  average,  how  many  people  would  you 
meet  at  these  places  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  From  four  or  five  up  to  ten  or  fifteen.  In  one 
place  there  were  about  twenty-five. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  many  of  these  saloons  did  you  visit  in  the 
course  of  this  automobile  trip  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  I should  think  about,  may  be,  eighty  or  more. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Not  necessarily  for  the  information  of  the 
committee,  but  in  order  that  I may  know  so  that  later  on  I can  use  it,  I 
will  ask  you  what  is  the  average  cost  of  a drink? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  The  farmers  there  get  a five-cent  drink  of  whisky 
or  a ten-cent  drink  of  whisky.  They  generally  take  a five-cent 
drink.  An  average  treat  would  be  anywhere  from  twenty-five  cents 
up  to  a dollar  and  a half  or  a dollar. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  did  you  spend,  on  the  average,  in  each  of 
these  saloons,  in  this  way  and  under  these  circumstances  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  From  50  cents  to  about  $2  in  each  saloon. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  you  say  you  visited  something  like  eighty  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I do  not  know  what  the  truth  about  it  is;  but 
are  there  any  other  places  up  in  that  section  where  you  can  meet  the 
people  of  the  vicinity  ? Do  they  gather  anywhere  else  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  No,  sir;  not  in  those  crossroads,  in  small  places. 
That  is  the  only  place — the  saloon. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  it  was  under  these  circumstances  that  you 
spent  something  like  $135  or  $150  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  About  $135. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  About  an  average  of  $2  a saloon  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  No;  less  than  $2  in  a saloon.  I went  to  about 
eighty  saloons. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  it  would  be  less  than  $2  in  a saloon.  Did 
you,  at  any  time  during  this  primary  campaign,  pay  any  money  or 
give  any  consideration  to  anyone  for  voting  for  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  use  any  money  for  the  purpose  of 
bribing  or  corruptly  influencing  any  voters  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  No  one  expended  any  money  for  you  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And,  as  I understand  you,  whether  it  is  a com- 
mendable practice  or  not,  what  was  done  by  you  on  that  occasion 
was  what  the  representatives  o*f  all  the  other  candidates  were  doing? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  in  entire  accord  with  the  custom  of  the 
country,  whether  wise  or  unwise  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I did  not  understand  how  long  you  were  on 
this  trip — how  many  hours. 

Mr.  O’Connor.  From  sometime  in  the  forenoon,  between  10  or 
11  o’clock,  until  about  that  time  at  night. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  were  gone  about  12  hours? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Yes,  sir. 


830 


HENRY  OVERBECK. 


Senator  Sutherland.  How  many  miles  did  you  cover  ? 

Mr.  O'Connor.  Somewhere  between  150  and  160  miles. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  were  going  pretty  rapidly  all  the  time, 
then,  I take  it — visiting  80  saloons  in  that  time  ? 

Mr.  O’Connor.  Somewhere,  I think,  about  80. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I say,  you  must  have  been  going  pretty 
rapidly.  You  did  not  spend  much  time  in  each  place? 

Mr /O’ Connor.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is  all. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  all,  Mr.  O’Connor. 

Call  Mr.  Overbeck. 

TESTIMONY  OF  HENRY  OVERBECK. 

Henry  Overbeck,  having  been  heretofore  duly  sworn,  was  exam- 
ined and  testified  as  follows: — 

The  Chairman.  Where  do  you  reside  ? 

Mr.  Overbeck.  I now  reside  at  Sturgeon  Bay,  Wis. 

The  Chairman.  Where  did  you  reside  during  the  year  1908? 

Mr.  Overbeck.  In  Milwaukee. 

The  Chairman.  In  what  business  were  you  engaged  at  that  time? 
Mr.  Overbeck.  The  insurance  business. 

The  Chairman.  In  what  business  are  you  engaged  now? 

Mr.  Overbeck.  The  same  business. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  take  part  in  the  Senatorial  campaign  of 
Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Overbeck.  I did. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  receive  any  money  from  Senator  Stephen- 
son, or  from  anyone  acting  for  him,  to  be  used  in  his  behalf  in  that 
campaign  ? 

Mr.  Overbeck.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  ? 

Mr.  Overbeck.  I think  the  exact  amount  was  $771. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  receive  it  in  one  payment? 

Mr.  Overbeck.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  On  August  28  did  you  receive  $71.79? 

Mr.  Overbeck.  I can  not  give  you  the  date. 

The  Chairman.  About  that  time  ? 

Mr.  Overbeck.  That  is,  the  28th  of  August  ? I must  have  received 
$71  before  that.  May  I explain? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Overbeck.  $71  was  paid  out  by  me  before  1 received  any 
money  from  Mr.  Edmonds.  I paid  that  out  of  my  own  funds. 

The  Chairman.  Had  you  received  any  money  except  $71.79  before 
the  primary  election  ? 

Mr.  Overbeck.  Oh,  yes. 

The  Chairman  . How  much  ? 

Mr.  Overbeck.  $771. 

The  Chairman.  You  received  $700  besides  the  $71.79? 

Mr.  Overbeck.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  remember  when  you  received  that  $700  ? 
Mr.  Overbeck.  There  was  $100  received  early  in  the  campaign, 
and  then  I received  $500.  I would  not  even  approximate  the  date. 
The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose  did  you  receive  this  $700? 


HENRY  OVERBECK. 


831 


Were  you  to  have  any  salary  for  services  you  per- 


Mr.  Overbeck.  It  was  to  be  expended  in  Mr.  Stephenson’s  behalf 
in  Kewaunee  and  Door  Counties,  and  in  paying  my  personal  expenses. 

The  Chairman. 
formed  ? 

Mr.  Overbeck. 

The  Chairman. 

Mr.  Overbeck. 

The  Chairman. 

Mr.  Overbeck. 

The  Chairman. 

Mr.  Overbeck. 

The  Chairman. 

Mr.  Overbeck. 

The  Chairman. 

Mr.  Overbeck. 


No,  sir. 

Just  your  expenses? 

That  is  all. 

Did  you  pay  out  any  part  of  this  $700  to  others? 
Yes. 

To  whom  ? 

I paid  $110  to  John  L.  Haney,  of  Kewaunee. 

Who  was  he  ? 

He  was  a manufacturer  there. 

For  what  purpose  did  you  pay  him  that  money? 
To  be  used  in  hiring  teams  to  bring  people  to  the 
polls  and  to  hire  poll  workers. 

The  Chairman.  What  do  you  mean  by  “poll  workers”  ? 

Mr.  Overbeck.  It  is  for  men  to  check  up  and  see  who  go  to  the 
polls  and  to  call  their  attention  to  voting  for  Senator  Stephenson. 


The  Chairman. 
Mr.  Overbeck. 
The  Chairman. 
Mr.  Overbeck. 
The  Chairman. 
Mr.  Overbeck. 
The  Chairman. 
Mr.  Overbeck. 
The  Chairman. 
Mr.  Overbeck. 
The  Chairman. 
Mr.  Overbeck. 
The  Chairman. 
Mr.  Overbeck. 
The  Chairman. 
Mr.  Overbeck. 
The  Chairman. 
Mr.  Overbeck. 


To  whom  else  did  you  pay  money  ? 

I paid  $100  to  T.  M.  White. 

For  what  purpose  ? 

The  same  purpose.. 

What  other  money  did  you  pay  out? 

To  M.  W.  Perry. 

Who  was  Mr.  White  ? 

He  is  a partner  in  business  with  John  L.  Haney. 
Who  is  Mr.  Perry  ? 

He  is  also  a partner  in  the  same  business. 

What  is  the  business? 

Manufacturers  of  veneer. 

State  any  other  amount  that  you  paid  out. 

I paid  E.  S.  Miner,  of  Sturgeon  Bay,  $100. 

Who  was  he? 

He  was  then  a candidate  for  Congress. 

Was  he  elected  or  nominated? 

No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littltfield.  He  was  a former  member  ? 

Mr.  Overbeck.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose  did  you  pay  him  the  $100? 


Mr.  Overbeck. 
The  Chairman. 
Mr.  Overbeck. 
The  Chairman. 
Mr.  Overbeck. 


For  the  same  purpose. 

I suppose  he  was  working  for  himself  also  ? 

He  was  working  for  himself. 

State  any  other  sums  that  you  paid  out. 

I paid  a man  named  Crandall  between  twenty  and 
thirty  dollars  for  distributing  literature  in  Door  County. 

The  Chairman.  The  regular  campaign  literature  that  Senator 
Stephenson  had  prepared  ? 

Mr.  Overbeck.  Yes.  I do  not  know  the  exact  amount. 

That  is  between  twenty  and  thirty  dollars  ? 

Yes.  I sent  a man  named  Jesson,  on  Washington 


The  Chairman. 
Mr.  Overbeck. 
Isle,  $10. 

The  Chairman. 


For  what  purpose  ? 


832 


HENRI  uVERBECK. 


Mr.  Overbeck.  To  be  used  for  the  same  purpose — looking  after 
that  polling  place. 

The  Chairman.  Any  other  persons  ? 

Mr.  Overbeck.  I hired  three  or  four  poll  workers  in  Door  County 
in  different  towns  at  different  times;  but  the  names  I can  not  recall. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  did  you  pay  them  ? 

Mr.  Overbeck.  From  three  to  five  dollars  apiece. 

The  Chairman.  To  whom  else  did  you  pay  money? 

Mr.  Overbeck.  I do  not  recall  paying  out  any  money  to  anyone 
else.  If  I paid  out  any  to  anyone  else,  I do  not  recall  it. 

The  Chairman.  Any  balance  remaining  you  kept  for  your  own 
expenses  ? 

Mr.  Overbeck.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Or  compensation  ? 

Mr.  Overbeck.  No  compensation.  It  was  all  expended  in  expenses. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  accounted  for  a little  over  $400.  That 
leaves  nearly  $300  yet  to  account  for. 

Mr.  Overbeck.  That  was  used  by  me  in  paying  my  personal 
expenses  in  traveling  in  the  eastern  part  of  the  State. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  expend  any  of  this  money  for  the  purpose 
of  influencing  the  electors  to  vote  for  Senator  Stephenson,  to  pay  them 
or  compensate  them  for  doing  so  ? 

Mr.  Overbeck.  That  is,  for  the  purpose  of  voting  for  him? 

The  Chairman.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Overbeck.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  had  been  a supporter  of  Senator  Stephenson 
before  ? 

Mr.  Overbeck.  Always. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Were  you  one  of  the  game  wardens  or  deputy 
game  wardens  ? 

Mr.  Overbeck.  I was  formerly  the  State  warden. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I mean  at  this  time. 

Mr.  Overbeck.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  were  not  one  of  the  deputies? 

Mr.  Overbeck.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  pay  any  money  or  use  any  of  the  funds 
in  your  hands,  as  the  representative  of  Senator  Stephenson,  for  the 
purpose  of  bribing  or  corruptly  influencing  any  electors  in  the  primary 
campaign  ? 

Mr.  Overbeck.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  LittlefIeld.  Was  any  money  that  was  placed  by  you  in  the 
hands  of  these  or  other  people  to  your  knowledge  used  for  the  purpose 
of  bribing  or  corruptly  influencing  any  electors  in  the  primary  cam- 
paign ? 

Mr.  Overbeck.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  I understand  you  to  say  that  the  total  sum 
of  $771.79  that  came  into  your  hands  was  all  disbursed  in  the  manner 
in  which  you  have  described  ? 

Mr.  Overbeck.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  To  the  parties  you  have  mentioned,  and  a few 
whose  names  you  are  not  able  to  remember  ? 

Mr.  Overbeck.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  the  balance  was  for  your  own  personal 
expenses  ? 


HENRY  OVERBECK. 


833 


Mr.  Overbeck.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Were  you  at  work  in  the  campaign  under  Mr. 
Edmonds  during  its  whole  progress  from  the  1st  of  July  until  the 
1st  of  September? 

Mr.  Overbeck.  I do  not  recall  the  exact  date. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Were  you  at  work  during  practically  all  of  that 
time  ? 

Mr.  Overbeck.  During  the  campaign;  yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  whether  or  not  during  all  of  that  time  you 
were  engaged  in  traveling  all  about  the  State 

Mr.  Overbeck.  I was  in  Milwaukee  part  of  the  time  and  part  of 
the  time  throughout  the  eastern  part  of  the  State. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Are  we  to  understand  that  you  were  engaged  all 
the  time  after  you  began  ? 

Mr.  Overbeck.  Practically  so ; yes,  sir. 

- Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  have  a talk  with  Roy  Morse? 

Mr.  Overbeck.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  He  was  one  of  the  game  wardens  ? 

Mr.  Overbeck.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Or  a deputy? 

Mr.  Overbeck.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  make  any  arrangement  with  him  to 
look  after  campaign  work  ? 

Mr.  Overbeck.  Partially;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  arrangement  did  you  make  with  him  ? 

Mr.  Overbeck.  I did  not  make  the  final  arrangement.  The 
arrangement  was  made  with  Mr.  Edmonds.  I merely  selected  him, 
and  he  came  down  here. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Where  was  he  located  ? 

Mr.  Overbeck.  At  Fond  du  Lac. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  gave  him  no  money? 

Mr.  Overbeck.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I should  like  to  have  you  state  a little  more 
fully,  if  you  please,  what  these  various  gentlemen  to  whom  you  gave 
this  money  were  to  do  with  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  is,  give  the  conversation — what  they 
said  to  you  and  what  you  said  to  them. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Precisely;  the  substance  of  it.  That  is  what 
I want  to  know. 

Mr.  Overbeck.  I asked  Mr.  Haney  and  Mr.  White  and  Mr.  Perry 
to  take  charge  of  the  work  in  Kewaunee  County  and  organize  that 
county  for  Senator  Stephenson;  to  see  that  literature  was  distributed; 
to  see  that  in  the  towns  where  it  was  necessary  teams  were  hired  to 
bring  voters  to  the  polls;  and  to  see  that  men  were  at  the  polls  to 
call  people’s  attention  to  the  fact  that  they  were  voting  for  Senator 
Stephenson.  They  assented.  There  was  no  disagreement  between 
the  parties. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  any  of  that  money  to  be  used  for  the  pur- 
pose of  making  a canvass — that  is,  for  people  going  about  and  pre- 
senting the  qualifications  of  the  Senator  and  urging  his  claims? 

Mr.  Overbeck.  They  were  to  do  that.  They  were  to  look  after 
that;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Those  three  gentlemen? 

15235°— vol  1—11 53 


834 


HENRY  OVERBECK. 


Mr.  Overbeck.  Those  three  gentlemen  were  to  look  after  the 
entire  canvassing  of  Kewaunee  County. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  was  the  arrangement  made  with  Mr. 
Miner?  Was  that  substantially  the  same? 

Mr.  Overbeck.  Yes;  it  was  the  same. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  was  he  looking  after — what  territory  ? 

Mr.  Overbeck.  In  portions  of  Door  County  that  he  was  visiting. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  that  where  Mr.  Miner  resided? 

Mr.  Overbeck.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  this  the  same  campaign  when  Mr.  Miner 
was  a candidate  for  renomination  to  Congress  against  Mr.  Kiister- 
mann  ? 

Mr.  Overbeck.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  Mr.  Kustermann  defeated  him  in  the 
primary  ? 

Mr.  Overbeck.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  wa  he  to  do  with  this  money?  Give 
us  your  talk  with  Mr.  Miner. 

Mr.  Overbeck.  As  he  made  his  canvass  throughout  the  county, 
the  agreement  was  to  divide  the  expense.  He  was  to  hire  the  work- 
ers, and  he  was  to  pay  part  of  it  and  we  were  to  pay  part  of  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  this  Congressman  Miner  who  at  one  time 
was  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Merchant  Marine  and  Fisheries  ? 

Mr.  Overbeck.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  all. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  all.  You  are  excused. 

(Whereupon,  at  4.30  o’clock  p.  m.,  the  subcommittee  adjourned 
until  to-morrow,  Friday,  October  13,  1911,  at  10  o’clock  a.  m.) 

FRIDAY,  OCTOBER  13,  1911. 

Federal  Building, 

Milwaukee,  Wis. 

The  subcommittee  met  at  10  o’clock  a.  m. 

Present:  Senators  Heyburn  (chairman),  Sutherland,  and  Pomerene. 

Present  also:  Mr.  C.  E.  Littlefield,  Mr.  W.  E.  Black,  and  Mr. 
H.  H.  J.  Upham,  counsel  for  Senator  Isaac  Stephenson. 

The  names  of  R.  J.  Shields  and  M.  J.  Cleary  were  called.  Mr. 
Cleary  responded  to  his  name,  and  the  oath  was  administered  to  him 
by  the  chairman. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Cleary,  where  do  you  live  ? 

Mr.  Cleary.  Blanchard ville,  Wis. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  your  occupation  ? 

Mr.  Cleary.  I am  a lawyer. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Cleary,  through  some  confusion  you  have 
been  summoned  in  place  of  a man  bearing  your  name  who  lives  at 
Superior.  You  will  therefore  be  excused. 

Mr.  Cleary;  Very  well;  thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

(The  secretary  then  called  the  names  of  A.  O.  Heyer,  William  G. 
Wheeler,  and  H.  D.  Peterson. 

Mr.  Heyer  and  Mr.  Wheeler  responded  to  their  names,  and  the 
oath  was  administered  to  them  by  the  chairman.) 


CHRISTIAN  C.  WELLENSGARD. 


835 


Mr.  Wheeler.  Mr.  Chairman,  my  office  is  in  this  city,  but  a few 
steps  from  this  building.  I should  like  to  be  permitted  to  go  to  my 
office  and  remain  until  summoned. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  leave  your  telephone  number  at  the 
desk  with  the  secretary.  You  will  be  excused,  and  he  will  call  you 
when  you  are  needed. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Further,  Mr.  Chairman,  at  the  time  I gave  my 
testimony  before  the  legislative  investigating  committee  I left  with 
them  certain  data  and  records  which  have  never  been  returned  to 
me.  I understand  those  records  are  now  in  the  possession  of  this 
committee.  I should  like  to  be  permitted  to  inspect  them. 

The  Chairman.  You  will  not  be  permitted  to  inspect  them  at 
this  time;  but  you  may  indicate  to  the  secretary  the  character  of 
the  records,  and  he  will  make  an  examination  and  see  whether  or  not 
they  are  among  the  records  which  are  in  his  possession. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  I do  not  care  to  inspect  them  in  advance  of  giving 
my  testimony,  but  I should  like  to  have  them  so  that  I can  refer  to 
them  when  I give  my  testimony. 

The  Chairman.  The  committee  will  pass  on  that  question  when 
they  are  identified.  The  committee  has  entered  into  an  arrangement 
with  the  officers  of  the  State  to  the  effect  that  it  will  return  to  them 
all  of  the  papers  which  they  have  left  with  the  committee.  The 
committee  is  not  in  a position  to  deliver  up  any  paper  that  it  has 
received  from  the  State. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  papers  that  Mr.  Wheeler  has  in  mind  have 
been  already  identified  by  Mr.  Essmann.  Mr.  Wheeler  does  not  ask 
to  have  them  placed  in  his  hands;  he  simply  wants  to  see  them 
to  refresh  his  recollection  when  he  is  placed  on  the  witness  stand. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  If  they  are  at  hand,  they  will  be  furnished  you  at 
that  time. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Mr.  Chairman,  before  we  proceed,  Mr.  Eppling 
wishes  to  present  a request  to  the  committee. 

Mr.  F.  J.  Eppling.  Mr.  Chairman,  I should  like  to  ascertain  about 
what  time  my  testimony  will  be  heard,  as  representatives  of  my 
church  will  be  here  to  listen  to  my  testimony. 

The  Chairman.  I will  have  the  matter  examined  into  and  see  the 
nature  of  your  testimony,  Mr.  Eppling,  and  let  you  know  as  soon  as 
possible. 

TESTIMONY  OF  CHRISTIAN  C.  WELLENSGARD. 

Mr.  Wellensgard,  having  been  heretofore  duly  sworn,  was  exam- 
ined and  testified  as  follows: — 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Wellensgard,  where  do  you  live  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Berlin,  Green  Lake  County,  Wis. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  a member  of  the  Legislature  of  the 
State  of  Wisconsin. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I was. 

The  Chairman.  When  were  you  elected  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  In  the  fall  of  1906. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  a member  during  the  session  of  1909? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes. 


836 


CHRISTIAN  C.  WELLENSGARD. 


The  Chairman.  And  you  were  a candidate  during  the  primaries 
of  1908  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Does  your  legislative  district  consist  of  more  than 
one  county? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  now  a member  of  the  legislature  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  your  occupation  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I am  running  a pickle  factory  and  am  inter- 
ested in  farms. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  engaged  in  that  business  at  the  time  of 
the  primary  campaign  in  1908? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Whom  did  you  support  for  United  States  Senator  ? 
For  whom  did  you  vote  in  the  legislature  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Isaac  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  On  all  ballots  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  During  the  time  that  you  were  a candidate  for 
nomination  at  the  primary,  did  you  receive  any  money  from  Isaac 
Stephenson  as  a contribution  for  campaign  purposes  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  During  the  primary? 

The  Chairman.  During  the  primary  canvass. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  you  did  not? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  After  th%  primary. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  not  receive  any  during  the  primary? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  receive  it  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Along  about  the  5th  or  6th  of  September. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  did  you  receive  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  $250.80. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  the  total  amount  of  it  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose  did  you  receive  that  money? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  For  getting  parties  to  circulate  his  nomi- 
nation papers;  for  distributing  and  putting  up  advertising;  for  auto 
hire  (one  auto  hire),  liveries,  and  to  get  parties  to  get  out  to  the  polls. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  expend  the  money  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  During  August  and  September.  I could  not 
give  the  exact  dates. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  expend  any  in  September  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Hold  on;  excuse  me — during  July  and  August. 

The  Chairman.  July  and  August  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  July  and  August;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  not  expend  any  of  that  money  in 
September  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  When  you  received  it,  it  had  already  been  expended 
by  you  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  present  a statement  or  an  account  to 
Senator  Stephenson  or  to  his  campaign  managers  ? 


CHRISTIAN  C.  WELLENSGARD. 


837 


Mr.  Wellensgard.  I did. 

The  Chairman.  Por  money  thus  expended  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I did,  upon  request. 

The  Chairman.  Upon  request  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  I find  in  the  record  of  testimony  taken  before  the 
joint  committee,  on  page  911.  a letter  signed  by  you,  addressed  to 
Rodney  Sackett,  which  I will  read: 

Berlin,  Wis.,  September  3,  1908. 

Mr.  Rodney  Sackett, 

Milwaukee,  Wis. 

Dear  Friend:  Inclosed  please  find  my  bill  against  Stephenson.  I wish  you 
would  please  see  that  they  get  it.  I haven’t  put  in  anything  for  cigars  or  what  little 
I spent.  Please  let  me  hear  from  you.  I beat  Hitchcock  by  347  majority. 

Yours,  truly, 

C.  C.  Wellensgard. 

Did  you  write  that  letter  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  write  such  a letter  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  letter  a forgery  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  No,  sir.  It  was  written  by  my  son,  but  it  was 
not  dictated  by  me,  and  I did  not  sign  it. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  see  it  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  No,  sir;  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  know  that  it  was  being  written? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  My  son  was  taking  off  this  account  as  I gave 
it  to  him,  and  I said,  “ Write  him  a letter,”  and  he  did.  I suppose 
this  is  the  letter;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  told  him  to  write  a letter  on  this  subject? 
Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Exhibit  62  is  received  in  evidence,  and  is  in  words 
and  figures  as  follows,  to  wit: 

Berlin,  Wis.,  September  3,  1908. 

Stephenson  Campaign  Committee, 

Milwaukee,  Wis. 

1908. 

July  5.  Livery  to  Princeton $3.  00 

6.  Livery  to  Markesan ’ 3.  00 

Aug.  20.  Livery  at  Markesan , 2.  00 

21.  Livery  at  Markesan 2.  50 

22.  Livery  at  Markesan 2.  50 

23.  Livery  at  Markesan 2.50 

23.  Livery  at  Berlin 2.50 

24.  Livery  to  different  parts  of  county 2.50 

28.  Paid  out  to  help  G.  Burlingame  and  4 men 30.  00 

28.  Paid  to  C Rosebrook,  town  of  St.  Marie,  and  4 men 25.  00 

28.  Paid  Bill  Anglem,  town  of  Green  Lake 5.  00 

28.  Paid  W.  Burdick,  town  of  Green  Lake 5.  00 

28.  Paid  0.  Schrader  and  men  at  Markesan 30.  00 

28.  Paid  W.  Malena,  town  of  Seneca 5.  00 

Sept.  3.  Paid  M.  Respo,  city  of  Berlin 3.  00 

3.  Paid  P.  Kresal,  city  of  Berlin L 00 

3.  Paid  Aug.  Waslinski,  city  of  Berlin 5.  00 

3.  Paid  Steve  Greager,  city  of  Berlin 5.  00 

3.  Paid  J.  Neighbor,  city  of  Berlin 5.  00 

3.  Paid  J.  Weir,  city  of  Berlin 5.  00 

3.  Paid  J.  Briskie,  city  of  Berlin 5.  00 

3.  Paid  F.  Bartow,  city  of  Berlin 5.  00 

3.  Paid  Joe  Gosh,  city  of  Berlin 5.  00 


838  CHRISTIAN  C.  WELLENSGARD.  ' 


1908. 

Sept.  2.  Telephone  bill $2.80 

2.  Paid  Mr.  Rossa,  city  of  Berlin 4.  00 

2.  Paid  C.  Kisnaska,  city  of  Berlin 5.  00 

2.  Paid  Jack  Grotta 5.  00 

2.  Paid  H.  Wilde,  town  of  Manchester 5.  00 

2.  Paid  E.  A.  Umbrei»ht,  town  of  Manchester 5.  00 

2.  Paid  E.  Vaughn,  Kingston,  and  men 25.  00 

2.  Paid  Wm.  Crook,  Ripon 5.  00 

2.  Paid  Nels  Sorrenson,  Mackford 5.  00 

2.  Paid  Herman  Ebbentroff,  Mackford 5.  00 

2.  For  automobile  election  day 15.  00 

2.  Paid  Wilson  for  help  on  machine 2.  50 

2.  Paid  postage 4.  00 


Total 250.80 


(Endorsed:)  Paid,  9/5/08.  C.  C.  Wellensgard. 

Did  you  give  your  son  these  items  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I did. 

The  Chairman.  You  dictated  them  to  him? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I gave  him  the  items  of  the  account,  not  dic- 
tating the  letter. 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  I refer  to  the  account.  At  pa<*e  911  there 
are  six  items  for  livery:  “July  5,  livery  to  Princeton,  S3.”  Were  you 
campaigning  for  yourself  at  that  time,  when  you  went  to  Princeton  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  May  I refer  to  the  statement  I rendered,  or  a 
copy  of  it  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  there  is  no  objection  to  it. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  What  was  the  date? 

The  Chairman.  The  date  is  July  5:  “Livery  to  Princeton,  $3.” 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose  did  you  go  to  Princeton? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I went  from  Berlin  to  the  town  of  Seneca  to 
get  a party  to  circulate  Ike  Stephenson’s  petitions. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  then  a candidate  for  nomination  for  the 
legislature  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  No,  not  exactly.  I had  not  announced  myself 
as  a candidate  at  that  time. 

The  Chairman.  You  had  not? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  No. 

The  Chairman.  When  you  say  “announced  yourself,”  do  you 
mean  officially  or  informally  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I came  out  in  the  newspaper  and  announced 
myself  as  a candidate. 

The  Chairman.  When  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I think  it  was  on  the  16th  or  17th  of  July.  It 
was  in  one  paper,  if  I remember  right,  on  the  16th  and  in  the  other 
on  the  17th. 

The  Chairman.  When  you  went  to  Princeton  on  July  5 did  you 
go  in  your  own  interest  at  all  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  No. 

The  Chairman.  You  went  entirely  in  Senator  Stephenson’s 

interest  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  On  July  6,  the  next  day,  you  have  an  item  of 
“livery  to  Markesan,  $3.” 


CHRISTIAN  C.  WELLENSGARD. 


839 


Mr.  Wellensgard.  .Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  go  to  Markesan  for? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  The  same  purpose. 

The  Chairman.  On  August  20;  that  was  after  you  had  placed 
your  announcement  in  the  paper,  was  it  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  On  August  20  there  is  an  item  of  “ Livery  at 
Markesan,  $2.” 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose  did  you  go  to  Markesan? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I could  not  say  exactly  what  purpose. 

The  Chairman.  What  county  is  that  in  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  That  is  m Green  Lake  County. 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  the  county  that  you  represent  in  the  legis- 
lature ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  is  a home  town  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  a home  town. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  live  at  Markesan  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  How  did  you  get  to  Markesan  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I think,  if  I remember  right,  I went  to  Ripon 
by  train,  and  hired  a team  and  went  to  Markesan. 

The  Chairman.  This  says  “ Livery  at  Markesan.” 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  After  I got  there  I hired  the  teams  there  at  a 
livery  for  several  days  and  went  out  through  the  country. 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  you  seem  to  have  had  the  livery  on  the  20th, 
the  21st,  the  22d,  and  the  23d  at  Markesan. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Then  you  were  making  trips  out  into  the  country  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  At  $2.50  a trip.  On  what  business  were  you  trav- 
eling on  that  occasion  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  If  I remember  right,  I was  traveling  there  to 
see  about  getting  teams  and  parties  out  on  the  primary  election  day. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  And  also  getting  advertisements  put  up. 

The  Chairman.  What  kind  of  advertisements  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Ike  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  put  up  your  own  advertisements  at  that 
time  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I did  not  have  any  up. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  out  canvassing  for  yourself  at  that  time  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Your  honor,  I can  not  sav  that  I did,  because 
I was  out  at  that  time  and  everybody  knew  that  I was  out  for  reelec- 
tion. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  were  merely  driving  around  through  your 
own  county  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I was  out  to  see  different  men  and  different 
workers  in  Markesan,  Manchester,  Kingston,  Marquette,  and  Mack- 
ford.  Those  wTere  the  towns  that  I went  through  at  that  time,  as  I 
remember. 

The  Chairman.  You  were  on  a general  campaigning  tour  in  vour 
own  interest  and  in  the  interest  of  Senator  Stephenson,  were  you  ? 


840 


CHRISTIAN  C.  WELLENSGARD. 


Mr.  Wellensgard.  No;  not  exactly  at  that  particular  time. 

The  Chairman.  That  covers  a period  of  five  days. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  The  first  day,  I think,  covered  the  time  going 
to  Markesan,  and  I think  I went  out  in  the  afternoon  or  in  the  evening, 
toward  evening,  and  saw  one  party.  The  balance  was  around  in  that 
neighborhood ; and  the  liveries  I hired  at  Markesan,  because  I did  not 
know  that  there  were  any  liveries  in  the  other  towns. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  a supporter  of  Senator  Stephenson’s 
before  this  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  always  been  a supporter  of  Senator 
Stephenson’s  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir.  I never  voted  for  any  other  Senator. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  vote  for  him  in  1907? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Were  you  then  a member  of  the  legislature? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  May  I ask  him  another  question  ? Had  you 
known  him  a long  while  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Not  personally. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  had  known  of  him? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I had  known  of  him;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  For  a long  wdiile  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Oh,  probably  for  20  years.  I would  not  swear 
positively. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Excuse  me  for  breaking  in. 

The  Chairman.  Passing  the  items  for  livery  for  the  present,  on 
the  28th  you  have  an  item,  “Paid  out  to  help  G.  Burlingame  and  four 
men,  $30.” 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I beg  your  pardon;  that  was  not  for  livery. 

The  Chairman.  I say,  passing  the  livery  items  for  the  present. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Oh,  yes;  yes.  That  was  for  w7ork  that  he  did 
in  putting  up  his  circulars  and  advertisements  and  circulating  Ike 
Stephenson’s  petitions. 

The  Chairman.  Not  his  petitions. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Circulating  his  petitions. 

The  Chairman.  On  August  28  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I wrould  not  swear  to  these  dates  as  absolutely 
correct. 

The  Chairman.  You  know  the  petitions  had  to  be  filed  by  August  1. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  This  account  never  came  into  my  account — 
my  expenditures. 

The  Chairman.  Were  these  men  employed  to  do  anything  in  your 
behalf,  or  to  help  your  candidacy  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  No,  sir;  I never  paid  them  a cent. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  whether  or  not  they  supported  you  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I do  not;  only  I believe  they  were  friendly 
toward  me. 

The  (hi airman.  Do  you  know  wdiether  they  were  Stephenson  men 
before  this  $30  was  paid,  or  the  arrangement  made  to  pay  it? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  This  man  Burlingame  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Howt  long  had  he  been  a Stephenson  man? 


CHRISTIAN  C.  WELLENSGARD. 


841 


Mr.  Wellensgard.  That  I could  not  say. 

The  C hairman.  When  did  you  ascertain  that  he  was  a Stephenson 
man? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I ascertained  that  from  him  at  the  time  of  it, 
or  before  this  time  when  1 had  seen  him.  He  had  a brother  that 
lived  up  in  Stephenson’s  town,  you  know — Marinette— in  the  cigar 
business;  and  he  had  been  up  there  and  seemed  to  know  Mr.  Stephen- 
son personally. 

The  Chairman.  About  the  four  men  that  were  employed:  Were 
they  Stephenson  men  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  That  I could  not  tell  you. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know  whether  they  voted  for  Stephen- 
son or  not  at  the  primary ; do  you  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  No,  sir;  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Where  is  Mr.  Burlingame? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  He  lives  on  a farm  about  3 or  4 miles  out  of 
Ripon,  in  the  town  of  Brookfield. 

The  Chairman.  How  far  is  that  from  Milwaukee  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  About  68  miles.  I would  not  say  exactly. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  is  his  post-office  address  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  His  post-office  address  is  Ripon,  I think.  It 
is  a rural  route. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  A rural  free  delivery  route? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Rural  free  delivery;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  It  says  here,  “Paid  out  to  help  G.  Burlingame  and 
four  men.”  That  would  be  five  persons.  Was  the  money  divided 
equally  between  those  five  persons  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  That  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  You  paid  it  all  to  Burlingame? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir.  He  was  to  look  after  that  town. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  leave  the  selection  of  those  four  men  to 
Mr.  Burlingame? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  did  he  report  to  you  whom  he  had  selected  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  He  gave  me  the  names  at  the  time,  but  I did 
not  take  their  names  down. 

The  Chi  airman.  Can  you  tell  us  the  name  of  any  one  of  the  four 
men  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I think  there  was  a fellow  by  the  name  of 
Frost. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  him  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Was  he  a Stephenson  man  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Before  this  arrangement  was  made  with  him  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  give  us  the  name  of  any  other  one  of  the 
four  men  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  No,  sir  ; and  I do  not  know  that  this  man  was 
included  with  these  four  men.  That  Mr.  Frost  I had  seen  personally 
in  Berlin. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  pay  him  any  money? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Did  I pay  Frost  any  money? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 


842 


CHRISTIAN  C.  WELLENSGARD. 


Mr.  Wellensgard.  I think  not. 

The  Chairman.  He  is  not  included,  by  name,  in  your  account,  I 
notice. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Well,  I could  not  say  as  to  that. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  talked  with  Burlingame  as  to  the 
identity  or  the  character  of  these  four  men  that  he  employed  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Before  that? 

The  Chairman.  At  any  time  have  you  talked  with  Burlingame 
about  it  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I talked  with  him  about  it  at  the  time  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  he  tell  you  with  reference  to  the  char- 
acter of  these  men  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  He  said  they  were  good,  responsible  men;  and 
I think  I knew  the  men  at  the  time  of  it,  but  I can  not  recollect  the 
names  he  gave  me. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose  were  they  employed  by  Mr. 
Burlingame  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  By  Mr.  Burlingame? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  To  get  the  voters  out  in  their  localities. 

The  Chairman.  You  mean,  to  induce  them  to  go  to  the  polls  and 
vote  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  The  town  of  Brookfield  is  partly  on  the  north 
side  of  Green  Lake  and  part  of  the  town  is  on  the  south  side  of  Green 
Lake;  and  those  voters  living  on  the  south  side  have  to  come  to  the 
east  end  of  Green  Lake  and  come  over  to  the  village  of  Green  Lake  to 
vote. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  is  the  distance  ? 

Air.  Wellensgard.  It  must  be  7 miles,  maybe  8,  around  the  end  of 
the  lake,  to  get  over  there.  They  were  employed  to  take  their  teams 
and  get  out  and  get  the  voters  over. 

The  Chairman.  There  is  no  way  of  crossing  by  boat  ? 

Air.  Wellensgard.  YYs;  there  is. 

The  Chairman.  There  is  a regular  line  of  boats,  is  there  not  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  No;  not  regular,  I do  not  think. 

The  Chairman.  How  far  is  it  across  the  lake  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I should  think  it  is  4 or  5 miles. 

The  Chairman.  This  account  is  very  meager  as  to  the  purpose  for 
which  these  men  were  employed;  and  I am,  therefore,  asking  you 
with  some  particularity  in  regard  to  that. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Certainly. 

The  Chairman.  Because,  as  far  as  this  account  shows,  their  votes 
might  have  been  purchased. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  They  were  not,  so  far  as  I know;  and  there  was 
no  such  instruction. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  all  you  know  about  it? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  The  next  item  is  $25,  paid  to  C.  Kosebrook. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Charles  Kosebrook. 

The  Chairman.  “Paid  to  C.  Kosebrook,  town  of  St.  Marie,  and 
four  men.” 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  That  is  for  the  same  purpose. 

The  Chairman.  The  statement  in  regard  to  the  $30  item  is  equal'y 
applicable  to  the  $25  item  ? 


CHRISTIAN  C.  WELLENSGARD. 


843 


Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  no  more  knowledge  about  the  men  than 
you  have  in  regard  to  the  $30  item? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Only  this,  that  Mr.  Rosebrook  has  told  me 
since  that  he  was  willing  to  furnish  the  men’s  names  at  any  time 
if  I wanted  them. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  have  him  give  you  the  names? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Where  does  Rosebrook  live? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  In  the  town  of  St.  Marie. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  the  purpose  for  which  he  paid 
money  to  those  men  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I think  I do. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  the  purpose  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  If  you  will  let  me  explain  this,  I can  explain 
it  on  the  same  basis  as  the  other. 

The  town  of  St.  Marie  is  split  up  by  Fox  River.  Part  of  it  is  on 
the  north  side  of  Fox  River,  and  they  have  to  come  around  and  come 
across  the  bridge  at  Princeton  and  come  over  to  the  St.  Marie  town- 
house  and  cast  their  votes,  and  the  men  that  he  employed  were  living 
on  the  north  side  and  had  to  go  around  by  Princeton  and  over  to  the 
St.  Marie  townhouse  and  vote,  and  they  hired  teams,  or  took  their 
teams,  and  brought  these  voters  over  there,  and  were  paid  for  that 
purpose,  probably. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  is  the  distance? 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  whether  or  not  they  paid  cash  for 
any  purpose  whatever  to  these  men  that  they  brought  over  to  vote  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  No,  sir.  I do  not  know,  only  what  he  told  me. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  tell  you  that  he  did  or  that  he  did  not  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I think  he  did  tell  me  that  he  would  have  to 
pay  them  something  to  take  their  teams  away  from  the  field  and 
from  their  work  and  come  around  there.  He  did  not  expect  to  get 
them  for  nothing. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is,  the  men  that  brought  the  voters  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes;  the  men  that  brought  the  voters. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  was  the  distance  ? 

The  Chairman.  Just  a moment.  I will  yield  to  counsel  in  a 
moment. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Pardon  me,  Mr.  Chairman.  I wanted  to  get  it 
right  in  the  record  at  this  point.  That  is  all. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  the  question? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I simply  wanted  the  distance  these  men  had  to 
travel. 

What  was  the  distance  they  had  to  travel,  Mr.  Wellensgard  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I could  not  come  within  a mile,  perhaps,  or  2 
miles  of  it.  I should  say  perhaps  6 to  8 miles. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  that  he  told  you  that  he  had  to  pay  these 
men.  To  what  men  did  he  refer? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  These  four  men,  I suppose. 

The  Chairman.  He  paid  the  four  men? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Were  they  electors? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I suppose  they  were. 

The  Chairman.  And  did  they  vote  for  Stephenson  ? 


844 


CHRISTIAN  C.  WELLENSGARD. 


Mr.  Wellensgard.  I could  not  tell  you. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ask  him? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Did  I ask  him? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  W ellensgard.  No,  sir;  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  You  would  not  be  willing  to  pay  out  money  to 
men  who  would  not  vote  for  Stephenson,  would  you  ? 

Mr.  W ellensgard.  We  wanted  to  get  the  voters  out.  We  were 
just  as  liable  to  get  some  of  these  voters  as  the  next  man. 

The  Chairman.  Yrou  wanted  to  get  the  voters  out  in  order  that 
they  might  vote  for  you  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  We  wanted  to  get  the  general  voters  out 
throughout  the  county. 

The  Chairman.  Did  these  men  that  he  brought  over  vote  for  you  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I could  not  tell  you. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  not  inquire  who  was  to  vote  for  you  and 
who  was  not  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I presume  perhaps  they  were  favorable 
toward  me.  I don’t  know. 

The  Chairman.  Your  friend  would  not  have  spent  your  money  to 
haul  to  the  polls  men  who  were  going  to  vote  against  you,  would  he  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I could  not  tell  you  as  to  that.  I do  not  sup- 
pose he  would. 

The  Chairman.  You  would  not  have  given  him  money  if  you 
thought  he  was  going  to  do  that,  would  you? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  That  circumstance  came  up  once  before  when 
the  question  arose  about  getting  the  voters  out,  and  it  was  answered 
in  this  way:  We  want  the  voters  out.  We  can  not  tell  whether  we 
get  them  or  not.  We  will  take  our  chances. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  give  no  instructions  to  your  representa- 
tive that  he  was  to  expend  this  money  only  to  haul  to  the  polls  men 
who  were  friendly  to  you  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I do  not  think  I did. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  think  he  would  haul  men  to  the  polls  to 
vote  against  you  ? 

Mr.  W7ellensgard.  No,  sir;  I do  not  think  he  would. 

The  Chairman.  He  would  not  be  much  of  a man  if  he  did,  would  he  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I would  not  consider  it  so. 

The  Chairman.  No.  This  man  was  your  personal  friend,  was  he 
not,  who  engaged  these  men  to  haul  voters  to  the  polls? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir;  as  far  as  I know. 

The  Chairman.  He  was  one  of  your  supporters,  was  he  not? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I think  he  was. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  no  doubt  about  that,  have  you  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  No,  sir;  I do  not  think  so.  I do  not  think  I 
have  any  reason  to  have  any  doubt  about  it. 

The  Chairman.  You  think  he  would  be  quite  sure  that  the  men 
that  he  took  to  the  polls  to  vote  would  be  favorable  to  you  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard  Well,  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Let  us  be  perfectly  candid  about  this,  Mr.  Wellens- 
gard. You  are  a man  of  public  affairs  and  experience  in  life,  and  you 
can  answer  this  class  of  questions  without  any  evasion.  Let  us  be 
perfectly  candid. 


CHRISTIAN  C.  WELLENSGARD. 


845 


Is  it  not  a fact  that  the  men  he  employed  to  haul  voters  to  the  polls 
were  men  that  he  had  confidence  in  as  your  friends  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Of  course.  That  being  true,  you  are  equally  con- 
fident, are  you  not,  that  they  would  not  haul  to  the  polls  those  who 
would  vote  against  you  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  No.  I do  not  think  so.  I think  that  they 
would  probably  haul  anybody;  any  of  their  neighbors. 

The  Chairman.  Did  they  haul  any  of  their  neighbors  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I could  not  tell  you.  I do  not  even  know 
whether  they  were  at  the  polls,  only  from  what  I got  from  him. 

The  Chairman.  In  regard  to  Senator  Stephenson,  would  these  men 
that  you  engaged  to  haul  voters  to  the  polls  haul  men  there  who  were 
not  friendly  to  Senator  Stephenson. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I could  not  tell  you. 

The  Chairman.  Would'  you  feel  justified  in  spending  Senator 
Stephenson’s  money  to  haul  men  to  the  polls  to  vote  against  him  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I beg  pardon.  That  was  not  Senator  Stephen- 
son’s money  that  I spent  at  that  time. 

The  Chairman.  1 am  reading  now  the  items  from  the  account  of 
the  money  which  you  did  receive  from  Senator  Stephenson  on  the  3d 
day  of  September. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  No;  I think  it  was  later  than  the  3d. 

The  Chairman.  Let  us  see. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I think  it  was  the  5th  or  the  6th,  or  somewhere 
along  there,  that  I received  the  check. 

The  Chairman.  The  letter  in  which  you  sent  this  is  dated  September 
3.  I can  turn  to  the  item  and  find  out. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  It  was  some  time  a few  days  after  that. 

The  Chairman.  I have  just  found  it  here:  Paid  the  5th. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Very  well.  That  is  indorsed  by  you  as  being  paid 
ninth  month,  fifth  day,  1908,  C.  C.  Wellensgard.  So  the  matter  of 
one  or  two  days  is  the  only  issue. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  That  is  all. 

The  Chairman.  Would  you  feel  justified  in  permitting  Senator 
Stephenson’s  money  to  be  spent  for  hauling  to  the  polls  men  who  wTere 
not  known  to  be  favorable  to  him  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I had  no  ways  or  means  to  know.  The  men 
were  hired  for  that  purpose. 

The  Chairman.  Was  it  not  your  duty  to  know,  if  you  undertoook 
to  spend  his  money  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  It  might  have  been  my  duty;  but  I had  not 
seen  these  men  or  had  any  talk  with  them. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  evident.  You  hired  another  man  to  gather 
them  up  and  employ  them  on  behalf  of  Senator  Stephenson. . Was  it 
not  your  duty  to  know  that  none  but  Senator  Stephenson’s  friends 
were  employed  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  They  might  have  voted  for  me  and  not  have 
voted  for  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  the  point  I was  after. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I do  not  know  how  they  voted. 


846 


CHRISTIAN  C.  WELLENSGARD. 


The  Chairman.  It  may  be  that  the  hauling  of  these  men  to  the 
polls  with  Senator  Stephenson’s  money  inured  to  your  benefit  and  not 
to  his  benefit.  Is  that  true  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  That,  of  course,  I could  not  say. 

The  Chairman.  They  did  not  vote  against  you,  did  they  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  You  would  have  something  to  say  to  the  man  who 
hauled  men  to  the  polls  to  vote  against  you,  would  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I do  not  think  that  I saw  this  man  Burlingame 
but  once  after  the  time  that  I was  there  to  see  him.  I think  I only 
saw  him  twTice  during  the  primary. 

The  Chairman.  All  I want,  Mr.  Wellensgard,  is  a perfectly  candid 
statement  from  you,  let  the  blame  fall  where  it  may. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I should  be  pleased  to  give  that,  as  nearly  as  I 
can;  but  I do  not  want  to  make  any  mistake. 

The  Chairman.  If  you  were  not  a man  accustomed  to  political  cam- 
paigns and  the  things  that  pertain  to  them,  I might  be  willing  to  accept 
the  statement  that  you  were  perfectly  guileless  in  this  matter  and  did 
not  know  whether  the  money  you  paid  out  was  spent  in  your  behalf 
or  not;  but  I want,  now,  to  take  this  item  of  Burlingame,  and  find 
out  about  it. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  I understand  he  was  your  personal  friend  and 


supporter  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  He  was  a personal  friend.  I have  known  him, 
probably,  for  12  or  15  years. 

The  Chairman.  He  has  always  supported  you  when  you  were  a 
candidate  for  the  legislature,  has  he  ? 

Mr.  Welensgard.  I think  he  has. 

The  Chairman.  You  said  to  him:  “Here  is  $30.  Get  some  men  to 
work  at  the  polls.”  Did  you  not? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Something  of  that  kind. 

The  Chairman.  And  Burlingame,  being  your  friend  and  supporter, 
was  expected  by  you  to  get  none  but  friends  of  yours  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Well,  he  got  this  money  to  circulate  Ike 
Stephenson’s  petitions  over  in  that  town. 

The  Chairman.  I think  you  will  have  to  take  that  back,  about  cir- 
culating petitions.  They  had  been  filed  nearly  a month  before  that 
time. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I beg  pardon,  Mr.  Chairman.  I do  not  say 
that  that  is  the  day — that  he  got  this  money  on  that  date. 

The  Chairman.  But  you  gave  the  date  when  you  paid  it.  You 
say  in  your  account,  wmch  you  indorse,  that  you  paid  it  on  the  28th 
day  of  August,  which  was  three  days  before  the  election. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I do  not  think  that  is  correct,  because  I am 
satisfied  he  got  that  along  there  in  June  or  July;  the  latter  part  of 
July. 

The  Chairman.  Why  did  you  not  so  state  in  your  account? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  If  you  will  allow  me  to  explain  this,  Mr. 
Chairman,  I should  like  to  do  so. 

The  Chairman.  Let  us  hear  your  explanation. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  This  was  right  after  the  primary;  and  on 
primary  day,  as  I was  coming  down  the  street,  I met  Rodney 
Sacket 


CHRISTIAN  C.  WELLENSGARD. 


847 


The  Chairman.  That  was  the  1st  of  September. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  And  he  had  his  grip,  and  was  going  to  the 
depot  to  take  the  train  to  go  to  Milwaukee  or  Washington  or  some- 
where. As  I was  coming  across  the  main  street,  he  says:  “ Chris., ” 
he  always  called  me  Chris.,  “I  want  you  to  send  in  your  account,  and 
what  we  owe  you.”  I said:  “I  do  not  know  as  I can.”  I only  sup- 
posed he  wanted  a detailed,  itemized  account,  which  I sent  in  the 
best  I could. 

The  next  day  I went  to  the  pickle  factory.  I had  been  away,  per- 
haps, all  the  months  of  July  and  August,  and  neglected  my  own 
business. 

The  Chairman.  To  be  elected  to  the  legislature  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Being  away,  and  with  other  things  to  look 
after,  I was  very  busy;  and  I went  into  the  office  and  hunted  up  a 
small  memorandum  that  I carried  in  my  pocket,  and  I told  my  son 
to  take  this  down  and  write  a letter  and  send  it  in. 

The  Chairman.  You  read  it  off  to  your  son,  did  you  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I did. 

The  Chairman.  These  items  seem  to  be  consecutive  here. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I do  not  think  there  are  any  dates  to  those 
items.  My  son  happened  to  put  them  down  that  way. 

The  Chairman.  Why  would  your  son  select  particular  dates  upon 
which  payments  were  made  unless  the  memorandum  showed  it  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  This  is  divided  up  with  some  evident  degree  of 
care.  Two  items  are  before  you  announced  your  candidacy.  The 
rest  of  them  are  afterwards.  They  are  not  all  on  one  day.  For 
instance:  August  20.  The  next  item  is  August  21;  the  next  item  is 
August  22;  the  next  August  23 — two  items  on  that  date;  then  the 
24th. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I might  have  got  down  August  when  it  should 
have  been  July.  It  might  have  been  July  instead  of  August. 

The  Chairman.  Why  would  you  be  making  arrangements  with 
men  to  work  at  the  polls  as  early  as  July,  when  the  Senator  had  not 
even  filed  the  nomination  papers,  and  you  had  not  filed  yours  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I filed  my  nomination  paper,  I think,  the  latter 
part  of  July. 

The  Chairman.  You  must  have  filed  it  on  the  1st  day  provided 
by  law,  which  was  the  1st  of  August.  Why  would  you  be  paying 
these  men  in  July  to  do  the  work  which  would  be  utterly  inappro- 
priate to  be  done  at  that  time  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I could  not  possibly  swear  to  those  dates  as 
correct. 

The  Chairman.  You  could  not  even  know  that  he  would  file  any 
nomination  papers  at  that  time,  in  July  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  who  would,  Mr.  Chairman? 

The  Chairman.  Anyone. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I know;  but,  if  you  will  excuse  me,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, the  only  candidates  in  which  Mr.  Wellensgard  was  interested  in 
any  way,  as  the  record  discloses,  were  Senator  Stephenson  and  him- 
self; and  he  was  already  starting  out  in  Senator  Stephenson's  cam- 
paign. 

I think,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  you  must  inadvertently  misappre- 
hend. I make  that  suggestion  because  it  seems  to  me  that  it  is 


848 


CHRISTIAN  C.  WELLENSGARD. 


incredible  that  he  could  not  have  known  that  he  was  acting  in  the 
interest  of  Senator  Stephenson  after  he  engaged  in  promoting  his 
candidacy. 

The  Chairman.  That  will  be  a good  argument  from  the  testimony; 
but  not  before  the  testimony. 

Tell  me,  Mr.  Wellensgard,  how  did  you  know  that  the  Senator 
would  file  nomination  papers  in  August  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I supposed  he  had  to,  according  to  law. 

The  Chairman.  He  might  not  have  filed  them. 

Were  you  spending  money  with  Mr.  Burlingame  before  Senator 
Stephenson  filed  his  nomination  papers  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I was  spending  money  when  I got  him  to  go 
out  and  circulate  Ike  Stephenson’s  petition.  I either  paid  it  to  him 
that  day  or  promised  it  to  him. 

The  Chairman.  I understand  you  have  already  testified — and  I 
would  suggest  that  you  keep  your  memory  pretty  active  here — that 
you  paid  these  men  for  hauling  voters  around  the  fake  and  around  the 
river,  in  the  case  of  Burlingame.  What  voters  were  you  hauling  in 
July? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  He  was  to  do  that  work. 

The  Chairman.  When  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  On  the  primary  day. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  in  September  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes;  but  he  had  this  money  before  the  pri- 
mary day.  He  had  circulated  the  petition,  and  also  put  up  posters. 

The  Chairman.  Had  you  not  better  abandon  that  proposition,  on 
the  recollection  of  the  facts — your  claim  that  you  paid  this  money  in 
July  ? Look  at  that  account,  and  get  your  mind  actively  to  work. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I would  not  swear  to  the  date  that  I paid  it. 

The  Chairman.  Why  do  you  want  to  controvert  the  date  set  forth 
in  your  memorandum  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I would  not  like  to  swear  to  it  that  it  was  in 
August,  on  the  28th  of  August,  if  it  should  have  been  some  other  date. 

The  Chairman.  If  you  paid  it  for  the  purpose  you  stated  you  did, 
the  28th  of  August  was  an  appropriate  time  to  be  paying  it.  Why 
do  you  want  to  transfer  the  date  back  to  an  inappropriate  time  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I object,  if  the  Chairman  pleases 

The  Chairman.  Objections  do  not  lie  to  the  form  of  any  question 
by  a member  of  the  committee. 

* Mr.  Littlefield.  But  you  have  no  objection,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  my 
stating  on  the  record  my  reasons  for  my  objection? 

The  Chairman.  You  may  state  them,  but 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  what  I propose  to  do.  I object  to  the 
assumption  that  the  chairman  makes  that  it  was  inappropriate  to 
pay  these  men  in  advance  for  services  to  be  rendered  thereafter. 

The  Chairman.  The  objection  will  be  entered. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes.  I want  to  go  on  the  record  as  objecting  to 
that,  if  the  chairman  will  permit  me  to  say  so,  as  an  unwarranted 
assumption  in  the  question  of  the  chairman.  I think  it  is  perfectly 
proper  for  him  to  pay  the  money  in  advance  of 

The  Chairman.  We  will  not  argue  that  now. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I am  putting  my  reasons  on  the  record,  and 

The  Chairman.  Counsel  will  wait  until  the  ruling  is  made. 


CHRISTIAN  C.  WELLENSGARD. 


849 


Mr.  Littlefield.  May  I not  put  my  reasons  on  the  record,  Mr. 
Chairman  ? 

The  Chairman.  No  argument  against  a question  asked  by  any 
member  of  this  committee  will  be  introduced  into  the  record  at  all. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  May  I state  my  reasons  for  the  objection? 

The  Chairman.  Not  in  the  shape  of  an  argument. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  chairman  will  permit  me  to  finish  the  state- 
ment of  my  reasons  ? 

The  Chairman.  Not  in  the  shape  of  an  argument. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Very  well.  I will  stop  right  there,  then. 

The  Chairman.  Any  member  of  the  committee  has  a right  to  ask 
a question,  and  it  is  not  subject  to  objection  by  anyone;  not  even  by 
a member  of  the  committee.  Every  member  of  the  committee  here 
is  on  an  equal  footing,  and  the  peer  of  every  other  member. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I have  no  question  about  that,  Mr.  Chairman. 
Do  I understand  that  I am  not  to  be  permitted  to  complete  the  reasons 
for  my  objection  ? 

The  Chairman.  No  argument  will  be  heard  as  to  the  admissibility 
of  a question  asked  by  any  member  of  the  committee. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I take  the  ruling,  then.  I can  not  do  anything 
else. 

The  Chairman.  Advantage  can  be  taken  of  that  in  your  brief,  if 
desired;  not  here. 

I will  repeat  my  question:  Why  do  you  seek  to  transfer  the  date  of 
that  item  from  the  28th  of  August  to  the  28th  of  July,  or  to  any  other 
date? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I do  not  seek  to  transfer  it.  I say  I am  not 
positive  of  the  exact  date  that  that  money  was  paid  to  Mr.  Burlin- 
game. 

The  Chairman.  We  pass,  now,  to  the  item  of  “August  28,  paid 
Bill  Anglem” — “Bill”  seems  to  be  a proper  name? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  It  should  be  William. 

The  Chairman  (reading):  “Town  of  Green  Lake,  $5.”  For  what 
was  that  money  paid  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I expect  that  was  for  the  same  purpose,  of 
circulating  Mr.  Stephenson’s  petition. 

The  Chairman.  Petition  for  what  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Petition  for  nomination. 

The  Chairman.  On  the  petitions  for  nomination,  does  it  appear  as 
to  who  circulated  them? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I would  not  say  as  to  that,  that  this  man  did 
circulate  them.  I could  not  remember,  it  is  so  long  since;  but  he 
done  work.  He  was  a Stephenson  man. 

The  Chairman.  Was  he  a supporter  of  yours? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  If  the  chairman  please,  I understood  the  ques- 
tion to  be  this:  Whether  the  nomination  papers  are  of  such  a character 
as  to  show  who  circulated  the  paper.  I would  like  to  have  informa- 
tion myself  in  regard  to  that.  That  was  the  question,  was  it  not  ? 

The  Chairman.  The  committee  will  investigate  that  matter  by  an 
examination  of  the  papers. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I would  like  to  have  the  witness  state  if  he  knows 
about  that. 

The  Chairman.  The  witness  said  he  did  not  know,  as  I under- 
stood it. 

15235°— vol  1—11 54 


850 


CHRISTIAN  C.  WELLENSGARD. 


Mr.  Littlefield.  I did  not  understand  that  he  answered  that. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  It  is  so  long  since  that  I could  not  remember 
if  he  did. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  No.  The  question  is  whether  the  nomination 
paper  shows  the  name  of  the  party  that  circulates  the  paper. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  It  does. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  what  was  called  for  by  the  chairman’s 
question. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  To  my  recollection,  it  does. 

The  Chairman.  I understood  the  witness  to  say,  at  first,  that  he 
did  not  know.  We  can  ascertain  that,  of  course,  from  the  papers. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I think  every  nomination  paper  is  signed  and 
sworn  to  by  the  man  by  whom  it  is  circulated. 

Mr.  Black.  There  is  an  affidavit  attached  to  it. 

The  Chairman.  And  did  William  Anglem  circulate  a nomination 
petition  for  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I think  he  did. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  think  Mr.  Burlingame  circulated  one;  or 
any  of  the  four  men  that  he  employed  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Mr.  Burlingame  did. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  you  think  we  will  find  the  names  of  those 
men  upon  the  nomination  papers  of  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  We  come  now  to  another  item,  on  the  28th:  “Paid 
W.  Burdick,  town  of  Green  Lake,  $5.”  What  was  that  for? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  He  is  a brother-in-law  of  Bill  Anglem. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose  did  you  pay  him  $5? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Bill  Anglem  said  that  Burdick  would  circulate 
Senator  Stephenson’s  petition  over  there.  He  was  keeping  a grocery 
store  at  what  they  call  the  Summer  Llouse. 

The  Chairman.  You  refer  now  to  the  petition  for  nomination  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir;  and  he  got  $5  to  hand  to  Burdick  for 
circulating  the  nomination  papers. 

The  Chairman  (reading):  “August  28,  paid  C.  Schrader  and  men 
at  Markesan,  $30.”  For  what  purpose  was  that  paid? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  He  circulated  Stephenson’s  papers  or  had 
them  circulated  in  Markesan  and  the  town  of  Manchester. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  all  these  men  did,  was  it,  and  all  that  they 
were  paid  for? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  else  did  they  do  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  They  circulated  petitions  and  circulated  the 
advertisements.  I got  men  and  teams  to  bring  the  voters  to  the 
polls. 

The  Chairman.  A part  of  those  services,  then,  was  rendered  in 
July  and  a part  in  September  ? Is  that  a fact  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  of  that  $30  was  for  services  rendered 
in  September  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I do  not  know  as  to  that. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  your  memorandum  made  at  the  time? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  have  you  there,  from  which  you  are 
testifying  ? 


CHRISTIAN  C.  WELLENSGARD. 


851 


Mr.  Wellensgard.  This  was  taken  from  the  statement  that  I sent 
to  Mr.  Stephenson’s  headquarters. 

The  Chairman.  Who  made  out  that  statement  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  My  son. 

The  Chairman.  In  your  presence  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  examined  it,  did  you  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  is  it  correct  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  He  said  it  was. 

The  Chairman.  Is  it  correct  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I think  so. 

The  Chairman.  Are  the  dates  on  that  as  I have  them  here? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Then  how  can  it  be  correct,  if 

Mr.  Wellensgard  (interrupting).  He  took  it  from  the  testimony 
that  I gave  in  the  investigation  committee  at  Madison. 

The  Chairman.  Oh,  then  it  was  not  made  up  until  after  you  had 
testified  at  Madison  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  How  could  he  take  it  from  testimony  you 
gave 

Mr.  Wellensgard  (interrupting).  I think  you  will  find  these  names 
in  the  testimony 

The  Chairman  (interposing).  I know;  but  how  could  it  be  taken 
from  the  testimony  at  Madison,  if  it  was  not  made  up  at  that  time? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I had  the  whole  proceedings,  the  three  vol- 
umes, in  my  office,  bound  the  same  as  yours  are. 

The  Chairman.  Yes.  Then  that  is  a mere  copy  of  what  we  have 
before  us,  is  it  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes.  He  copied  from  that. 

The  Chairman.  This  statement  fixes  the  28th  of  August  as  the  day 
upon  which  Anglem  and  Burdick  and  Schrader  were  paid. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I do  not  know  as  that  date  is  correct. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know  that  it  is  correct? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I do  not  think  it  is. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  raise  the  question  before  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  No. 

The  Chairman.  You  went  through  the  examination  and  cross- 
examination  before  the  joint  committee  of  the  legislature  of  which 
you  are  a member,  and  did  not  call  attention  to  this,  or  make  any 
claim  that  these  dates  were  incorrect  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I think  I did  say  that  I was  not  sure  they 
were  correct.  I think  I so  stated  that  I would  not  swear  to  that. 

The  Chairman.  On  page  2104  you  say: 

Mr.  Burlingame  was  to  do  the  same  work;  and  he  lived  in  the  town  of  Brookline  and 
the  village  of  Green  Lake  is  in  the  town  of  Brookline.  These  men  also  posted  bills 
and  circulars  of  Ike  Stephenson;  and  in  the  village  of  Green  Lake  they  were  tore  down 
as  fast  as  they  were  put  up;  and  Burlingame  got  $30  to  see  that  cuts  of  Stephenson  was 
put  up  as  the  rest  of  the  gentlemen,  whoever  they  were,  tore  them  down. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  true,  now  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir. 


852 


CHRISTIAN  C.  WELLENSGARD. 


The  Chairman.  That  is  what  Mr.  Burlingame  got  the  $30  for, 
is  it? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  And  to  haul  them  out  to  vote.  He  did  not 
get  any  more  than  $30. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  that  Mr.  Burlingame  got  $30  for  that 
purpose.  Did  you  pay  him  more  than  one  $30  item  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  No,  sir.  I think  that  I have  his  receipt  for 
the  money. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  the  date  of  tJhat  receipt  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I got  it  here  week  before  last,  because  that 
statement  was  mixed  up,  and  I wanted  to  see  him. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  it  with  you  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Produce  it. 

Mr.  Wellensgard  (producing  papers).  I was  mixed  up  on  the 
amount,  I think,  at  the  time  I gave  my  testimony  in  Madison,  as  to 
who  got  the  $25  and  who  got  the  $30.  For  that  reason  I went  over 
there  and  got  these  two  receipts. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  two  receipts  here? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes;  one  from  Mr.  Burlingame  and  one  from 
Mr.  Rosebrook. 

The  Chairman.  This  was  written  on  October  5,  1911  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  about  a week  ago  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Who  wrote  the  body  of  this  receipt  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  What?  The  name  of  it? 

The  Chairman.  Who  wrote  it? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I think  I did;  in  a buggy,  in  a rainstorm. 

The  Chairman.  You  wrote  it,  and  Mr.  Burlingame  signed  it? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  put  this  in  as  a written  statement? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I done  that  for  this  purpose:  Because  the 
testimony  in  Madison  was  mixed  up,  as  to  which  one  of  the  two  got 
the  $30  and  which  the  $25 — to  satisfy  myself  which  one  of  the  two 
got  $30  and  which  the  $25. 

The  Chairman.  Is  this  statement  true,  that  you  have  written? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  This  says  you  paid  it  for  work  done  on  election 
day. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Well,  it  was  for  certain  work. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  this  is  true  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  They  claimed  to  me  that  they  went  out  and 
worked.  That  is  all  I know. 

The  Chairman.  But  you  have  written,  in  your  own  handwriting 
here,  that  this  work,  for  which  you  paid  $30,  was  done  on  election 
day  for  Ike  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Primary  election. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  that  is  an  election. 

Mr.  Wellensgajid.  Part  of  it  was  for  posting  and  part  of  it  for 
circulating  petitions. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  make  the  statement,  but  you  really 
weaken  your  testimony  when  you  do  it. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  That  is  what  it  was  supposed  to  be  for. 


CHRISTIAN  C.  WELLENSGARD. 


853 


The  Chairman.  You  wrote  this,  then,  within  a week  of  the  time 
you  are  now  testifying  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  On  October  5;  about  eight  days  ago.  You,  at 
that  time,  wrote  this  statement  that  you  had  paid  him  this  money 
for  four  men’s  work  on  primary  election  day  for  Ike  Stephenson. 

That  paper  will  be  marked  “ Exhibit  1”  in  connection  with  the 
testimony  of  Mr.  Wellensgard. 

(The  paper  referred  to  was  marked  “Exhibit  Wellensgard  No.  1, 
October  13,  1911,”  and  reads  as  follows:) 

Brokelin,  Wis.,  Oct.  5,  1911. 

Received  of  C.  C.  Wellensgard  Thirty 00/  Dollars 

for  serkelhton  Petican  & Posting  & 4 mans  worke  at  Pols  Elejoun  Day  or  Primery  Day 
for  Ike  Stevens  In  1908. 

Grant  Burlingame. 

$80.00. 

The  Chairman.  I will  now  read  a receipt  which  you  have  just 
handed  me.  The  body  of  the  receipt  is  in  your  handwriting,  is  it? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  the  signature  is  in  the  handwriting  of  C.  M. 
Rosebrook  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  This  is  dated  “Oct.  5,  Sant  Marie,  1911.”  Is 
that  “St.  Marie”  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  St.  Marie,  town  of  St.  Marie. 

The  Chairman  (reading) : 

Received  of  C.  C.  Wellensgard  $25  for  circulating  petition  for  Stephenson  and  work 
at  primary  in  1908,  also  posting,  advertising,  and  distributing  circulars,  etc. — C.  M. 
Rosebrook. 

Are  the  statements  in  that  receipt  true? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  That  is  true.  That  is  the  way  he  gave  it  to  me. 

The  Chairman.  You  bring  it  here  as  the  truth,  do  you  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir.  He  signed  it  that  day. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  pay  the  money  for  which  these 
receipts  were  given  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  That  was  at  the  time  this  statement  was 
given.  My  statement  there  was  not  clear  at  the  time. 

The  Chairman.  Let  me  call  your  attention  to  something  here, 
because  I am  not  trying  to  catch  you  in  any  statement,  but  I am 
trying  to  get  out  of  you  the  truth  and  to  help  you  state  it  properly. 
This  certificate  of  Rosebrook’s  states  on  its  face  that  a part  of  this 
payment  was  for  “circulating  petition  for  Stephenson  and  work  at 
primary  in  1908,  also  posting  advertising,  and  distributing  circulars, 
etc.”  Some  of  those  items  might  be  appropriate  before  August  1, 
and  others  could  not  have  been  performed  before  August  1;  for 
instance,  “work  at  primary”  could  not  have  been  done  then. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  He  could  not  state  exactly  the  date  I paid 
him  the  money. 

The  Chairman.  So  this  $2.5  is  made  up  of  items  some  of  which 
relate  to  work  or  things  done  by  you  before  the  filing  of  the  papers 
and  some  after?  Is  that  true? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I went  there  to  these  two  men,  to  satisfy 
myself  (if  I had  to  swear  to  it)  which  one  of  them  got  the  $30  and 


854 


CHRISTIAN  C.  WELLENSGARD. 


which  one  of  them  got  the  $25.  I do  not  know  what  the  work  was 
for,  only  that  they  circulated  Ike  Stephenson’s  petition. 

The  Chairman.  The  statement  that  you  made  at  first,  that  Bur- 
lingame and  Rosebrook  employed  men  on  election  day,  one  of  them 
to  haul  people  around  the  lake  and  the  other  one  around  the  river, 
is  true,  is  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  That  is  what  they  told  me. 

The  Chairman.  And  is  not  that  what  this  sum  of  money  was  paid 
for — for  men  to  haul  men  around  the  lake  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  This  money  is  for  all  the  work  they  did  in 
connection  with  it. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  did  those  men  charge  for  hauling  men 
around  the  lake  on  election  day? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I could  not  tell  you. 

The  Chairman.  And  how  much  did  those  other  men  charge  for 
hauling  men  around  the  river  on  election  day  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  This  receipt  will  be  marked  “Exhibit  2”  in 
connection  with  the  witness’s  testimony. 

(The  receipt  referred  to  was  marked  “Exhibit  2,”  and  is  in  words  and 
figures  as  follows:) 

Oct.  5,  Sant  Marie,  1911. 

Received  of  C.  C.  Wellensgard  Twenty-Five 00  Dollars 

for  Curculeting  Petition  for  Stephenson  & Worke  at  Primary  In  1908,  Olsow  Posting 
Advertising  & Distripeting  cerkelers  & coford. 

C.  M.  Rosebrook. 

$25.00 

The  Chairman.  We  will  now  go  to  Schroeder,  on  the  28th:  “Paid 
C.  Schroeder  and  men,  at  Markesan,”  $30.  Was  that  the  same  kind 
of  work  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Again,  on  September  2,  “Paid  E.  Vaughan,  King- 
ston and  men,”  $25.  Was  that  for  hauling  men  to  the  polls? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  That  was  for  circulating  petitions  and  getting 
parties  out  at  the  primary  election. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  is  the  last  item  the  chairman  inquired 
about?  “September  2”  in  the  print  I have  here  comes  after  “Sep- 
tember 3.” 

The  Chairman.  I had  merely  gone  to  the  item  of  September  2. 

Mr.  Littlefield;  What  particular  item  did  you  have  ? 

The  Chairman.  It  is  plain  on  the  face  of  it  that  the  items  of  “Sep- 
tember 3”  precede  the  items  of  “September  2”  in  this  statement. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes.  Now  you  are  inquiring  about  the  item  of 
“Paid  E.  Vaughan,”  etc.  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  the  $25  item. 

For  what  did  you  pay  E.  Vaughan  $25  on  the  2d  of  September? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  That  “2d  of  September”  is  not  right.  The 
date  there  is  not  right. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  the  day  you  paid  him  for  work  that  he  had 
done  on  election  day;  is  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  No,  sir;  it  can  not  be  right,  because  this  was 
after  election,  and  he  had  this  money  before  the  primary. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  he  did  have  it  before  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir. 


CHRISTIAN  C.  WELLENSGARD. 


855 


The  Chairman.  When  did  he  have  it  ? 

Mr.  Wei^ensgard.  It  was  in  harvest  time,  when  he  was  stacking 
grain,  that  I was  there  at  his  place. 

The  Chairman.  Now  we  go  to  the  next  item,  on  September  2: 
‘‘For  automobile  election  day,”  $15. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  charged  Senator  Stephenson  $15  for  the 
automobile  on  election  day.  Who  used  the  automobile  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  A young  fellow  by  the  name  of  Wilson. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  he  doing  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Getting  voters  out  to  the  polls — taking  them 
over  to  the  town  of  Berlin. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  In  what  town  was  this  automobile  used  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  It  was  used  in  the  town  of  Berlin,  and  I think 
in  the  town  of  Seneca. 

The  Chairman.  It  was  just  used  for  hauling  voters  to  the  polls? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  There  were  two  automobiles  out  that  day. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  charged  Senator  Stephenson  for  one  of 
them  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir.  This  was  not  my  own  automobile, 
or  anything  of  that  kind.  It  belonged  to  a man  by  the  name  of 
Droopman;  and  I hired  this  man  Wilson  to  run  the  machine.  I 
think  it  is  down  here,  “Paid  Wilson  for  help  on  machine,  $2.50.” 

The  Chairman.  There  are  several  items  on  September  3 of  sums 
of  $5,  $2,  $4,  $1,  and  $3.  For  what  were  those  sums  of  money  paid  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  They  were  paid  for  ward  workers. 

The  Chairman.  What  do  you  mean  by  ward  work  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  To  get  the  votes  out  to  the  polls. 

The  Chairman.  What  kind  of  work  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  What  do  you  call  “work  at  the  polls?”  What 
acts  constitute  “work  at  the  polls?” 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  There  are  a good  many  of  them  out  there  that 
work  in  the  quarry — quarrymen — and  they  come  down  there  to 
work  at  the  polls. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  sort  of  a quarry  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  A granite  quarry. 

The  Chairman.  What  constituted  “work  at  the  polls  ?” 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  They  always  have  ward  heelers  that  work 
around  at  the  polls. 

The  Chairman.  Were  all  these  men  watchers  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I presume  they  were. 

The  Chairman.  Were  they? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I do  not  know  what  they  were  doing. 

The  Chairman.  Was  not  some  of  this  money  paid  to  these  men  as 
wages  for  the  time  they  lost  when  away  from  their  work  at  the  quar- 
ries ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  They  all  worked;  all  of  these  were  there  work- 
ing at  the  polls. 

The  Chairman.  Conceding  that  they  were,  did  you  not  in  this  case 
pay  some  of  these  men  wages  for  the  time  that  they  were  away  from 
their  work  at  the  quarries  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  They  are  not  all  quarrymen.  I think  that 


856 


CHRISTIAN  C.  WELLENSGARD. 


The  Chairman.  Answer  my  question.  I said  some  of  them;  I did 
not  say  all  of  them. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  There  is  a fellow  here  by  the  name  of 

The  Chairman.  Suppose  you  allow  him  to  rest  and  answer  my 
question,  which  is:  Did  you  not  pay  some  of  these  men  wages  for  the 
time  they  were  away  from  their  work  at  the  quarries  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  No;  I do  not  think  so. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  that  the  money  was  not  paid  them 
for  that  purpose  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  They  were  paid  to  go  there  at  the  polls  and 
keep  track  of  these  fellows  working  there,  and  send  teams  after  them 
to  get  them  to  come  and  work,  to  vote  at  the  polls,  to  get  the  voters 
out. 

The  Chairman.  That  does  not  answer  my  question.  Was  not 
money  paid  to  some  of  these  men  I have  indicated  as  compensation 
or  wages  for  the  time  that  they  were  absent  from  their  work  at  the 
quarries  ? Was  it  or  was  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  No,  sir.  They  were  paid  to  come  there  and 

The  Chairman.  You  have  repeated  what  they  were  to  come  there 
for.  You  say  none  of  it  was  paid  for  that  purpose  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  No,  sir. 

Air.  Littlefield.  That  answers  the  question. 

The  Chairman.  Money  was  paid  by  you  in  cash  to  those  men? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  By  you  ? You  paid  it  personally  to  them  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I think  so,  with  the  exception  of  two  or  three. 
John  Weir  I do  not  think  was  paid  by  me. 

The  Chairman.  Steve  Greager  was  paid  by  you;  was  he  not? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Was  he  not  paid  money  in  cash  for  being  at  the 
polls,  away  from  his  work? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  He  was  paid  for  coming  there  and  seeing  that 
the  voters  got  out  of  the  fifth  ward;  and  we  had  teams,  busses,  and 
automobiles  there  that  day. 

The  Chairman.  What  does  he  do — what  work? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  He  looks  over  the  poll  fist  and  sees 

The  Chairman.  What  was  his  occupation  at  the  time,  on  election 
day? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  He  has  got  a small  farm  there;  and  he  runs  a 
thrashing  machine,  and  he  runs  a hay  press. 

The  Chairman.  And  he  left  that  work  on  that  day,  and  received 
$5  from  you  for  working  at  the  polls  ? Is  that  right  ? 

Air.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  does  Jack  Grotta  do  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Jack  Grotta  owned  a small  farm  down  near 
Sacramento.  I know  he  has  moved  to  Berlin  since;  but  whether  he 
had  moved  to  Berlin  at  that  time,  I could  not  state. 

The  Chairman.  He  left  his  work  at  home,  and  received  $5  from 
you  for  working  at  the  polls;  did  he? 

Air.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  bring  a wagon,  or  any  vehicle  in  which  to 
haul  voters? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  No,  sir;  I do  not  think  so.  That  was  for  the 
second  ward. 


CHRISTIAN  C.  WELLENSGARD. 


857 


The  Chairman.  Did  you  keep  the  Stephenson  money  separate 
from  your  own  in  the  campaign,  when  you  were  canvassing  around 
the  county? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I had  none  of  it — none  of  Stephenson’s  money 
at  that  time.  It  was  my  own  money. 

The  Chairman.  You  just  paid  these  sums  out  of  your  own  funds? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  charged  them  to  Stephenson,  and  rendered 
an  account? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  How  many  votes  did  Stephenson  receive  in  that 
county  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I do  not  remember. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  have  as  great  a majority  as  you  did? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I do  not  recollect. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  recollect  that  he  had  not? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I have  those  figures  here,  if  the  chairman  would 
like  to  have  them. 

The  Chairman.  If  you  have  the  figures  there,  just  state  them. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I will  state  the  respective  votes,  so  that  they 
can  go  right  into  the  record  now. 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Mr.  Wellensgard  had  914  out  of  a total  of  1,51  L 
Mr.  Hitchcock  had 

The  Chairman.  Suppose  you  give  only  the  Stephenson  and  Wel- 
lensgard  figures.  Let  us  not  confuse  the  matter.  Just  give  those 
two. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I should  like  to  have  the  whole  thing  go  into  the 
record.  Mr.  Stephenson  had  330  in  that  county.  I should  like  to 
have  these  figures  go  along  with  that,  if  the  chairman  please,  so  that 
they  will  all  be  right  in  the  same  place.  Mr.  Hitchcock,  the  candi- 
date in  opposition  to  Mr.  Wellensgard,  had  only  594.  The  other 
senatorial  candidates  had  as  follows:  Mr.  Hatton,  242 ; Mr.  Cook,  407 ; 
and  Mr.  McGovern,  440. 

The  Chairman.  Now  just  repeat  Mr.  Stephenson’s  vote. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  Senator  had  330,  as  against  914  for  Mr. 
Wellensgard.  Mr.  Wellensgard  had  nearly  two  to  one  as  against  the 
other  candidates. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  contribute  any  money  to  the  campaign 
fund  in  that  county? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Sixty  dollars,  I think — both  years;  both  times. 

The  Chairman.  I notice  here  that  it  is  stated  as  $50,  but  there 
may  have  been  some  other  items. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I am  satisfied  I contributed  $60. 

The  Chairman.  I was  reading  from  page  2137,  where  that  item 
occurs. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I would  not  swear  to  that  positively.  It  is 
my  recollection. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  is  that — in  the  election  ? 

The  Chairman.  No;  that  is  the  campaign  fund,  I assume,  in  the 
county.  I am  eliminating  a great  deal  of  conversation  that  does  not 


858 


CHRISTIAN  C.  WELLENSGARD. 


pertain  to  the  matter  under  consideration;  and  in  coming  to  that 
item  I merely  made  a passing  inquiry  in  regard  to  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  If  the  chairman  had  the  impression  that  that 
related  to  this  campaign,  I think  he  was  in  error.  When  I come  to 
look  on  that  page,  it  turns  out  that  he  contributed  $50;  but  it  was 
for  La  Follette’s  primary  campaign  for  President  of  the  United 
States,  which  was  apparently  a different  transaction  from  the  one 
being  investigated. 

The  Chairman.  Then  we  will  withdraw  that  testimony  and  ques- 
tion. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes.  It  should  all  be  stricken  out  of  the  record, 
then,  as  I understand  it. 

The  Chairman.  I read  the  question  and  the  answer.  I am  passing 
over  a great  deal  of  controversy  and  discussions  that  were  had,  relating 
to  extraneous  matters. 

Senator  Pomerene.  How  much  money  did  you  personally  expend 
in  this  campaign? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  In  the  primary? 

Senator  Pomerene.  Yes. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Two  hundred  and  seventy-five  dollars  and 
some  cents.  I think  that  was  the  amount. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  that  include  the  amount  of  $250  and  odd 
cents  referred  to  here,  for  which  you  received  payment  from  Senator 
Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  was  in  addition  to  the  $250  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  That  is  in  addition  to  the  $250. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Was  that  the  amount  which  you  reported? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  When  you  were  out  employing  these  men,  of 
course  you  were  looking  after  your  campaign  at  the  same  time  you 
were  looking  after  Stephenson’s? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I do  not  think  always  that  I was;  no.  I 
made  some  trips  in  the  beginning  of  the  campaign,  in  the  primary, 
for  Isaac  Stephenson,  before  I ever  did  work  for  myself. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  do  not  mean  to  say  that  you  would  go  out 
one  day  and  work  for  Stephenson  and  another  day  and  work  for 
yourself  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  No;  I do  not  mean  to  be  understood  that  way. 

Senator  Pomerene.  When  you  would  talk  to  a man  in  behalf  of 
Senator  Stephenson  you  would  always  talk  with  him  on  your  own 
behalf? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  It  is  naturally  understood;  perhaps  there  was 
something  said  about  it,  of  course;  there  naturally  would  be. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  certainly  did,  did  you  not? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  when  you  would  employ  a man  in  behalf 
of  Senator  Stephenson  you  expected  that  he  was  going  to  work  for 
you  as  well  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I might  expect  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  did,  did  you  not? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  But  I hired  men  to  do  my  work. 


CHRISTIAN  C.  WELLENSGARD. 


859 


Senator  Pomerene.  You  did  not  hire  any  one  man  for  Senator 
Stephenson  that  you  did  not  expect  to  vote  and  work  for  you,  did 
you  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Well,  I do  not  know. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Yes,  you  know  that. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I might  have  hired  men  to  work  for  me  that  I 
did  not  hire  for  Ike  Stephenson. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  did  not  employ  any  one  to  work  for  Sen- 
ator Stephenson  that  you  did  not  expect  to  work  for  you,  did  you  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Well,  not  necessarily. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Can  you  name  anyone  that  you  employed 
whom  you  expected  to  work  or  vote  for  Hitchcock,  who  was  your 
opponent  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Then  you  did  expect  hhese  men  whom  you 
employed  to  work  and  vote  for  yourself  as  well  as  for  Senator  Steph- 
enson; did  you  not? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I might  expect  it,  but  there  was  nothing  said 
about  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  when  you  arranged  to  have  these  several 
men  haul  voters  to  the  polls  you  expected  that  the  voters  that  would  be 
hauled  to  the  polls  would  vote  for  both  you  and  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  We  did  not  draw  any  lines  as  to  whom  we  drew 
to  the  polls.  There  were  men  in  Berlin  that  ran  automobiles 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  did  not  expect  any  one  who  was  hauled 
to  the  polls  to  vote  against  Senator  Stephenson,  did  you  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I have  no  way  to  know  how  they  voted. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Nor  did  you  expect  any  such  person  to  vote 
against  you  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I never  asked  them  how  they  voted. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Nor  did  you  expect  any  such  person  to  vote 
against  you  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  That  I could  not  say — how  they  voted.  We 
got  them  to  the  polls  whether  they  voted  for  one  man  or  the  other. 

Senator  Pomerene.  As  a matter  of  fact,  the  men  whom  you  em- 
ployed and  to  whom  you  paid  money  you  expected  to  vote  for  and 
support  both  you  and  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I suppose  they  did.  I do  not  know.  But 
so  far  as  who  they  were  going  to  vote  for  was  concerned,  we  did  not 
draw  any  line  in  taking  them  into  a bus  or  an  automobile  to  go  to  the 
polls. 

Senator  Pomerene.  No;  but  you  probably  understood  in  advance 
for  whom  they  were  going  to  vote,  did  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  No;  I do  not  think  that  we  knew  half  of  them. 

Senator  Pomerene.  In  answer  to  the  chairman,  you  have  raised 
some  question  about  the  correctness  of  the  dates  in  this  account. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Where  did  your  son  get  those  dates  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I gave  them  to  him  from  a memorandum  book. 

Senator  Pomerene.  From  a memorandum  book  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  had  these  dates  on  your  memorandum 
book,  did  you  not  ? 


860 


CHRISTIAN  C.  WELLENSGARD. 


Mr.  Wellensgard.  I do  not  know  whether  they  were  dated  or 
not.  I had  this  account  on  a memorandum  book. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  not  say  that  you  got  those  dates 
from  a memorandum  book  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  From  a memorandum  book;  yes,  sir;  but  I 
might  be  mistaken  in  the  date.  I think  I so  testified  in  Madison. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Why  would  you  have  wrong  dates  in  your 
memorandum  book  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I do  not  know.  Sometimes  you  might  make 
a memorandum  wrong,  or  get  the  day  of  the  month  wrong,  or  get 
the  date  wrong. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I am  not  asking  as  to  what  I might  do;  I am 
asking  you  as  to  what  you  in  fact  did  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I might  do  it.  I do  not  know  that  these 
dates  were  absolutely  correct,  and  I think  I swore  so  in  my  testimony 
at  Madison. 

Senator  Pomerene.  If  the  dates  are  not  correct,  are  the  amounts 
correct  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I think  so. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Why  would  you  swear  to  the  correctness  of 
the  amount  and  not  to  the  correctness  of  the  dates  which  you  had  in 
your  memorandum  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I would  not  swear  positively  to  a cent  in  this 
account. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I think  that  is  all. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Wellensgard,  you,  as  a member  of  the  legis- 
lature that  elected  Senator  Stephenson  in  1909,  voted  for  him  for 
United  States  Senator,  did  you  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  not  refrain  from  voting  on  any  ballot, 
did  you  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I do  not  think  so.  I think  I voted  on  every 
ballot.  I was  living  in  Madison;  I moved  to  Madison,  and  was  there 
all  the  time. 

The  Chairman.  You  made  no  statement  when  you  cast  your  vote, 
as  did  some  of  the  members  when  casting  their  votes,  did  you? 
You  ‘just  voted  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir;  I think  so. 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  true  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I think  so. 

The  Chairman.  You  remember  that  some  of  the  members  made 
a statement  in  connection  with  their  votes.  You  were  not  one  of 
those  members? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I might  have  made  the  statement  that  I was 
pledged  to  abide  by  the  primary  election.  I might  have  done  that. 
I came  out  with  a statement. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  say  you  did  come  out  with  a statement  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir;  in  three  or  four  newspapers  in  my 
county. 

The  Chairman.  I am  speaking  of  the  proceedings  in  the  legisla- 
ture. You  undoubtedly  took  that  position.  You  took  the  position 
from  the  standpoint  of  the  entire  State  and  not  the  county  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes,  sir. 


CHRISTIAN  C.  WELLENSGARD.  861 

The  Chairman.  Some  members  took  the  position  that  the  electors 
of  their  county  having  indicated  at  the  primary  their  choice  for  a 
certain  candidate,  they  would  be  governed  by  the  vote  in  the  county 
and  not  in  the  State.  Is  that  true  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I made  the  statement  to  some  of  my  constitu- 
ents— 

The  Chairman.  I am  speaking  now  only  of  statements  on  the 
floor,  I do  not  want  to  go  into  the  outside  field,  or  we  would  have  all 
the  conversation  that  took  place  that  spring. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I think  I made  the  statement  that  I agreed 
to  abide  by  the  primaries. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I suppose  the  record  will  show  whatever  was 
done  in  that  line — I mean  as  to  statements  made.  I have  not 
examined  it. 

The  Chairman.  I have  it  before  me. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Then,  of  course,  the  chairman  knows  whether 
or  not  it  does  show. 

The  Chairman.  I wanted  it  in  this  record.  I have  it  in  another 
record.  I want  this  witness’  testimony  in  regard  to  these  things 
in  the  record  that  we  are  now  making;  and  in  order  to  get  it  there 
I must  transfer  it  through  the  medium  of  the  witness. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  We  have  no  objection  to  the  whole  journal 
going  in.  I suppose  later  on  it  will  probably  go  in.  If  the  subcom- 
mittee does  not  care  for  it,  we  will  put  it  in  as  far  as  we  are  concerned. 
Why  not  have  this  statement  made — that  we  agree  that  the  certified 
copy  of  the  journal  which  is  in  the  hands  of  the  United  States  Senate 
may  be  treated  as  part  of  the  record  in  this  investigation,  without 
further  preliminaries  ? 

The  Chairman.  At  the  proper  time  we  doubtless  will  reach  that 
agreement.  We  do  not  desire  to  put  in  the  entire  journal.  It  would 
be  a useless  encumbrance  of  the  record.  My  questions  to  this  wit- 
ness are  not  so  much  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  the  fact  that  he 
made  this  statement  on  the  floor  as  for  laying  the  foundation  for  the 
questions  that  I will  later  ask  him. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  I would  say  about  that  would  be  this: 
If  from  any  point  of  view  it  be  deemed  material  to  have  it  appear 
in  this  case  as  to  what  was  said  or  done  during  the  progress  of  the 
voting,  we  should  feel  as  though  the  best  evidence  would  be  the 
evidence  that  necessarily  ought  to  be  produced;  and  if  it  were 
thought  to  be  material  we  should  want  the  whole  record  to  go  in. 
I should  not  want  to  trust  the  infirm  human  memory  upon  any  fact 
that  is  supposed  to  be  important  when  the  official  record  is  obtainable. 

The  Chairman.  I recognize  the  rule  that  the  counsel  invokes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  you  think  the  record  kept  by  the  secre- 
tary of  the  joint  session,  for  example,  would  be  the  best  evidence  of 
what  was  said  on  the  floor  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  I think  it  would  be  the  only  evidence 
that  is  of  any  consequence.  In  the  first  place,  I can  not  conceive 
how  it  is  material  at  all,  to  get  back  to  the  fundamental  proposition. 
But  assuming  now  that  there  is  a purpose  involved  in  this  hearing 
that  I do  not  now  appreciate  and  do  not  understand,  I should  say 
that  if  there  be  anything  of  an  official  character  that  is  going  to 
affect  the  integrity  of  these  proceedings,  it  would  be  very  extraor- 


862 


CHRISTIAN  0.  WELLENSGARD. 


dinary  for  conversation  between  legislators  to  be  invoked  for  the 
purpose  of  affecting  the  validity  or  the  verity  of  a legislative  record. 

I do  not  know  how  it  can  be  material. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I do  not  know  that  it  makes  any  particular 
difference  in  this  matter,  but  it  would  occur  to  me  that  the  best  evi- 
dence would  be  the  testimony  of  the  man  who  made  the  statement, 
or  those  who  heard  the  statement,  rather  than  a record  made  by 
somebody  else. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Of  course,  in  the  absence  of  appreciating  the 
significance  of  the  testimony,  I can  not  discuss  it  with  very  great 
intelligence.  I say,  my  first  proposition  is  that  I can  not  conceive 
of  any  point  of  yiew  from  which  it  can  be  admissible  at  all ; but  if  the 
legislative  proceedings  are  to  have  any  weight  here  upon  any  issue, 
it  seems  to  me  that  the  proceedings  themselves  are  the  only  evidence 
thereof.  I never  knew  the  court,  when  undertaking  to  pass  upon  the 
action  of  a legislature,  to  admit  testimony  about  conversations 
between  legislators  as  to  what  may  have  been  said  or  done  as  having 
any  relation  to  or  any  effect  upon  the  verity  of  the  proceedings. 

The  Chairman.  I can  relieve  counsel  somewhat.  The  question  is 
designed  to  develop  a subject  upon  which  the  record  is  silent,  and 
merely  to  show  that  this  witness  does  not  belong  to  the  class  that  did 
express  itself. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Of  course,  in  the  absence  of  appreciating  the  full 
significance  of  the  matter,  I assumed  that  the  chairman  had  a legiti- 
mate purpose  in  the  inquiry. 

The  Chairman.  I wanted  to  show  that  the  witness  was  not  among 
those  that  expressed  themselves  at  all. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I do  not  know  whether  counsel  understood 
me,  and  I do  not  know  whether  or  not  the  testimony  as  to  what  was 
said  by  any  member  of  the  legislature  is  material.  But  if  it  be 
material,  it  occurs  to  me  that  the  testimony  of  the  man  who  said  it 
would  be  better  evidence  than  the  record  of  it,  unless  some  law 
exists  which  requires  the  record  to  be  kept  and  makes  it  evidence. 
For  example,  take  the  case  of  a witness  who  has  testified  upon  the 
stand:  The  best  evidence  is  the  testimony  of  the  witness  himself, 
or  that  of  somebody  who  heard  him.  A report  made  by  somebody 
else,  unless  official  and  made  evidence  by  statute,  would  be  hearsay. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  All  I can  say  about  that,  Senator,  is  simply  this: 
I doubt  very  much  whether  we  would  disagree  as  to  what  were  the . 
ultimate  rules  of  law;  and  in  the  absence  of  knowing  the  special 
significance  of  the  evidence  I can  not  express  a very  intelligent 
opinion  as  to  whether  or  not,  in  my  judgment,  that  is  a proper  way 
of  getting  at  it. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I thought  you  were  objecting.  Perhaps  I 
misunderstood  you. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I was  objecting.  I was  suggesting  this 

Senator  Sutherland.  Let  me  state  what  I have  in  my  mind. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I thought  you  were  objecting  to  this  wit- 
ness testifying  as  to  what  he  said  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate,  upon  the 
ground  that  the  official  record  of  the  proceedings  there  was  better 
evidence  than  his  statement. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  In  connection  with  that — of  course  the  Senator 
will  bear  with  me — I was  assuming  that  in  some  way  the  evidence 


CHRISTIAN  C.  WELLENSGARD. 


863 


was  intended  to  affect  the  verity  of  the  legislative  result.  That  was 
the  hypothesis  upon  which  I proceeded.  I am  probably  entirely 
wrong;  and  if  I am  wrong  in  my  premises  my  conclusions  are  equally 
wrong.  From  a false  premise  we  get  a false  conclusion. 

The  Chairman.  I was  merely  developing  a fact  upon  which  the 
record  is  silent;  that  is  all.  The  witness  did  not  make  any  statement, 
and  it  was  not  sought  to  prove  that  he  did.  But  as  a preliminary 
to  the  question  to  follow,  I desired  to  ask  whether  or  not  he  did  make 
a statement.  The  fact  is  that  he  was  silent. 

Mr.  Black.  In  connection  with  Senator  Sutherland’s  inquiry, 
I should  like  to  call  the  attention  of  the  subcommittee  to  section  10 
of  the  constitution  of  Wisconsin,  which  requires  each  house  to  keep 
a journal  of  its  proceedings  and  publish  the  same,  except  such  parts 
as  require  secrecy.  Section  4135  of  the  Revised  Statutes  of  1898 
of  Wisconsin  provides  that — 

the  printed  copies  of  all  statutes,  acts,  and  resolves  of  this  State,  whether  of  a public 
or  private  nature,  * * * and  the  journals  of  the  senate  and  assembly,  kept  by 
the  clerks  of  said  houses,  respectively,  as  provided  by  law,  and  deposited  in  the  office 
of  the  secretary  of  state,  including  the  printed  journals  of  the  previous  legislatures 
there  deposited,  shall  be  admitted  in  all  courts  and  places  as  sufficient  evidence  of  the 
proceedings  of  the  said  houses  of  the  legislature;  and  the  printed  journals  of  said  houses, 
respectively,  published  by  authority  of  law,  shall  be  prima  facie  evidence  of  such 
proceedings. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is  quite  true.  The  journal  would  be 
the  best  evidence  of  what  the  legislature  did.  But  I do  not  think 
it  would  be  the  best  evidence  of  what  some  member  may  have  said 
in  the  course  of  a debate  upon  the  floor  of  the  senate,  because  I do  not 
think  a record  is  kept  under  the  law  of  what  everybody  says  on  the 
floor  of  the  legislature — that  is,  not  an  official  record. 

The  Chairman.  It  would  require  an  act  of  the  legislature  to  make 
the  stenographer’s  notes  evidence  of  what  occurred.  We  have  in 
our  State  a statute  which  declares  that  the  notes  of  the  official 
stenographer  shall  have  the  status  of  the  notes  of  the  court.  In  old 
times,  in  my  early  practice  of  the  law,  the  judge  made  the  notes,  and 
those  notes  were  of  certain  binding  force.  Since  stenographers  came 
into  general  use  in  the  courts,  the  statutes  have  provided  that  the 
notes  of  the  official  stenographer  shall  constitute  the  minutes  of  the 
court.  The  minutes  of  the  court  have  a legal  significance  about 
which  there  is  no  uncertainty.  They  have  a status  in  making  up 
bills  of  exceptions.  The  minutes  of  the  court  were  the  minutes 
made  by  the  judge  at  the  time  of  the  trial.  If  the  legislature  had 
provided  for  a record  of  the  proceedings  to  have  the  same  force  and 
effect  as  the  minutes  of  a court,  we  would  appeal  to  that  record. 
But  the  mere  keeping  of  a journal  is  not  equivalent  to  reporting  the 
proceedings  of  a body. 

We  are  devoting  a great  deal  of  time  to  a question  which  is  not  very 
material,  except  as  a preliminary  question  to  a subject  about  which 
I desire  to  inquire  of  this  member  of  the  legislature. 

I had  intended  to  keep  the  proceedings  in  the  legislature  entirely 
separate,  and  not  to  call  witnesses  as  to  those  proceedings  until  after 
we  had  completed  the  investigation  into  the  primaries.  But  I want 
to  ask  this  witness  a question  in  regard  to  the  proceedings  of  the 
legislature  on  the  day  of  the  ballot  in  joint  session  at  which  Senator 
Stephenson  was  elected. 


864 


CHRISTIAN  C.  WELLENSGARD. 


Mr.  Littlefield.  The  chairman’s  question,  I take  it,  is  directed 
to  the  4th  of  March  ? 

The  Chairman.  It  is  directed  to  that  date — the  day  of  the  vote 
in  the  joint  session  of  the  legislature  at  which  Senator  Stephenson 
was  elected. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Of  course,  the  question  as  to  when  the  election 
actually  took  place  has  been  a matter  of  very  active  discuesion. 

The  Chairman.  There  was  only  one  joint  session  of  the  legislature. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  There  is  a vigorous  difference  of  opinion  in 
regard  to  it;  and  I merely  make  this  suggestion  so  that  the  witness 
will  have  it  clear  in  his  mind. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  is  purely  a legal  question. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  but  it  has  been  discussed  a great  deal. 

The  Chairman.  There  was  no  joint  session  of  the  legislature  at  the 
time  to  which  counsel  refers.  There  was  a separate  vote  in  the 
separate  houses. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  I am  referring  this  witness  to  the  vote  in  the  joint 
session. 

Mr.  Wellensgard,  did  you  hear  any  member  of  the  legislature  say, 
upon  the  floor  of  the  hall  in  which  the  joint  session  was  held,  that  he 
had  received  money  either  to  vote  for  Senator  Stephenson,  or  as  a 
gift,  or  to  use  in  the  primary  or  general  election,  or  otherwise  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  not? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I never  heard  any  such  statement. 

The  Chairman.  You  heard  of  it  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I heard  several  rumors  or  statements. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  heard  it  sworn  to,  have  you  not?  I am 
referring  now  to  page  552  of  the  volume  entitled  “Senate  Journal.” 
There  are  two  volumes  here  denominated  “Senate  Journal,  ” and  they 
are  entirely  distinct  from  the  volumes  known  as  The  Senatorial 
Primary  Investigation  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin.  I am  asking  this 
witness  if  he  heard  of  that  statement. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Let  me  be  advised,  Mr.  Chairman,  as  to  the 
situation:  Is  it  the  chairman’s  understanding  that  the  testimony 
which  is  contained  in  the  volume  entitled  “Senate  Journal,”  which  I 
hold  in  my  hand — volume  2,  part  1 — was  taken  in  an  open  session  of 
the  senate  ? 

The  Chairman.  I do  not  think  I have  any  understanding  on  that 
question.  This  is  certified  to  by  the  governor  of  the  State.  That  is 
the  primary  basis  of  this  investigation. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  question  of  the  chairman,  as  I understood 
it,  was  whether  the  witness  had  heard  some  man  in  the  senate  make 
this  statement. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  not  the  question  at  all.  It  was  whether 
he  heard  the  statement  made  in  the  joint  session  of  the  legislature. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I do  not  understand  that  this  purports  to  be  a 
record  of  anything  that  took  place  in  a joint  session  or  in  a separate 
session. 

The  Chairman.  That  would  not  affect  the  significance  of  the  ques- 
tion. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I should  like  to  appreciate  the  significance  of  the 
question  myself.  As  I understand  it  this  testimony  was  taken  before 


CHRISTIAN  C.  WELLENSGARD. 


865 


a separate  investigating  committee  consisting  of  three  senate  mem- 
bers. 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  and  it  was  certified  to  the  United  States 
Senate  as  a basis,  in  part,  for  the  investigation. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Then  there  is  no  misunderstanding  between 
myself  and  the  chairman. 

The  Chairman.  I am  asking  this  witness,  who  was  present  and 
participating  officially  in  the  proceedings  on  that  day,  if  he  heard  that 
statement. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  I understand. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Wellensgard,  did  you  hear  Senator  Lyons  say 
on  the  floor  of  the  assembly  that  he  had  $100  “ to  be  good  ” ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Black.  Mr.  Chairman,  I think  you  must  misunderstand  the 
situation.  That  statement  of  Senator  Lyons  was  not  made  on  the 
floor  of  the  assembly. 

The  Chairman.  I am  reading  from  the  text. 

Mr.  Black.  Very  true;  but  that  was  testimony  that  was  taken 
before  a senate  committee  in  a separate  room. 

The  Chairman.  I quite  understand  that.  This  witness  knows 
whether  he  heard  him  make  that  statement.  That  is  all  I am 
inquiring  about. 

Mr.  Black.  I was  under  the  impression  that  the  chairman  thought 
this  testimony  was  taken  in  the  assembly. 

The  Chairman.  I am  inquiring  whether  this  witness  heard  that 
statement  made.  If  he  did  not  hear  it,  no  harm  is  done.  I am  antici- 
pating certain  testimony  that  presumably  will  be  given  by  the  witness 
who  testified  at  this  hearing. 

Mr.  Wellensgard,  you  say  you  did  not  at  any  time  hear  Senator 
Lyons  say  on  the  floor  of  the  assembly  that  he  had  $100  ‘ ‘to  be  good”  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  The  meeting  of  the  joint  session  was  in  the  hall  of 
the  house  of  representatives? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  I will  now  ask  you  where  you  sat  in  the  house  with 
reference  to  Senator  Lyons’s  seat  during  the  joint  session? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I do  not  know  where  Senator  Lyons  sat.  I sat 
in  my  seat. 

The  Chairman.  I assume  you  did.  You  say  you  do  not  know 
where  Senator  Lyons  was  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  No.  The  senate  was  generally  over  to  the 
left  from  where  I was  sitting. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  of  three  members  having  absented 
themselves  at  the  time  the  ballot  was  taken  upon  which  Senator 
Stephenson  was  elected? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Not  at  the  time  the  ballot  was  taken.  I under- 
stood they  were  not  there  at  roll  call. 

The  Chairman.  I am  asking  you  merely  for  the  fact  as  to  whether 
you  know  about  it. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  No. 

The  Chairman.  Then  you  do  not  know  about  it  and  you  need  not 
attempt  to  testify. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  No,  sir;  I do  not  know  the  least  thing  about  it. 

15235°— vol  1—11 55 


866 


CHRISTIAN  C.  WELLENSGARD. 


The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  anything  in  regard  to  a charge  that 
$1,500  was  paid  to  three  members  of  the  legislature  to  absent  them- 
selves on  the  day  on  which  the  vote  was  taken  that  elected  Senator 
Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  never  heard  of  the  charge? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I have  heard  it,  or  read  it  in  the  newspapers. 

The  Chairman.  You  never  heard  of  it  elsewhere? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Why,  it  might  have  been  discussed  and  T 
overheard  it  somewhere  in  the  capitol. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  not  hear  it  in  the  halls  of  the  legislature  ? 
Did  you  not  hear  the  statement  made  on  the  floor  charging  that  $1,500 
had  been  paid  to  procure  the  absence  of  three  members  of  the  legis- 
lature at  that  time  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I might  have  heard  it,  but  I do  not  know  any- 
thing about  the  circumstances. 

The  Chairman.  I want  your  recollection  of  whether  you  heard  it 
stated  by  any  member  in  a speech  on  the  floor? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  In  a public  statement. 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I do  not  remember  that  I did,  but  still,  F 
might.  I can  not  recall  it. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  remember  Mr.  Domachowski,  a member  of 
the  legislature  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes;  I know  him. 

The  Chairman.  In  the  halls  of  the  legislature,  where  you  served, 
did  you  hear  that  this  member,  Mr.  Domachowski,  had  said  that 
$1,500  had  been  offered  to  him  to  absent  himself  at  the  time  the 
ballot  was  taken  upon  which  Senator  Stephenson  was  elected  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  No;  I did  not  hear  him  say  that. 

The  Chairman.  If  you  name  should  be  hereafter  connected  with 
that  statement  would  you  then  have  anything  further  to  say  in 
regard  to  it  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I have  never  heard  him  say  that. 

The  Chairman.  You  never  heard  it? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I did  not  hear  him  state  it. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  not  hear  it  stated  on  the  floor  that  this 
had  occurred? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I might  have  heard  rumors  around. 

The  Chairman.  If  some  of  your  fellow  members  should  make  a 
charge  on  the  floor  that  the  sum  of  $1,500  had  been  offered  to  a mem- 
ber to  absent  himself,  do  you  not  think  you  would  have  heard  of  it  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes;  I heard  of  it,  but  I do  not  remember 
that  I heard  it  on  the  floor.  I might  have  been  out  in  some  com- 
mittee room. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  you  might  have  heard  it.  Did  you 
hear  it  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  No;  I have  no  recollection. 

The  Chairman.  You  can  shed  no  light  on  that  question  now? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Not  that  I heard  it  on  the  floor.  I certainly 
know  that  he  never  made  that  assertion  to  me. 

The  Chairman.  I was  not  confining  it  to  assertions  made  to  you. 

was  inquiring  about  assertions  being  made  upon  the  floor  within 

ur  hearing. 


CHRISTIAN  C.  WELLENSGARD.  867 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I was  in  the  session,  but  I could  not  say  where 
I heard  it. 

The  Chairman.  Tell  us  what  you  know  about  it. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I have  no  recollection. 

The  Chairman.  No  recollection  at  all  ? 

Mr „ Wellensgard.  No;  only  rumors. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I make  a suggestion  here  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  It  seems  to  me  that  this  is  very  clearly  hearsay 
testimony.  I have  no  objection  to  the  chairman  probing  the  recol- 
lection of  the  witness ; but  I think  the  record  ought  not  to  be  filled 
up  with  hearsay  testimony. 

The  Chairman.  I have  seen  fit  at  this  time  to  anticipate  the  testi- 
mony of  other  witnesses,  so  as  to  know  whether  or  not  I should 
want  to  keep  this  witness  in  attendance. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Even  so,  I do  not  see  how  hearsay  testimony 
should  come  in  after  that  fact  was  developed. 

The  Chairman.  Testimony  in  regard  to  statements  made  upon 
the  floor  of  a legislative  body,  made  by  a member  thereof  in  the 
presence  of  other  members,  is  not  hearsay  testimony  when  drawn 
from  the  member  who  heard  it.  It  is  the  only  evidence  you  can 
have,  in  the  absence  of  a report  of  the  proceedings  officially  made 
and  provided  for.  If  this  member  of  the  legislature  heard  another  mem- 
ber state  in  his  official  capacity,  while  in  a session  of  the  legislature, 
that  he  had  been  approached  and  offered  $1,500,  it  would  be  entirely 
coimietent  to  prove  it  by  the  testimony  of  the  member  who  heard  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Then  the  chairman  holds  that  a statement  of 
that  kind,  made  under  those  circumstances,  is  not  hearsay  ? 

The  Chairman.  It  is  not  hearsay.  That  is,  you  may  denominate 
it  hearsay,  technically,  but  it  is  not  testimony  that  would  be  prohib- 
ited under  the  rule  that  prohibits  hearsay  testimony,  because  it  is 
the  only  evidence  that  can  be  had  on  the  question. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I was  not  aware  that  the  exclusion  or  the  admis- 
sion of  hearsay  evidence  depended  on  the  question  of  whether  or 
not  that  be  the  only  evidence  that  could  be  found.  I had  supposed 
hearsay  testimony  was  hearsay  testimony,  irrespective  of  the  exi- 
gency of  the  case.  My  position  is  that  there  is  no  exigency  that  can 
transmute  what  would  be  hearsay  testimony  into  competent  testi- 
mony. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  an  accurate  technical  statement;  but  such 
testimony  is  not  prohibited  as  hearsay  testimony.  It  is  competent 
to  receive  evidence  of  statements  made  officially  by  officials  in  the 
presence  of  other  officials,  unless  there  be  a law  requiring  a record  to 
be  made  of  the  statement,  and  that  that  record  shall  be  evidence. 
In  this  case  there  is  no  such  law  and  no  such  record. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Mr.  Chairman,  I desire  to  place  on  the  record 
our  earnest  protest  against  the  admission  of  anything  that  can  be 
legally  denominated  hearsay  testimony. 

The  Chairman.  The  objection  will  be  noted. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Especially  applying  it  to  testimony  of  this  char- 
acter. I wish  to  have  the  record  show  that  we  very  respectfully 
and  very  earnestly  protest  against  the  committee  allowing  any  hear- 
say testimony  in  the  case. 


868 


CHRISTIAN  C.  WELLENSGARD. 


The  Chairman.  An  opportunity  will  be  given  to  the  witnesses  to 
testify  as  to  statements  made  upon  the  floor  by  fellow-members  in 
regard  to  their  having  been  approached  with  bribes  or  offers  of  cor- 
ruption. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I still  maintain  the  legal  proposition  that  that 
testimony  is  clearly  hearsay;  and  I desire  to  continue  my  respectful 
and  earnest  protest  against  its  admission. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  desire  to  examine  this  witness  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Oh,  yes.  Is  the  chairman  through  with  him  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Mr.  Wellensgard,  state  a little  more  fully  to  the 
committee  the  character  of  business  in  which  you  were  engaged  in 
1908.  Were  you  connected  with  the  Berlin  Canning  & Pickling  Co.  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  that  a company  that  does  canning  and  pick- 
ling in  }Tour  vicinity  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  We  do  not  do  any  canning  now.  We  pickle 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How”  large,  relatively,  is  the  business  that  it 
does  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  We  have  put  up  all  the  way  from  3,000  to 
30,000  a year. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  would  be  the  business  of  the  company 
annually  in  dollars  and  cents  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  It  would  depend  on  the  volume  of  goods  that 
we  sold. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Say  30,000.  What  would  that  be  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  We  are  paying  50  cents  a bushel  or  a dollar  a 
hundred  for  them,  for  the  smaller  ones,  or  what  we  call  the  vat  run. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I do  not  want  to  go  into  this  in  detail,  but  sim- 
ply want  to  get  the  character  of  the  business  in  which  you  are 
engaged,  and  your  general  situation  as  to  the  business.  What  would 
that  aggregate  for  the  annual  output  in  round  numbers  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I should  say  all  the  way  from  $1,500  to 
$15,000. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  interest  have  you  in  the  company  ? 

ML  Wellensgard.  I am  at  the  present  time  practically  the  sole 
owner  of  it;  the  family  is. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Were  you  then  a very  large  owner  in  it  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  At  what  time? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  1908  and  1909. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I still  owned  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  is  the  purpose  of  this  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I simply  want  to  show  the  character  of  the  busi- 
ness in  which  Mr.  Wellensgard  is  engaged. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Has  he  not  gone  far  enough  to  show  the 
character  of  his  business  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  As  far  as  that  is  concerned,  I also  want  to  show 
about  these  farms.  I am  going  to  show,  and  try  to  have  the  record 
show,  that  there  is  not  any  very  great  probability  that  a man  of  his 
position  would  be  in  any  way  influenced  by  the  $250.80  that  he 
received  in  connection  with  this  campaign  so  far  as  his  vote  is  con- 
cerned. I was  not  intending  to  disclose  my  purpose  to  the  witness; 
but  that  is  what  the  purpose  is.  Does  the  Senator  get  my  idea  ? 


CHRISTIAN  C.  WELLENSGARD. 


869 


Senator  Pomerene.  Oh,  yes;  but  I do  not  see  that  it  has  very 
much  weight. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  may  be  true.  We  can  not  tell  how  it  may 
impress  other  men  who  may  have  to  pass  on  this.  I do  not  know 
what  significance  may  be  attached  to  it. 

Were  you  the  owner  of  a number  of  farms  in  that  vicinity? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  many  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I think  I have  somewhere  in  the  neighborhood 
of  700  acres,  or  lacking  a few  acres  of  that  number. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Roughly  stated,  what  are  their  values? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  All  the  way  from  $5  to  $150  an  acre — or  it 
was  at  that  time. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  this  $250.80  that  you  received  from  the 
managers  of  the  Stephenson  campaign  have  any  effect  upon  the  vote 
that  you  afterwards  cast  for  Senator? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Will  you  be  kind  enough  to  state  to  the  com- 
mittee what  your  vote  would  have  been  if  you  had  not  received  any- 
thing from  the  Senator  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  It  would  have  been  the  same.  If  Senator 
Stephenson  had  not  got  the  majority,  I should  have  voted  for  the  other 
man — whoever  got  the  votes  in  the  primaries. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  were  publicly  pledged,  as  I understand  it, 
to  stand  by  the  result  of  the  primary? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  ttt  ' 1 1 standing,  direct  or  indirect, 


received  was  in  any  way  to  affect  your  action  in  connection  with 
the  senatorial  election  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I notice  that  there  are  nine  items  entered  under 
the  date  of  September  3.  Without  going  into  each  of  them  in  detail, 
state  whether  it  is  your  recollection  that  those  nine  items  that 
appear  under  date  of  September  3 were  or  were  not  all  disbursed  by 
you  on  that  day. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I would  not  say  all,  but  I think  some  of  them 
were  disbursed  before  that  day.  As  I have  stated  before,  I do  not 
think  the  date  there  is  exactly  correct.  These  items  were  all  dis- 
bursed by  me.  There  may  be  one  or  two  of  them  that  are  not;  but 
so  far  as  the  date  is  concerned,  I would  not  be  sure. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Under  date  of  September  2 there  are  13  items 
which  would  appear  by  the  statement  to  have  been  disbursed  upon 
the  2d  of  September. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I do  not  think  they  were.  I think  some  of 
them  were  paid  a few  days  before,  or  some  time  before.  As  to  the 
dates,  I would  not  be  positive. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  So  far  as  you  are  able  to  state,  were  any  of  the 
services  that  were  rendered  for  the  money  that  you  have  shown  in 
this  statement  as  being  disbursed  in  the  interest  of  Senator  Stephen- 
son’s candidacy,  services  rendered  in  your  interest  in  your  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I do  not  think  so.  They  may  have  voted  for 
both  of  us,  and  then  just  for  one  of  us. 


or  any  intimation 


sum  of  $250.80  that  you 


870 


CHRISTIAN  C.  WELLENSGARD. 


Mr.  Littlefield.  What  I want  to  get  at  is  this:  You  made  up 
this  statement  shortly  after  the  primary  election  day? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  whether  or  not  at  that  time  you  made 
the  statement  according  to  your  best  judgment  of  the  disbursements 
you  had  made  that  were  in  the  Senator’s  sole  interest,  as  distinguished 
from  your  own. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I did. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  mean  that  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I mean  I made  it  out  with  that  intention — to 
make  it  as  fair  and  distinct  as  I possibly  could. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  have  any  conversation  with  Mr.  Sacket 
before  you  rendered  any  active  service  in  Senator  Stephenson’s 
campaign  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That,  then,  must  have  been  some  time  prior  to 
July  5,  which  was  the  date  of  the  first  item  you  have  charged  here, 
for  livery  to  Princeton. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Sometime  in  the  latter  part  of  June. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  At  the  time  that  Mr.  Sac&et  had  the  conversa- 
tion with  you,  had  you  or  had  you  not  announced  to  anyone  your 
intention  of  being  a candidate  in  the  coming  primary  for  election  to 
the  legislature? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  There  might  have  been  talk  that  I was  running. 
I had  not  come  out  and  announced  myself.  I might  in  general 
conversation  have  announced  myself— that  I might  be  a candidate; 
but  I had  not  made  up  my  mind  for  certain. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Had  you  indicated  that  in  any  conversation  you 
had  with  Mr.  Sacket,  so  far  as  you  remember? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  I do  not  think  so.  I do  not  think  I did.  I 
had  been  approached  sometime  during  the  summer  by  some  of  my 
constituents  to  become  a candidate,  but  I had  not  determined 
whether  I would  or  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Are  we  to  understand,  then,  that  so  far  as  you 
know  Mr.  Sacket  had  no  knowledge  at  the  time  you  had  the  conversa- 
tion with  him  as  to  whether  or  not  you  were  then  intending  to  be  a 
candidate  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  He  had  not,  so  far  as  I know. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  expend  any  money  in  the  interest  of 
Senator  Stevenson’s  campaign  for  the  purpose  of  bribing  or  cor- 
ruptly influencing  any  electors  in  the  primary  election? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Either  directly  or  indirectly  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  any  of  these  gentlemen  whom  you  employed, 
whom  you  paid,  and  about  whom  you  have  testified,  expend  any 
money,  to  your  knowledge,  in  bribing  or  corruptly  influencing 
electors  in  the  interest  of  Senator  Stephenson  in  that  primary  election  ? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  whether  you  are  able  to  state  positively 
that  the  total  sum  of  $250.80,  an  account  of  which  you  rendered  to 
Mr.  Sacket,  was  or  was  not  paid  in  the  interest  of  the  Senator’s 
campaign. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Paid  by  me? 


CHARLES  S.  FRENCH. 


871 


Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  It  was. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  it  or  was  it  not  paid  for  that  purpose? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  all. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  excused. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Just  one  question:  You  have  shown  to  the 
committee  two  receipts  that  you  took  on,  perhaps,  October  5. 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  take  any  other  receipts  about  that 
time? 

Mr.  Wellensgard.  No. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  is  all. 

TESTIMONY  OF  CHARLES  S.  FRENCH. 

Charles  S.  French,  having  been  previously  duly  sworn,  was  ex- 
amined and  testified  as  follows: 

The  Chairman.  Where  do  you  reside  ? 

Mr.  French.  Lake  Geneva,  Wis. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  your  business  ? 

Mr.  French.  I am  an  attorney. 

The  Chairman.  How  long  have  you  been  practicing  your  pro- 
fession in  Wisconsin  ? 

Mr.  French.  Since  1879. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  support  Senator  Stephenson  for  nomina- 
tion as  United  States  Senator  in  1908? 

Mr.  French.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  receive  money  from  Senator  Stephenson 
or  anyone  acting  for  him,  for  supporting  him  at  that  time  ? 

Mr.  French.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  you  did  not  receive  any  money? 

Mr.  French.  Not  for  supporting  him.  Perhaps  I did  not  quite 
understand  the  question. 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  that  was  the  question.  Did  you  receive 
money  from  Senator  Stephenson,  or  his  campaign  managers,  at  all  ? 
Mr.  French.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose? 

Mr.  French.  For  the  purpose  of  expending  it  in  his  campaign  in 
Walworth  and  Kenosha  Counties. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  expend  it  ? 

Mr.  French.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  an  account  of  those  expenditures  ? 

Mr.  French.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  make  an  account  of  them  ? 

Mr.  French.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  received  that  money  on  August  18,  did  you 
not? 

Mr.  French.  About  that  time. 

The  Chairman.  $800  ? 

Mr.  French.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  You  received  that  from  Mr.  Edmonds  ? 

Mr.  French.  Yes. 


872 


CHARLES  S.  FRENCH. 


The  Chairman.  Did  you  receive  any  money  during  that  campaign 
from  anyone  to  support  any  other  person  ? 

Mr.  French.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Was  that  the  only  campaign  money  that  you  had 
during  the  primary  campaign  ? 

Mr.  French.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  devote  your  time  to  campaigning  for 
Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  French.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  kind  of  work  did  you  do  ? 

Mr.  French.  I visited  every  town  and  village  or  city  in  the  two 
counties,  and  in  some  instances  I visited  them  more  than  once. 

The  Chairman.  You  took  part  in  the  legislative  campaign  also, 
did  you  not  ? 

Mr.  French.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  said,  on  a former  examination,  that  it  was 
necessary  to  expend  money  in  the  campaign  in  the  interest  of  Senator 
Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  French.  I believe  so. 

The  Chairman.  What  constituted  that  necessity  ? 

Mr.  French.  In  our  two  counties  there  was  such  an  indifference 
among  the  people  that  I knew,  that  it  needed  somebody  to  stir  them 
up  and  get  them  to  promise  to  come  to  the  primary  and  bring  some- 
body else. 

The  Chairman.  Is  it  a farming  community  ? 

Mr.  French.  To  a large  extent;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  When  you  say  “ indifference,”  you  mean  they  did 
not  care  who  was  elected  United  States  Senator  ? 

Mr.  French.  Yes;  they  cared,  but  they  did  not  think  the  votes 
were  going  to  be  enough  to  make  much  difference. 

The  Chairman.  Each  man  thought  his  vote  would  not  make  much 
difference;  was  that  it? 

Mr.  French.  As  nearly  as  I can  express  it;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  of  that  $800  did  you  pay  out  to  others 
for  their  work  ? 

Mr.  French.  All  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  not  keep  any  for  your  own  compensation 
at  all  ? 

Mr.  French.  For  that,  and  for  expenses. 

The  Chairman.  You  paid  your  own  expenses  out  of  it  ? 

Mr.  French.  I paid  my  own  expenses  out  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  did  your  expenses  amount  to  ? 

Mr.  French.  That  will  have  to  be  an  estimate.  There  was  the 
car;  and  usually  from  three  to  four  with  me  all  the  while. 

The  Chairman.  An  automobile  ? 

Mr.  French.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Was  it  your  own  automobile,  or  did  you  hire  it  ? 

Mr.  French.  It  was  mine. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  took  others  along  with  you  to  assist  in 
creating  a sentiment  in  favor  of  Senator  Stephenson,  did  you  ? 

Mr.  French.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  In  what  manner  did  you  create  that  sentiment  ? 
How  did  you  go  about  creating  that  sentiment  ? 

Mr.  French.  I do  not  know  that  I did.  I tried  to. 


CHARLES  S.  FRENCH. 


873 


I would  go  to  a town,  and  I usually  had  an  acquaintance  with  me 
who  knew  two  or  three  prominent  men  in  that  town.  We  would  go 
and  visit  these  men,  and  have  these  men  direct  us  to  other  men  about 
the  town  whom  we  would  go  to  see. 

The  Chairman.  When  you  visited  them,  did  you  just  talk  and  argue 
with  them  in  favor  of  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  French.  I did  not  have  to  do  that.  They  were  all  Stephenson 
men. 

The  Chairman.  You  only  visited  Stephenson  men  ? 

Mr.  French.  That  is  all;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  expend  any  of  this  money  for  treats  ? 

Mr.  French.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Cigars  or  liquor? 

Mr.  French.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  of  it? 

Mr.  French.  I can  not  tell. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  approximate  it? 

Mr.  French.  I do  not  believe  I can. 

The  Chairman.  Three  hundred  dollars  ? 

Mr.  French.  Oh,  no. 

The  Chairman.  One  hundred  dollars  ? 

Mr.  French.  I do  not  believe  so. 

The  Chairman.  Approximating  a hundred  dollars? 

Mr.  French.  I do  not  believe  so. 

The  Chairman.  Where  did  you  spend  any  money  for  treating  to 
whisky  or  cigars  ? 

Mr.  French.  You  mean  the  locality? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  French.  Genoa  Junction. 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  a town? 

Mr.  French.  Yes;  Powers  Lake  and  Twin  Lakes. 

The  Chairman.  Let  us  stop  at  Powers  Lake  a minute.  How  long 
did  you  stop  there? 

Mr.  French.  On  two  or  three  occasions. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  spend  money  for  whisky  and  cigars  there  ? 

Mr.  French.  I do  not  know  that  I did ; but  I presume  I did. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  name  some  place  where  you  know  you 
did  spend  money  for  that  purpose  ? 

Mr.  French.  Yes.  I can  not  name  the  location;  but  it  is  a place 
about  six  miles  from  Kenosha,  near  Truesdell.  It  has  no  name 
except  Truesdell,  perhaps. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  do  you  think  you  spent  there  ? 

Mr.  French.  On  the  different  occasions  I was  there,  probably 
somewhere  near  $10. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  in  your  former  testimony  you  gave  a 
man  named  Edwards  $30. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  To  what  page  are  you  referring,  Air.  Chairman? 

The  Chairman.  Page  2401.  The  first  page  in  the  third  volume. 

For  what  purpose  did  you  pay  Mr.  Edwards  $30  ? 

Mr.  French.  For  devoting  time  to  talking  in  Mr.  Stephenson's 
interest  and  procuring  some  workers  at  the  polls  who  would  direct 
the  attention  of  the  voters  to  Mr.  Stephenson's  claims. 


874 


CHARLES  S.  FRENCH. 


The  Chairman.  You  say  you  spent  more  than  $30  with  the  ice 
house  employees  ? 

Mr.  French.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  How  did  you  spend  that  ? 

Mr.  French.  There  were  several  ice  houses  there,  and  I got  infor- 
mation, the  best  I could,  as  to  the  most  available  man  who  would 
visit  his  fellow  employees  and  see  that  they  would  go  to  the  polls 
and  vote  on  primary  election  day;  and  to  press  Mr.  Stephenson’s 
candidacy. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  accounted  for  about  $35  oi  $40  out  of 
$800.  Is  that  the  nearest  you  can  come  to  accounting  for  the  money 
that  you  expended  in  that  campaign? 

Mr.  French.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Account  for  some  more,  then. 

Mr.  French.  I spent  about  $10  or  $15  in  each  of  the  precincts, 
I think,  except  four. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  many  precincts  are  there? 

Mr.  French.  I think  there  are  51  in  the  two  counties.  I may  be 
wrong  about  that. 

The  Chairman.  Why  was  it  necessary  to  spend  $800  in  Walworth 
and  Kenosha  Counties  ? 

Mr.  French.  Because  of  the  competition. 

The  Chairman.  How  many  votes  did  Senator  Stephenson  receive 
in  those  counties  ? Have  you  your  book  there  ? 

Mr.  French.  I can  not  tell  you. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  We  have  it  here.  We  will  give  it  to  you. 

Mr.  Black.  Do  you  wish  me  to  state  it? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  if  you  have  it. 

Mr.  Black.  875  in  Kenosha. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Out  of  how  many  altogether? 

Mr.  Black.  I have  just  the  Stephenson  figures.  I have  not  the 
entire  number. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I will  have  it  for  you  in  just  a moment,  Senator. 

Senator  Stephenson  had  1,010 ; Mr.  McGovern  had  662 ; Mr.  Hatton 
had  683;  and  Mr.  Cook  had  1,047. 

Mr.  Black.  That  is  in  Walworth  County. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Senator  Stephenson  had  a plurality  of  that 
county  ? < 

Mr.  Littlefield.  No;  not  in  Walworth  County.  Mr.  Cook  had 
a plurality.  Cook  had  1,047  and  Stephenson  only  1,010. 

Senator  Pomerene.  In  Kenosha  County  there  were  2,290  votes; 
Stephenson  received  875;  McGovern  802,  Hatton  184,  and  Cook  428. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  He  didTiave  a plurality  in  Kenosha  County. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  render  any  account  to  any  one  for  the 
expenditure  you  had  made  ? 

Mr.  French.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  keep  an  account? 

Mr.  French.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  not  have  any  memorandum  at  all,  or 
destroy  any  in  regard  to  it  ? 

Mr.  French.  No,  sir. 


CHARLES  S.  FRENCH. 


875 


The  Chairman.  If  you  had  a client,  who  employed  you  to  attend 
to  his  business,  and  gave  you  expense  money,  would  you  feel  that 
you  were  treating  him  fairly  to  keep  no  account  of  the  mannei  of  the 
expenditure  ? 

Mr.  French.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  difference  is  there  in  the  rule  obtaining  with 
you  in  the  performance  of  legal  services  for  which  you  are  paid  and  in 
the  performance  of  political  services  for  which  you  are  paid  ? 

Mr.  French.  I can  not  say  that  there  is  a difference. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  think  there  should  be  any  difference? 

Mr.  French.  No;  I do  not. 

The  Chairman.  You  think  you  should  have  kept  an  accurate 
account  of  these  expenditures? 

Mr.  French.  Yes;  Ido. 

The  Chairman.  In  the  interest  of  good  political  morals? 

Mr.  French.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  not  think  about  it  at  the  time? 

Mr.  French.  Oh,  no.  I did  not  think  anything  about  it  then. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  pay  any  of  this  money  for  newspaper 
advertising  ? 

Mr.  French.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Can  you  give  us  any  more  complete  state- 
ment as  to  the  persons  to  whom  you  paid  money  than  you  have 
already  given  ? 

Mr.  French.  I can  make  it  somewhat  more  complete,  Senator. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  that,  then.  Let  us  hear  it. 

Mr.  French.  You  mean  to  give  the  names  of  the  persons  to  whom 
it  was  paid  ? 

Senator  Sutherland.  Yes. 

Mr.  French.  I testified,  I believe,  that  I paid  over  $30  there  at  the 
ice  houses  at  Twin  Lakes  and  Powers  Lake;  and  I believe  I left 
about  $90  there. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  believe  you  left  about  $90  where? 

Mr.  French.  At  the  two  lakes.  That  was  to  cover  the  expense  of 
teams  in  getting  voters  to  the  polls 

Senator  Sutherland.  With  whom  did  you  leave  it? 

Mi.  French.  I can  not  tell  the  names.  They  were  not  men  that 
I knew,  but  men  to  whom  I was  directed  by  some  acquaintance  in 
the  town. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  left  it  with  a numbei  of  different  people  ? 

Mr.  French.  Oh,  yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  About  how  many? 

Mr.  French.  Well,  this  is  not  accurate,  but  I think  that  there 
were  about  four  or  five  in  the  two  different  localities. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  mean  you  divided  the  $90  among  four 
or  five  people  ? 

Mr.  French.  No;  I think  I left  about  that  much. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  divided  it  among  them,  did  you  not? 

Mr.  French.  Oh,  yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is  what  I said.  Do  you  know  how 
you  divided  it  ? 

Mr.  French.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  In  equal  proportions  ? 


876 


CHARLES  S.  FRENCH. 


Mr.  French.  Oh,  no.  I can  not  remember  that,  Senator. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  simply  think  that  you  left  about  $90 
altogether  ? 

Mr.  French.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  was  to  be  done  with  that  ? 

Mr.  French.  They  were  to  urge  Mr.  Stephenson’s  candidacy,  and 
especially  to  get  their  fellow  employees  to  go  to  the  polls  on  election 
day,  and  provide  teams  from  the  neighboring  farms  to  take  them 
there. 

Senator  Sutherland.  How  did  you  come  to  leave  $90  there  ? 
Was  any  estimate  made  as  to  what  it  would  cost? 

Mr.  French.  No;  it  was  just  a matter  of  my  judgment  or  recol- 
lection. I think  it  was  about  that. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  you  remember  anybody  else  ? 

Mr.  French.  Any  other  individual  ? 

Senator  Sutherland.  Yes.  Can  you  give  me  the  names  of  any 
individual  to  whom  you  paid  money,  whom  you  have  not  already 
mentioned  ? 

Mr.  French.  Yes;  I can  remember  two  or  three  more. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Give  me  the  name  of  one. 

Mr.  French.  One  fellow  was  named  Brownlow. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Where  does  he  live  ? 

Mr.  French.  East  Troy. 

Senator  Sutherland.  How  much  did  you  give  him? 

Mr.  French.  I can  not  tell.  According  to  my  best  recollection, 
that  it  was  $10. 

Senator  Sutherland.  $10? 

Mr.  French.  I think  so. 

Senator  Sutherland.  For  what  purpose  was  that  paid? 

Mr.  French.  For  putting  in  his  time  talking  for  Stephenson,  and 
being  at  the  polls  on  election  day. 

Senator  Sutherland.  For  what  purpose  was  he  to  be  at  the 
polls  ? 

Mr.  French.  To  call  the  attention  of  voters  to  Mr.  Stephenson, 
and  to  solicit  their  votes  for  him. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Did  you  pay  out  any  money  for  distribut- 
ing literature  ? 

Mr.  French.  I think  I paid  out  somewhere  around  ten  or  fifteen 
dollars  to  boys. 

Senator  Sutherland.  How  much  did  you  spend  for  cigars  ? 

Mr.  French.  I can  not  tell  that,  Senator. 

Senator  Sutherland.  How  did  you  distribute  cigars  ? 

Mr.  French.  I did  not  distribute  cigars. 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  do  you  mean?  You  just  had  them 
on  hand  ? 

Mr.  French.  Oh,  no.  When  we  went  into  a place  where  the 
crowd  wanted  cigars  or  drinks,  why  we  went  in  and  bought  the  cigars 
or  the  drinks;  if  there  was  anybody  around,  we  invited  them  to 
drink,  regardless  of  their  political  affiliations.  We  were  strangers, 
anyway,  and  visited  the  saloon  keeper  about  putting  up  lithographs, 
and  asking  him  to  see  that  they  were  kept  there  and  not  torn  down. 

(Whereupon,  at  12.30  o’clock  p.  m.,  the  subcommittee  took  a 
recess  until  2 o’clock  p.  m.) 


CHARLES  S.  FRENCH. 


877 


AFTER  RECESS. 

The  recess  having  expired,  the  subcommittee  resumed  its  session. 

TESTIMONY  OF  CHARLES  S.  FREN CE — Resumed . 

(By  request,  the  reporter  read  the  last  few  questions  and  answers.) 

Senator  Sutherland.  I think  that  is  all. 

Senator  Pomerene.  With  whom  did  you  make  your  arrangements 
relative  to  what  you  did  for  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  French.  With  Mr.  Edmonds. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Was  anything  said  about  keeping  an  account 
of  your  expenditures. 

Mr.  French.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Or  making  any  report  to  him  ? 

Mr.  French.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  you  did  not  keep  any  account? 

Mr.  French.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  made  no  report? 

Mr.  French.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Though  you  expended  about  $800,  I believe 
you  said  ? 

Mr.  French.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  gave  some  items  of  expenditure  here. 
Did  you  charge  for  the  use  of  your  automobile  ? 

Mr.  French.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Your  services,  then,  were  without  any  com- 
pensation other  than  to  reimburse  you  for  your  actual  expenditures  ? 

Mr.  French.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  were  never  called  on  for  any  account  as 
to  those  expenditures  ? 

Mr.  French.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  put  any  part  of  this  money  in  the 
hands  of  anyone  else  to  expend  for  Mr.  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  French.  I do  not  think  so. 

Senator  Pomerene.  In  other  words,  whatever  money  you  dis- 
tributed you  gave  to  the  man  who  actually  did  the  work  or  per- 
formed the  services,  and  not  to  him  as  an  agent  to  represent  you 
in  the  distribution  of  that  fund  ? 

Mr.  French.  I think  so,  except  possibly  in  the  instance  of  Mr. 
Edwards  down  there.  I believe  I did  ask  him  to  get  somebody  to 
work  at  the  polls. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Mr.  Edwards,  where? 

Mr.  French.  That  I referred  to  in  my  testimony  before  lunch. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  state  how  much  you  gave  Edwards  ? 

Mr.  French.  $30. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  have  any  arrangements  or  make 
any  arrangements  with  any  of  the  candidates  for  the  general  assembly 
to  perform  services  ? 

Mr.  French.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Were  you  a candidate  yourself? 

Mr.  French.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Have  you  served  in  the  assembly  here  ? 

Mr.  French.  No,  sir. 


878 


CHARLES  S.  FRENCH. 


Senator  Pomerene.  I think  that  is  all  I care  to  ask. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Mr.  French,  had  you  had  any  experience  in  cam- 
paigning upon  lines  similar  to  those  in  which  you  were  engaged  in  the 
mterest  of  the  Senator  in  this  primary  election  ? 

Mr.  French.  No,  sir;  not  very  much. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Had  you  to  some  extent? 

Mr.  French.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Where  you  had  occasion  to  disburse  money  in 
connection  with  creating  an  organization  ? 

Mr.  French.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  had  not  had  the  disbursing  of  money 
before  that.  Do  you  know  what  the  general  practice  had  been  with 
reference  to  keeping  accounts  or  rendering  detailed  accounts  under 
such  circumstances  ? Axe  you  familiar  enough  with  it  to  tell  us  that  ? 

Mr.  French.  No;  I am  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  As  to  the  account  in  this  instance:  At  the  time, 
did  or  did  it  not  occur  to  you  that  there  was  any  necessity  for  your 
keeping  a detailed  itemized  statement  of  your  expenditures  ? 

Mr.  French.  No,  sir;  it  did  not  occur  to  me. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  It  was  not  suggested  to  you,  I take  it,  b}  any- 
one ? 

Mr.  French.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  your  failure  to  keep  an  itemized  and  de- 
tailed statement  of  your  expenditures  the  result  of  a desire  to  con- 
ceal them  or  to  cover  up  any  expenditures  ? 

Mr.  French.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  As  I understand  you,  you  found  it  necessary  to 
create  such  organization  as  you  had  in  51  precincts? 

Mr.  French.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  your  estimate,  from  your  best  recollection 
now,  is  that  in  those  51  precincts  you  expended  from  ten  to  fifteen 
dollars  ? 

Mr.  French.  Yes,  sir;  except  in  Lake  Geneva.  I did  not  expend 
anything  at  all  there. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  did  not  spend  anything  there? 

Mr.  French.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Wliat  was  the  character  of  the  expenditure  in 
the  various  precincts  where  you  expended,  according  to  your  recol- 
lection, from  ten  to  fifteen  dollars  ? What  I mean  now  is,  the  purpose 
for  which  the  expenditures  were  made. 

Mr.  French.  I engaged  somebody  to  spend  some  time  between 
the  time  that  I saw  them  and  primary  election  day,  and  also  on 
primary  election  day,  to  represent  Mr.  Stephenson. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  They  were  going  to  spend  some  time  between 
the  time  you  saw  them  and  the  primary  election  day ; but  what  were 
they  to  do  during  that  period  ? That  is,  what  did  you  expect  them 
to  do  ? 

Mr.  French.  I expected  them  to  visit  with  their  friends  and  neigh- 
bors, and  bring  wSenator  Stephenson’s  claims  to  their  attention  and 
get  their  support. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  there  any  canvass  or  campaign  being  con- 
ducted in  the  territory  that  you  covered  in  the  interest  of  any  other 
candidate  ? 

Mr.  French.  Yes,  sir. 


CHARLES  S.  FRENCH.  879 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Were  all  the  other  candidates  in  there  with  their 
representatives  and  campaigners? 

Mr.  French.  I do  not  know  that  all  of  them  were,  but  I think  so. 

Mi . Littlefield.  That  is,  Mr.  Hatton  and  Mr.  Cook  and  Mr. 
McGovern  ? 

Mr.  French.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I suppose  you  ran  across  evidences  of  their 
activity  as  you  traveled  about  the  country  ? 

Mr.  French.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  whether  or  not  the  men  that  you  em- 
ployed were  employed  for  the  purpose  of  meeting  this  activity,  and 
creating  as  much  sentiment  as  they  could  in  the  interest  of  Senator 
Stephenson.  * 

Mr.  French.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  the  whole  $800  expended  in  the  manner 
you  have  described  ? 

Mr.  French.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And,  as  you  say,  without  making  any  charge 
for  your  own  personal  services,  or  for  the  use  of  your  automobile  ? 

Mr.  French.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  drive  the  machine  yourself  ? 

Mr.  French.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  expend  any  money  duiing  this  cam- 
paign in  the  interest  of  Senator  Stephenson  for  the  purpose  of  either 
directly  or  indirectly  bribing  or  corruptly  influencing  any  of  the 
electors  in  the  primary  election? 

Mr.  French.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  any  money  expended  by  any  of  the  people 
to  whom  you  intrusted  money,  so  far  as  you  know,  either  directly  or 
indirectly,  for  the  purpose  of  bribing  or  corrupting  any  electors  in  that 
primary  election  in  the  interest  of  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  French.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  ever  receive  any  information  from  any 
source  about  there  that  any  such  conduct  had  occurred  ? 

Mr.  French.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Just  another  question  or  two:  Did  you  discuss 
with  anybody  during  this  primary,  or  shortly  thereafter,  the  necessity 
or  the  propriety  of  furnishing  an  account  so  as  to  enable  the  Senator 
to  file  with  the  secretary  ol  state  an  account  of  his  expenditures  ? 

Mr.  French.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  never  heard  that  discussed? 

Mr.  French.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  knew  as  a lawyer,  of  course,  that  the 
statute  required  candidates  to  file  accounts;  did  you  not? 

Mr.  French.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  it  not  occur  to  you  that  he  could  not  very 
well  file  an  account  if  you  did  not  furnish  him  the  information? 

Mr.  French.  No,  sir;  it  did  not  occur  to  me. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Another  matter:  You  spoke  before  lunch  of 
the  indifference  that  there  was  in  your  section  with  reference  to  this 
campaign.  Do  you  remember  that? 

Mr.  French.  Yes,  sir. 


880 


GEORGE  BEYER. 


Senator  Pomerene.  You  thought  that  it  was  necessary  to  expend 
this  money  for  the  purpose  of  stirring  up  Stephenson  sentiment  in  that 
community  ? 

Mr.  French.  Stirring  it  up ; yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  also  spoke  of  the  competition  there  was 
in  that  locality.  Did  you  mean  that? 

Mr.  French.  It  was  an  ill-chosen  word,  perhaps;'  “ exertion” 
would  be  better. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I was  wondering  how  you  would  reconcile 
“competition”  with  “indifference.” 

Mr.  French.  I did  not  mean  indifference  on  the  part  of  the  other 
candidates. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I think  that  is  all.  • 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I do  not  suppose  the  representatives  of  the  other 
candidates  were  unduly  exerting  themselves  to  create  sentiment  for 
Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  French.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  the  section  where  you  were  largely  an  agri- 
cultural section  ? 

Mr.  French.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Almost  wholly  so  ? 

Mr.  French.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I do  not  know  but  that  we  all  have  knowledge 
of  this;  but  what  is  the  1st  of  September?  Is  that  practically  the 
harvest  season  ? 

Mr.  French.  A little  past  the  harvest  season. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  all. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  excused. 

TESTIMONY  OF  GEORGE  BEYER. 

George  Beyer,  having  been  previously  sworn,  was  examined  and 
testified  as  follows : 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Beyer,  state  your  full  name. 

Mr.  Beyer.  George  Beyer. 

The  Chairman.  Where  do  you  reside  ? 

Mr.  Beyer.  At  Oconto,  Wis. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  your  business  ? 

Mr.  Beyer.  Heal  estate  and  banking. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  participate  in  the  primary  campaign  of 
Senator  Stephenson  in  the  year  1908  ? 

Mr.  Beyer.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  receive  any  money  to  be  expended  by 
you  in  that  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Beyer.  There  was  money  sent  to  me.  The  largest  part  of  it 
was  through  another  party.  It  came  from  Mr.  Edmonds. 

The  Chairman.  It  came  from  Mr.  Edmonds,  did  it  ? 

Mr.  Beyer.  To  me;  yes. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  paid  it  out  during  the  campaign,  did 
you  ? 

Mr.  Beyer.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  To  whom  did  you  pay  it  and  for  what  purpose  ? 

Mr.  Beyer  (consulting  paper).  I paid  to  a man  by  the  name  of 
Hanson  $10. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose? 


GEORGE  BEYER. 


881 


Mr.  Littlefield.  Give  his  full  name,  if  you  have  it. 

Mr.  Beyer.  I have  not  got  it.  This  is  the  original  memorandum; 
I had  it  in  my  pocket  as  I made  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  is  that  ? 

Mr.  Beyer.  This  is  the  original  memorandum  I made  as  I gave 
it  out. 

The  Chairman.  Made  at  the  time  you  paid  out  the  money? 

Mr.  Beyer.  I gave  it  to  him  to  work  for  the  interest  of  Senator 
Stephenson  in  the  primary. 

The  Chairman.  That  is,  to  work  for  his  nomination  ? 

Mr.  Beyer.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  receive  that  money  ? 

Mr.  Beyer.  I got  that  about  August  29,  or  right  after  that. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  pay  it  out  ? 

Mr.  Beyer.  He  got  this  the  day  before  the  primary. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  what  he  expended  it  for? 

Mr.  Beyer.  I suppose  he  used  that  to  get  people  to  the  polls  to 
vote  ? 

The  Chairman.  To  haul  them  there  in  carriages  or  wagons  ? 

Mr.  Beyer.  I presume  he  had  to  do  that,  too.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Name  the  next  expenditure  that  you  made. 

Mr.  Beyer.  I gave  a man  named  Jones  $20.  He  did  the  same 
thing.  I think  he  had  a couple  of  teams. 

The  Chairman.  Proceed. 

Mr.  Beyer.  Then  there  was  another  man  named  Harris,  $5. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose  was  that  money  expended  ? 

Mr.  Beyer.  He  was  to  do  work,  the  same  as  the  others. 

The  Chairman.  Proceed. 

Mr.  Beyer.  And  to  E.  J.  O’Kelleher  I gave  $20.  He  used  that  in 
the  same  way.  I paid  A.  Richard  $10  to  be  used  in  the  same  way, 
and  I paid  a man  by  the  name  of  C.  Schulze  $5.  I paid  him  for  his 
day’s  work. 

The  Chairman.  Of  what  did  his  day’s  work  consist? 

Mr.  Beyer.  Why,  he  got  all  the  friends  he  had,  and  got  them  to  the 
polls  to  vote  for  Senator  Stephenson.  Then  there  is  Chris  Classon, 
$5.  Then  I gave  Louis  Teneson  $5.  Then  the  same  man  came  back 
and  he  said  he  had  a friend  that  he  wanted  to  help  him,  and  I gave 
him  $2,  and  that  paid  for  his  day’s  work.  And  there  is  a fellow  by 
the  name  of  Borich  who  got  $5,  and  a man  by  the  name  of  Shallor, 
$5,  and  W.  P.  Cook  got  $250. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  that  for  ? 

Mr.  Beyer.  He  made  the  arrangement  with  Mr.  Edmonds  and 
Mr.  Edmonds  was  better  acquainted  with  me  than  he  was  with  Mr. 
Cook  aqd  he  sent  it  to  me.  He  first  sent  a $100  check,  which  I 
indorsed  and  gave  to  him,  and  afterwards  there  was  $200  sent,  and 
I gave  him  all  but  $50  of  that.  This  other  $50  I paid  to  these  men 
in  these  small  items.  Then  this  man  Jones,  after  he  got  done,  came 
in  and  wanted  $12.40  more,  which  I paid  him,  and  then  he  had  an 
order  for  a livery  rig  and  the  bill  for  that  came  to  $1.50,  and  I paid 
that;  and  this  was  included  in  that.  That  made  $360.90. 

The  Chairman.  Does  that  account  for  all  the  money  that  came 
into  your  hands  ? 

Mr.  Beyer.  Yes;  and  $5.90  more. 

The  Chairman.  That  you  contributed  yourself  ? 

15235°— vol  1—11 56 


882 


GEORGE  BEYER. 


Mr.  Beyer.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know  what  Cook  did  with  the  money 
that  you  gave  him  ? 

Mr.  Beyer.  No;  I could  not  say. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  at  one  place  in  your  former  testimony, 
“I  paid  W.  P.  Cook  $300.” 

Mr.  Beyer.  No;  $250.  I first  gave  him  $100  that  came  from  Mr. 
Edmonds  in  one  check. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  gave  him  how  much  in  all  ? 

Mr.  Beyer.  $250. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Does  not  your  memorandum  show  $300  ? 

Mr.  Beyer.  Yes;  but  I gave  him  $250. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  Cook  do  with  that  money,  or  do  you 
know  ? 

Mr.  Beyer.  He  got  a rig  and  made  a canvass  through  the  counties, 
but  how  he  used  it  I could  not  say. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Why  did  you  keep  an  account  of  it? 

Mr.  Beyer.  I just  kept  it  because  I wanted  to  know  where  it 
went  to. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Perhaps  the  Senator  would  like  to  look  at  the 
original  account. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I am  very  glad  to  see  one. 

Mr.  Beyer.  It  is  not  very  artistic. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I do  not  care  to  ask  any  more  questions. 

The  Chairman.  Does  that  account  for  the  whole  $400  ? 

Mr.  Beyer.  There  was  only  $300  altogether,  and  that  accounts 
for  the  whole  of  it  and  $5.90  more. 

Mr.  Black.  I understood  the  witness  to  say  $400. 

Mr.  Beyer.  No;  $300. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  $300  is  all  that  you  received  ? 

Mr.  Beyer.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  you  actually  disbursed  a little  in  excess  of 
that  ? 

Mr.  Beyer.  Tes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I do  not  understand  that.  Mr.  Beyer,  you 
gave  Cook  $300  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  No;  $250. 

The  Chairman.  He  gave  him  $300,  and  Cook  gave  him  back  $50. 

Mr.  Beyer.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  He  indorsed  over  a $100  check  and  a $200  check, 
and  Cook  gave  him  back  $50. 

Mr.  Beyer.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  render  an  account  to  anybody  for 
that? 

Mr.  Beyer.  I was  not  asked  to.  No,  sir;  I did  not. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  have  always  been  prepared  to  furnish 
this  ? . 

Mr.  Beyer.  Oh,  certainly. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Wdiat  is  your  business,  Mr.  Beyer? 

Mr.  Beyer.  I am  in  the  real  estate  and  banking  business. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  position  do  you  occupy  in  connection  with 
the  bank? 

Mr.  Beyer.  I am  president  of  the  Oconto  National  Bank. 


GEORGE  BEYER. 


883 


Mr.  Littlefield.  State  whether  or  not  the  statements  that  you 
have  made  here  in  relation  to  these  details  are  made  after  refreshing 
your  recollection  from  memoranda  made  upon  the  envelope  in  which 
one  of  the  checks  came  to  you. 

Mr.  Beyer.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Made  by  you  at  the  time  you  made  the  dis- 
bursements ? 

Mr.  Beyer.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  envelope  having  upon  it  the  postmark 
August  29,  1908. 

Mr.  Beyer.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  pay,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  to 
any  elector,  in  the  interest  of  Senator  Stephenson  in  the  primary 
election,  any  money  for  the  purpose  of  bribing  or  corruptly  influenc- 
ing his  vote  ? 

Mr.  Beyer.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  any  money  paid  by  any  of  these  gentlemen 
to  whom  you  intrusted  money,  or  to  whom  you  °jave  money  as  you 
have  described,  within  your  knowledge,  to  any  elector  for  the  pur- 
pose, either  directly  or  indirectly,  of  bribing  or  corruptly  influencing 
any  votes  for  Senator  Stephenson  in  that  primary  election  ? 

Mr.  Beyer.  No,  sir;  not  that  I know  of. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Mr.  Beyer,  I do  not  understand  you.  How 
much  money  did  you  receive  from  Mr.  Edmonds  ? 

Mr.  Beyer.  $300. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Your  account  here  in  the  printed  testimony 
of  the  joint  investigation  shows  $400. 

Mr.  Beyer.  No.  I accounted  for  JJ355.90. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Your  account,  which  I find  in  the  book  on 
page  4448,  Exhibit  471,  says:  “Received  from  Edmonds,  $400. ” 

Mr.  Beyer.  That  was  a mistake.  It  was  only  $300. 

Senator  Sutherland.  “Paid  W.  P.  Cook  $300.” 

Mr.  Beyer.  That  is  wrong. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  then  the  others,  which  foot  up  alto- 
gether $400. 

Mr.  Beyer.  They  must  have  made  a mistake,  because  that  is  all 
there  was.  That  is  just  as  fresh  in  my  mind  as  if  it  had  been  done  this 
morning.  All  I got  was  $100  first  and  $200  afterwards.  That  made 
$300,  and  I paid  out  $350  and  something. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  According  to  this,  you  paid  out  $350  and 
something  ? 

Mr.  Beyer.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  $50  more  than  you  received? 

Mr.  Beyer.  Yes.  My  recollection  is  now  it  is  only  $300.  These 
amounts  I have  given  here  were  paid. 

Senator  Sutherland.  The  account  shows  that  you  paid  Cook 

Mr.  Beyer.  $250. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  It  shows  here  that  you  paid  Cook  $300. 

Senator  Sutherland.  It  foots  up  $405.90.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
about  that  at  all. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  true. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Let  me  give  him  the  amounts  and  you 
follow  them:  $300,  $32.40,  $10,  $5,  $20 

Mr.  Littlefield.  He  has  not  them  in  that  order. 


884 


NORMAN  L.  JAMES. 


Mr.  Beyer.  I will  tell  you  where  the  mistake  is.  These  amounts 
foot  up  to  $342  first,  and  then  there  was  added  to  that  $12.40  and 
$1.50  and  that  makes  $350.90. 

Senator  Pomerene.  The  testimony  on  pages  4390  and  4391  shows 
the  questions  that  were  asked  of  you  from  time  to  time  and  you  seem 
to  have  based  your  testimony  on  that  amount.  Did  you  get  $100 
August  28  ? 

Mr.  Beyer.  Yes;  about  that  time. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  There  are  two  payments — one  on  August  28  and 
one  on  August  29. 

Senator  Pomerene.  August  29,  $300. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I suggest  that  you  look  that  over,  Mr. 
Beyer,  and  let  us  know  about  it  later. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  look  it  over  carefully  and  see  if  there  are 
any  corrections  to  be  made.  We  may  be  able  to  find  the  chack,  and 
that  will  help.  We  will  take  this  up  this  evening,  Mr.  Chairman,  and 
see  if  we  can  find  the  check. 

The  Chairman.  Very  well.  You  are  excused  for  the  present,  Mr. 
Beyer. 

TESTIMONY  OF  NORMAN  L.  JAMES. 

Norman  L.  James,  having  been  heretofore  duly  sworn,  was  exam- 
ined and  testified  as  follows: 

The  Chairman.  Where  do  you  reside  ? 

Mr.  James.  Richland  Center,  Wis. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  your  business  ? 

Mr.  James.  Lumber  and  agriculture. 

The  Chairman.  In  what  business  were  you  engaged  in  1908  during 
the  primary  campaign  ? 

Mr.  James.  In  lumbering  and  agriculture. 

The  Chairman.  Residing  at  the  same  place  ? 

Mr.  James.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  hold  any  public  office  ? 

Mr.  James.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  at  any  time  ? 

Mr.  James.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  What  office  ? 

Mr.  James.  I held  the  office  of  member  of  the  assembly  in  1873 
and  1875,  and  I was  in  the  State  senate  in  1885  and  1887. 

The  Chairman.  Since  that  time  you  have  not  been  a member  of 
the  legislature  ? 

Mr.  James.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Was  your  brother  a candidate  for  any  office  in  that 
campaign  ? 

Mr.  James.  He  was. 

The  Chairman.  What  office  ? 

Mr.  James.  State  senator. 

The  Chairman.  Was  he  elected? 

Mr.  James.  He  was. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  campaign  in  the  interest  of  your  brother  ? 

Mr.  James.  Not  particularly. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  campaign  in  the  interest  of  Senator 
Stephenson  ? 


NORMAN  L.  JAMES. 


885 


Mr.  James.  I did. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  receive  money  for  the  purpose  of  making 
that  campaign? 

Mr.  James.  I did  not  receive  the  money  until  after  I had  expended 
money  of  my  own. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  money  did  you  expend  ? 

Mr.  James.  I expended  between  six  and  seven  hundred  dollars. 

The  Chairman.  From  whom  did  you  then  receive  the  money  ? 

Mr.  JxiMEs.  I received  $300  from  Mr.  Edmonds  on  the  26th  of 
August  and  $200  from  Mr.  Puelicher  on  the  10th  of  September. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  receive  any  other  money  ? 

Mr.  James.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Five  hundred  dollars,  then,  is  all  the  money  that 
you  received  from  any  person  in  the  interest  of  Senator  Stephenson’s 
campaign  ? 

Mr.  James.  That  is  all. 

The  Chairman.  Either  before  expenditure  or  afterwards  ? 

Mr.  James.  That  is  right. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  do  for  that  $500  ? 

Mr.  James.  I kept  that  $500.  I did  not  expend  that.  I expended 
money  of  my  own.  I had  expended  more  than  that. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  what  we  want  to  know.  What  expendi- 
tures had  you  made,  and  for  what  purpose? 

Mr.  James.  That  is  to  say,  you  want  to  find  out  what  I expended 
my  own  money  for  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  James.  I spent  it  to  hire  teams  to  canvass  in  the  interest  of 
Senator  Stephenson,  to  put  up  posters  and  lithographs,  and  for  but- 
tons and  other  printed  matter  that  would  be  for  his  interest. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  money  did  you  expend  for  those  items  ? 

Mr.  James.  I expended  altogether  between  six  and  seven  hundred 
dollars — not  less  than  six  and  not  over  seven.  I did  not  keep  a 
detailed  account. 

The  Chairman.  I find  in  the  testimony  of  Mr.  McMahon,  at  page 
3908  of  the  record  of  the  senatorial  primary  investigating  committee, 
this  statement  in  reference  to  a conversation  about  which  he  testified : 

Mr.  Hambrecht.  He  has  stated  Mr.  Edmonds  wasn’t  there. — A.  Mr.  Edmonds  was 
not  in  the  city.  I got  this  later. 

Q.  What  did  Mr.  Edmonds  state  with  reference  to  it? — A.  Well,  Mr.  Edmonds  said 
that  he  was  not  satisfied  that  the  funds  should  have  been  turned  over,  to  be  used  in 
Mr.  Stephenson’s  interests. 

Q.  That  who  wasn’t  satisfied? — A.  Mr.  Edmonds  wasn’t  satisfied;  that  Mr.  Bancroft 
should  have  funds  to  be  used  in  Mr.  Stephenson’s  interests  in  Richland  County. 

Q.  Did  he  state  why? — A.  Not  exactly,  I shouldn’t  say.  There  wasn’t  very  much 
said  about  it.  I simply  heard  that. 

Q.  Heard  Mr.  Edmonds  say  that? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Hambrecht.  Did  he  say  it  to  you? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Hambrecht.  Did  he  give  any  other  reasons  than  just  the  fact  he  wasn’t  satis- 
fied?— A.  Well,  I don’t — I should  glean,  I don’t  remember  exactly  the  words  that  were 
said 

Q.  The  substance. — A.  I should  glean,  or  I understood  from  the  remark,  that  he 
would  prefer  to  have  had  those  funds  in  some  one  else’s  hands  in  Richland  County. 

Q.  Did  he  name  Mr.  James  in  that  connection?— A.  No.  Mr.  James  was  working 
under  different  conditions.  Mr.  James  was  getting  his  funds  and  his  directions,  etc., 
directly  from  Mr.  Stephenson  instead  of  being  handled  through  the  headquarters  in 
Milwaukee. 

Is  there  any  foundation  for  that  statement  ? 


886 


NORMAN  L.  JAMES. 


Mr.  James.  I had  been  a friend  of  Senator  Stephenson  for  a great 
many  years,  and  we  had  had  a conversation  about  his  being  a candi- 
date for  the  Senate.  I told  him  I would  do  what  I could  for  him. 

The  Chairman.  But  in  regard  to  your  getting  your  funds  directlj 
from  Senator  Stephenson. 

Mr.  James.  There  was  no  arrangement  made  for  Senator  Stephen- 
son to  pay  me  any  funds. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  get  any  funds  from  him  ? 

Mr.  James.  Not  from  him  direct.  I suppose  this  money  from 
Edmonds  and  Puelicher  was  his  mone^ . 

The  Chairman.  That  is  what  was  meant  in  regard  to  your  getting 
funds  from  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  James.  I presume  so. 

The  Chairman.  I read  further  from  page  3909,  as  follows: 

Mr.  Ingalls.  Is  that  of  your  own  knowledge? — A.  How  is  that? 

Q.  Do  you  know  of  it  yourself  or  did  somebody  tell  you? — A.  Mr.  James  told  me. 

Q.  Well,  when  you  asked  Mr.  Bancroft  to  go  to  Milwaukee,  had  he  up  to  that  time 
consented  to  work  for  Seantor  Stephenson? 

That  is  all  of  the  testimony  that  I care  to  read.  Then  you  explain 
that  by  saying  that  the  statement  that  you  got  your  funds  from  Mr. 
Stephenson  was  to  be  construed  as  your  having  received  it  through 
Mr.  Stephenson’s  agent  ? 

Mr.  James.  I think  so.  Will  you  allow  me  to  make  a little  expla- 
nation in  regard  to  my  conversation  with  Mr.  McMahon  ? 

The  Chairman.  Certainly. 

Mr.  James.  He  came  into  my  office  a stranger,  and  represented  that 
Mr.  Edmonds  had  sent  him  out  to  look  over  the  situation.  While  he  was 
there  a gentleman  drove  up  with  a team  and  said,  “ 1 am  ready  to  go ; ” 
and  I gave  him  instructions  where  to  go,  and  gave  him  some  money. 
In  a few  moments  another  drove  up,  and  I think  there  were  four  or  five, 
and  Mr.  McMahon  said  to  me,  “How  much  money  have  they  sent  you 
from  headquarters?”  I said,  “ Nothing.”  “You  do  not  tell  me  you 
are  using  your  own  money?”  I said,  “That  is  what  I am  doing.” 
He  said,  “But  that  is  not  right;  they  have  funds  for  this  purpose.” 
I said,  “ Well,  I am  running  this  my  own  way.”  He  then  asked  about 
some  others  in  town — I don’t  remember  the  names — and  I think  I 
gave  him  the  name  of  Mr.  Bancroft,  and  the  names  of  several  others. 
I told  him  he  had  better  go  and  interview  them  and  find  out  what 
they  were  doing;  that  I was  running  the  campaign  in  my  own  way. 
He  said  he  was  going  back  to  Milwaukee,  and  he  should  tell  Mr. 
Edmonds  that  he  ought  to  send  me  out  some  money.  I told  him, 
“That  is  optional.”  After  he  returned  to  Milwaukee  Mr.  Edmonds 
called  me  up  on  the  phone  and  said  that  Mr.  McMahon  had  told  him 
that  I was  using  my  own  money,  and  that  he  would  send  me  a check 
for  $300.  I said,  “All  right.”  He  said,  “Do  you  know  how  much 
you  have  expended  ? ” I said,  “I  think  about  $360.”  Either  that  day 
or  the  day  following  Mr.  Puelicher  called  me  to  the  phone  and  asked 
me  if  Mr.  Edmonds  had  sent  me  a check.  I told  him  that  he  had. 
He  said,  “ How  much  money  do  you  think  it  will  take  to  canvass  Rich- 
land County?”  I said,  “I  am  not  confining  myself  to  Richland 
County;  I am  taking  in  that  portion  of  the  congressional  district 
where  I am  pretty  well  acquainted,  and  I shall  work  in  a portion  of 
Vernon  and  Crawford  Counties,  Sauk,  and  Juneau.”  I said  I did  not 
think  it  would  take  over  $500  for  the  limit.  “Then  all  you  will 


NORMAN  L.  JAMES. 


887 


expect  will  be  $200  more?”  “That  is  all  I will  take.  What 
more  it  takes  I will  put  in  myself.”  He  then  said,  “I  will  stand  back 
of  you  for  the  $200.”  I said,  “All  right.”  After  the  election  he  sent 
me  a check.  I think  he  mailed  me  the  check  on  the  9th.  The 
polls  closed  on  the  evening  of  the  1st. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  the  amount  of  that  check? 

Mr.  James.  Two  hundred  dollars. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  money  did  you  expend  altogether  on 
behalf  of  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  James.  Not  less  than  $600  and  not  over  $700.  I did  not  try  to 
avoid  or  shirk  any  responsibility.  I did  not  deem  it  necessary  to 
keep  account  of  my  expenses  when  I was  spending  my  own  money. 
And  had  not  Mr.  McMahon  come  in  my  office  at  that  time  and  noticed 
that  I was  giving  some  money  out  to  men  to  do  what  I considered 
legitimate  work  I do  not  think  I would  be  here  to-day. 

The  Chairman.  You  mean  that  you  would  not  have  rendered  any 
account  or  received  any  recompense  for  the  money  you  had  paid  out  ? 

Mr.  James.  Not  a particle  up  to  that  time. 

The  Chairman.  When  you  expended  this  money,  are  we  to  under- 
stand you  had  no  expectation  or  being  reimbursed  ? 

Mr.  James.  I will  tell  you  a little  conversation  I had  with  Mr. 
Stephenson.  Mr.  Stephenson  said  to  me,  “I  understand  that  you 
circulated  my  nomination  papers,  or  caused  them  to  be  circulated ?” 
I said,  I did. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  he  say  this  ? 

Mr.  James.  Mr.  Stephenson  said  this  between  the  10th  of  August 
and  the  17th.  I was  one  of  a party  on  a fishing  excursion. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  A fishing  excursion  with  the  Senator? 

Mr.  James.  With  the  Senator.  I left  home  on  the  10th  and  returned 
on  the  17th.  It  was  during  this  time  up  there  one  evening,  while  we 
were  around  the  camp,  that  he  said,  “I  nave  been  informed  that  you 
have  been  to  some  expense  in  circulating  my  nomination  papers. 
How  much  was  it?”  I said  I did  not  make  any  account.  He  said, 
“Oh,  that  ain't  right.”  He  seemed  to  be  a little  exercised  and  he 
made  this  remark,  “I  am  able  to  pay  ail  legitimate  expenses  and  I 
expect  my  friends  to  be  reimbursed  for  all  they  pay  out.”  This 
conversation  was  not  addressed  particularly  to  me  any  more  than  it 
was  to  Mr.  Van  Cleve  and  Mr.  ruelicher,  who  were  sitting  around 
there  together.  He  spoke  of  “My  friends.”  He  said,  “I  am  willing 
and  expect  to  pay  legitimate  expenses.”  “What  do  you  call  ‘legiti- 
mate expenses  r” 

The  Chairman.  Who  said  that  ? 

Mr.  James.  I said  to  Senator  Stephenson,  “What  do  you  call 
legitimate  expenses?”  He  said,  “I  do  not  want  my  friends” — he 
always  spoke  of  his  friends,  and  he  was  not  addressing  me  particu- 
larly— “I  do  not  want  my  friends  to  spend  any  money  for  whisky;  1 
do  not  want  them  to  run  a saloon  campaign.  And  another  thing,  I 
do  not  like  the  idea  of  having  a whole  lot  of  heelers  standing  around 
the  polls.”  He  says,  “Stay  off  at  a proper  distance,  and  it  will  be 
perfectly  proper — or  for  any  of  my  friends  to  make  arrangements  for 
articles  in  the  newspapers.  If  you  do,  make  a contract  to  pay  them 
advertising  rates,  and  no  more.  If  you  get  any  printed  matter,  why, 
pay  for  it.  If  it  is  necessary  to  hire  a man  to  do  work,  pay  that  man 
what  he  would  earn  if  he  was  working  at  a trade  or  if  he  was  working 


888 


NORMAN  L.  JAMES. 


on  the  farm.”  He  said,  “I  understand  it  will  take  some  expense  to 
canvass  and  to  put  up  lithographs  and  other  printed  matter,  but  I 
do  not  want  to  buy  any  man’s  influence.”  He  emphasized  that  very 
particularly.  “What  I want  is  to  have  my  friends  work  so  that  at 
my  age  I will  not'  be  criticized  in  this  campaign.”  With  that  under- 
standing I went  to  work.  I did  not  expect  Mr.  Edmonds  to  send  me 
a dollar,  nor  Mr.  Puelicher;  and  I do  not  think  they  would  have  done 
it  if  it  had  not  been  for  Mr.  McMahon  coming  in  just  as  he  did,  when 
I had  arranged  with  parties  to  come  in  and  help  me  run  the 
campaign. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you,  expecting  that  Senator  Stephenson  would 
reimburse  you,  make  expenditures  in  that  expectation? 

Mr.  James.  I thought  Mr.  Stephenson  would  take  my  word, 
and  if  I should  say  some  day  to  him,  “I  have  expended  money  and  I 
guess  you  had  better  give  me  a check  for  about  $500,”  I thought  he 
would  take  my  word  for  it  without  any  question. 

The  Chairman.  And  if  he  had  not  complied  or  sent  you  a check, 
you  would  not  have  complained,  would  you  ? 

Mr.  James.  No,  sir;  I would  not. 

The  Chairman.  In  other  words,  you  were  willing,  if  necessary,  to 
expend  that  much  money  in  Senator  Stephenson’s  interest  ? 

Mr.  James.  I was,  because  I wanted  him  to  be  elected.  I had 
personal  reasons  for  it. 

The  Chairman.  What  were  the  personal  reasons? 

Mr.  JxImes.  Because  I thought  he  was  the  most  able  man  to  repre- 
sent us  properly  in  the  United  States  Senate  from  this  State,  from  his 
experience  as  an  agriculturist,  as  a manufacturer,  and  as  a promoter 
of  the  industries.  I thought  that  we  needed  him  to  take  the  place 
made  vacant  by  Senator  Sawyer. 

The  Chairman.  Vacated  by  whom? 

Mr.  James.  The  place  that  was  left  vacant  by  Senator  Sawyer,  who 
afterwards  died. 

The  Chairman.  You  mean  that  he  was  a worthy  successor  of  Sena- 
tor Sawyer  ? 

Mr.  James.  Ex-Senator  Sawyer.  Yes;  I should  have  said  “Ex- 
Senator  Sawyer.” 

Senator  Sutherland.  Are  you  an  old  resident  of  the  State  ? 

Mr.  James.  I have  resided  in  the  State  since  1855. 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  is  your  age  ? 

Mr.  James.  Seventy-one  next  month. 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  is  your  business  ? 

Mr.  James.  Agriculture  and  lumber,  principally. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Are  you  engaged  in  manufacturing  lumber  ? 

Mr.  James.  Both.  I manufacture  hardwood  lumber,  and  buy  and 
sell  pine  lumber  in  my  retail  yard. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  Senator  Stephenson  has  also  been  more 
or  less  interested  in  that  business  ? 

Mr.  James.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  How  intimately  have  you  known  Senator 
Stephenson  during  all  these  years  ? 

Mr.  James.  How  long  have  I known  him  ? 

Senator  Sutherland.  How  intimately  ? How  well? 

Mr.  James.  Very  intimately;  and  he  has  always  talked  to  me 
without  reserve. 


NORMAN  L.  JAMES. 


889 


Senator  Sutherland.  You  have  been  old  friends? 

Mr.  James.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Have  you  been  in  the  habit  of  going  off  on 
fishing  expeditions  together? 

Mr.  James.  Oh,  several  times — four  times,  I think — I was  up  on 
the  Escanaba  with  him. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  hunting  ? 

Mr.  James.  Fishing. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I say,  and  hunting  also,  or  just  fishing  ? 

Mr.  James.  No  hunting. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  have  known  him  ever  since  1855? 

Mr.  James.  No;  I have  known  of  him  since  1873,  but  not  intimately 
until  1880.  We  wore  delegates  together  at  the  national  convention 
in  Chicago  in  1880;  and  from  that  time  on  we  have  been  in  pretty 
close  touch  with  each  other. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Are  you  a man  of  some  means  ? 

Mr.  James.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I do  not  ask  you  how  much. 

Mr.  James.  I have  enough  to  pay  my  bills  as  I go  along.  I have 
been  “ pinched”  three  or  four  times,  and  I have  always  got  out  all 
right. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I am  not  undertaking  to  pry  into  your 
affairs,  but  I thought  the  question  was  legitimate.  I simply  wanted 
to  know. 

Mr.  James.  I have  always  had  plenty  of  means  to  transact  my 
business. 

Senator  Sutherland.  You  are  not  a poor  man  ? 

Mr.  James.  Oh,  no;  and  I have  always  taken  an  active  part  in 
politics.  That  is,  I have  always  had  some  man  as  a candidate  that  I 
was  interested  in. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I do  not  want  to  make  an  exception  in  favor  of 
any  witness,  and  that  is  the  principal  reason  why  I ask  you  these 
two  or  three  formal  questions,  Mr.  James:  Did  you  expend  any 
money  iq  this  campaign  for  the  purpose  of  bribing  or  corruptly 
influencing  any  electors  for  the  support  of  Senator  Stephenson  in  the 
primary  election? 

Mr.  James.  I did  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  anybody,  to  your  knowledge,  that  you  had 
any  connection  with  ? 

Mr.  James.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  all. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  James.  Do  I understand  now  that  I can  be  excused  from  any 
further  attendance  ? 

The  Chairman.  You  are  excused. 

Mr.  James.  I am  at  liberty  to  go  home,  am  I ? 

The  Chairman.  You  are  at  liberty  to  go  home. 

The  Chairman.  Call  Arthur  Wilcox. 

(The  name  of  Arthur  Wilcox  was  called,  but  he  did  not  respond.) 

The  Chairman.  Is  R.  J.  Shields  present? 

(The  name  of  R.  J.  Shields  was  called,  but  he  did  not  respond.) 

The  Chairman.  Call  William  G.  Wheeler. 


890 


A.  0.  HEYER. 


(The  name  of  William  G.  Wheeler  was  called,  but  he  did  not 
respond.) 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Mr.  Wheeler  was  going  to  come  in  response  to 
a telephone  call  whenever  you  wanted  him.  He  is  an  attorney  right 
here  in  town. 

The  Chairman.  You  had  better  call  him  now.  In  the  meantime 
we  will  call  A.  0.  Heyer. 

TESTIMONY  OF  A.  0.  HEYER. 

A.  O.  Heyer,  having  been  previously  sworn,  was  examined  and 
testified  as  follows : 

The  Chairman.  Is  your  name  A.  O.  Heyer? 

Mr.  Heyer.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  been  sworn? 

Mr.  Heyer.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Where  do  you  reside  ? 

Mr.  Heyer.  Sheboygan. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  take  part  in  the  senatorial  campaign  for 
Senator  Stephenson  in  1908? 

Mr.  Heyer.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  your  business  ? 

Mr.  Heyer.  Publisher. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  engaged  in  publishing  a newspaper  in 
1908? 

Mr.  Heyer.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  In  the  English  language  ? 

Mr.  Heyer.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  receive  $500  from  Senator  Stephenson's 
campaign  fund  during  that  primary  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Heyer.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  did  you  receive  that  money  ? 

Mr.  Heyer.  I received  that  money  for  paying  some  of  the  bills 
that  Mr.  Edmonds  had  practically  contracted  for,  or  had  some  work 
done  at  Sheboygan  and  in  Sheboygan  County. 

The  Chairman.  What  kind  of  bills  ? That  is,  for  what  purpose  ? 

Mr.  Heyer.  I have  a little  memorandum  of  them  here. 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  if  you  have  a memorandum,  please  refer  to  it. 

Mr.  Heyer  (after  consulting  memorandum).  He  had  some  posting 
of  lithographs  and  posters,  and  printing  some  sample  ballots. 

The  Chairman.  Give  the  amounts  of  the  items. 

Mr.  Heyer.  Forty-five  dollars  for  the  bill  posting. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  pay  that  out  ? 

Mr.  Heyer.  Yes,  sir.  Then,  printing  sample  ballots,  $24. 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Heyer.  Then,  for  advertising  in  the  newspaper,  $27.30. 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Heyer.  Then,  printing,  $47.50.  Distributing  sample  ballots 
in  city  and  county,  $41.50;  livery  hire,  $28.75;  Automobile  hire,  $30; 
expense  for  going  through  county,  $56;  telephone,  $4.20;  workers 
on  primary  day,  15  precincts,  $60.50;  distribution  of  literature  and 
organization,  $74.50;  expense  incidentals  paid  to  workers,  $44.25. 
personal  expense,  $16.50. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  omitted  the  last  item.  Read  that. 


A.  0.  HEYER. 


891 


Mr.  Heyer.  No;  I did  not  omit  it — “A.  O.  Heyer,  personal  ex- 
pense”— 

The  Chairman.  Is  there  not  an  item  after  that  ? 

Mr.  Heyer.  No. 

The  Chairman.  In  the  statement  filed  with  the  committee,  Exhibit 
No.  10,  before  the  senate  committee,  that  is  followed  by  this  item: 
“ Expense,  incidentals  paid  to  workers,  $44.25.”  That  is  on  page 
753  of  the  senate  hearings. 

Mr.  Heyer.  I have  that.  I think  I read  that;  did  I not? 

The  Chairman.  I did  not  hear  you  read  it. 

Mr.  Heyer.  I have  that;  yes. 

The  Chairman.  I was  following  you  down. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  item  in  the  memorandum  he  is  giving  pre- 
cedes the  item  of  “A.  O.  Heyer,  personal  expense.”  He  changed  the 
order. 

The  Chairman.  In  the  printed  memorandum  it  is  the  last  item. 
Was  this  printing  at  regular  rates? 

Mr.  Heyer.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  All  of  these  items  were  at  regular  advertising  and 
printing  rates,  were  they  ? 

Mr.  Heyer.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  “ Distributing  ballots  in  city  and  county.”  Did 
you  employ  others  to  do  that  ? 

Mr.  Heyer.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  paid  them  that  amount  of  money  ? 

Mr.  Heyer.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  On  what  basis  did  you  pay  them  ? 

Mr.  Heyer.  “Distribution  of  literature  and  organization,  $74.50”: 
Do  you  mean  that  item  ? 

The  Chairman.  I mean  the  $41.50. 

Mr.  Heyer.  Oh,  yes. 

The  Chairman.  “Distributing  ballots  in  city  and  county.” 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Sample  ballots  ? 

Mr.  Heyer.  Oh,  yes.  There  were  parties  that  were  supposed  to 
be  in  different  towns  to  distribute  the  ballots. 

The  Chairman.  “Livery  hire,  $28.75”:  For  what  was  that  ex- 
pended ? 

Mr.  Heyer.  That  was  part  that  I had  paid  out  and  part  that  the 
others  had  paid  out  who  had  gone  out,  sent  to  help  in  organization. 
That  is  distinct  from  organization. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  distinct  from  organization  ? 

Mr.  Heyer.  Yes.  I mean  I kept  that  separate. 

The  Chairman.  And  the  automobile  hire  was  for  the  same  purpose  ? 

Mr.  Heyer.  For  the  same  purpose. 

The  Chairman.  ‘“Expense  for  going  through  county,  $56”:  What 
was  the  nature  of  that  expense  ? 

Mr.  Heyer.  The  nature  of  that  expense  is  that  going  through  the 
county  took  several  days,  and  it  included  meals  and  such  things — 
stopping  at  hotels.  There  were  several  in  the  party  that  went  along, 
all  the  time,  at  different  places. 

The  Chairman.  Was  any  part  of  it  expended  for  drinks  or  cigars 
at  the  bars  ? 


892 


A.  0.  HEYER. 


Mr.  Heyer.  There  is  not  anything  in  particular,  except  when  you 
stop  at  a hotel  it  is  customary  with  your  meals  to  buy  cigars,  or 
something  like  that. 

The  Chairman  No  extraordinary  expenditure  ? 

Mr  Heyer  No;  no. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  not  make  a saloon  campaign? 

Mr.  Heyer.  No,  we  did  not. 

The  Chairman.  “Workers  on  primary  days,  15  precincts,  $60.50”: 
What  was  that  item  expended  for  ? 

Mr.  Heyer.  That  was  expended  on  primary  day.  In  some  of  the 
precincts  in  the  country,  where  people  would  take  voters  to  the  polls, 
they  received  a few  dollars;  and  then  in  the  cities  they  distributed 
cards  around  that  day,  or  saw  that  the  voters  got  out.  That  was 
really  the  idea. 

The  Chairman.  “Distribution  of  literature  and  organization”: 
How  do  you  account  for  that  item,  $74.50  ? 

Mr.  Heyer.  That  item  I account  for  because — I can  explain  that. 
When  Mr.  Edmonds  was  up  there  he  had  seen  a number  of  parties,  and 
we  asked  these  parties  whether  they  could  not  find  out  whether 
there  was  any  sentiment  for  Stephenson,  and  find  out  who  the  par- 
ties were  in  his  favor,  and  find  out  if  there  were  objections,  what  they 
were,  and  to  send  in  the  names.  These  people  worked  before  primary 
day  and  sent  in  names  to  the  Milwaukee  headquarters. 

The  Chairman.  Referring  to  your  own  expense  item,  “A.  O.  Heyer, 
personal  expense,  fare,  and  incidentals,  $16.50”:  That  was  money 
expended  by  you  on  your  trip  ? 

Mr.  Heyer.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  that  expended  for  ? 

Mr.  Heyer.  I had  to  go  a few  times  to  different  places ; I had  to  go 
to  Milwaukee,  and  had  to  go  to  other  places,  and  that  is  about  the 
amount  that  was  spent. 

The  Chairman.  “Expense  incidentals  paid  to  workers,  $44.25”: 
What  was  the  nature  of  that  item  ? 

Mr.  Heyer.  That  item  was  this:  A number  of  workers  in  the 
different  wards  would  come  in  and  would  say:  “I  went  around,  and 
I saw  people  and  had  a dollar  expense,”  or  they  felt  they  ought  to  have 
a little,  and  that  is  all  put  together  in  that  item  of  $44.25. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  a summing  up  of  small  items? 

Mr.  Heyer.  Yes;  postage  and  everything  else. 

The  Chairman.  The  witness  is  with  you. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  any  part  of  this  money  that  was  placed  in 
your  hands  used  for  the  purpose  of  bribing  or  corruptly  influencing  any 
voters  in  the  primary  election  campaign  in  the  interest  of  Senator 
Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Heyer.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  any  part  of  the  money  that  you  paid  to 
these  people,  covered  by  the  items  that  you  have  already  explained, 
used  by  them,  so  far  as  you  know,  for  the  purpose  of  bribing  or  cor- 
ruptly influencing  any  electors  in  the  interest  of  Senator  Stephenson 
in  the  primary  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Heyer.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  rendered  no  account  of  this  to  anyone  ? 

Mr.  Heyer.  I did;  yes. 


WILLIAM  G.  WHEELER. 


893 


Senator  Pomerene.  To  whom  ? 

Mr.  Heyer.  At  the  time  when  I completed  the  work,  or  before  that, 
rather.  The  case  was  this:  Mr.  Edmonds  really  had  somebody  else 
up  there  to  take  care  of  his  work,  I guess;  but  then  he  said  there  was 
not  anything  done.  When  he  was  up  there  he  got  a few  of  these 
people  together  and  said  if  they  could  do  anything  and  had  any  legiti- 
mate expense — reasonable  expense — he  would  stand  for  it.  So  dur- 
ing the  campaign  I came  down  and  had  these  bills  for  printing  and 
different  things,  and  he  said:  “ Well,  I will  not  bother  with  it;  I will 
send  you  a check.”  That  was  when  we  got  up,  I believe  it  was,  to 
$200/  Then  when  we  got  all  through,  after  he  had  sent  me  the  other. 
About  four  weeks  after  the  primary  I had  all  the  items  with  me  and 
asked  him  if  he  wanted  it,  and  he  said,  No;  he  did  not  care  about  it 
particularly. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  is,  Edmonds  said  he  did  not  care  about 
it? 

Mr.  Heyer.  No. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  kept  this  memorandum  for  the  purpose 
of  giving  it  to  him  ? 

Mr.  Heyer.  Yes;  if  he  wanted  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  But  he  did  not  care  for  it? 

Mr.  Heyer.  No;  he  did  not. 

Senator  Pomerene.  So  you  retained  it? 

Mr.  Heyer.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  this  corresponds  with  the  account  that 
you  kept  at  the  time,  as  these  different  items  of  expense  were  incurred  ? 

Mr.  Heyer.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  is  all. 

The  Chairman.  The  witness  is  excused. 

TESTIMONY  OF  WILLIAM  G.  WHEELER. 

William  G.  Wheeler,  having  been  previously  sworn,  was  exam- 
ined and  testified  as  follows: 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Wheeler,  you  have  been  sworn  in  this  case? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Where  do  you  reside? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  305  Prospect  Avenue,  Milwaukee. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  engaged  in  the  primary  campaign  of  1908 
for  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  I was. 

The  Chairman.  What  part  did  you  take  in  that  primary  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  I assisted  in  his  campaign  in  various  parts  of  the 
State. 

The  Chairman.  Tell  us  what  you  did. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  I had  charge  to  some  extent  of  the  campaign  in  Rock 
County.  I visited  several  of  the  other  counties  at  different  times. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  receive  money  from  the  campaign  fund 
for  use  by  you  in  the  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  I received  money. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  $600. 

The  Chairman.  From  whom  did  you  receive  it? 


894 


WILLIAM  G.  WHEELER. 


Mr.  Wheeler.  I do  not  remember,  but  it  was  from  some  one  of 
Senator  Stephenson’s  campaign  committee. 

The  Chairman.  What  use  did  you  make  of  that  money  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  I used  $300  of  it  to  reimburse  myself  for  a similar 
amount  that  I had  advanced  in  another  county  of  the  State. 

The  Chairman.  That  is,  that  you  had  advanced  for  what  purpose? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  For  political  purposes  in  Eau  Claire  County.  The 
other  money  I spent. 

The  Chairman.  How  did  you  spend  it? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  I spent  it  to  hire  workers  at  the  polls,  for  auto- 
mobile expenses,  and  traveling  expenses  of  different  kinds. 

The  Chairman.  Tell  us  how  you  expended  some  item  of  it. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Some  one  item? 

The  Chairman.  Yes.  I want  to  get  an  idea  of  what  your  idea  of 
expenses  may  be. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  I paid  $2  that  I can  recall  to  Joseph  Garbutt,  of 
Orfordville. 

The  Chairman.  For  what? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  For  working  at  the  pblls  on  election  day. 

The  Chairman.  What  do  you  mean  by  “ working  at  the  polls”  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Soliciting  voters  to  vote  for  Mr.  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  the  process  of  soliciting  voters? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  I do  not  know  what  process  Mr.  Garbutt  adopted. 

The  Chairman.  How  do  you  know  that  he  performed  that  service  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Because  he  said  he  did. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  he  say  he  had  done? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  To  me  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  I can  not  recall  his  language,  but  I know  that  he  told 
me  that  he  worked  at  the  polls  getting  voters  for  Mr.  Stephenson,  or  I 
should  not  have  paid  him. 

The  Chairman.  You  just  took  his  general  statement  that  he  worked 
at  the  polls  ? You  do  not  know  whether  it  consisted  in  legitimate  acts 
on  his  part  or  not,  do  you  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Why,  nothing  except  as  I know  the  man. 

The  Chairman.  Then  you  have  no  facts  upon  which  you  can  base  a 
statement  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  I was  not  present  at  the  polls. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  the  largest  item  that  you  expended  for 
Mr.  Stephenson  during  that  campaign? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  I could  not  state  that  as  a matter  of  recollection. 

The  Chairman.  You  can  state  some  item  that  amounted  to  more 
than  $2 ; can  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Yes;  I can  state  several  items  that  amount  to  more 
than  $2. 

The  Chairman.  State  some  of  them. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  I paid  $36  in  one  item  that  I can  recall.  I paid  $75 
in  another  item.  I paid  something  like  $13.20  for  another  item.  I 
paid  $6  for  still  another  item. 

The  Chairman.  Tell  what  those  items  were.  Did  you  make  any 
memorandum,  or  keep  any  account  of  them  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  I did. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  it? 

Mi*.  Wheeler.  No,  sir. 


WILLIAM  G.  WHEELER. 


895 


The  Chairman.  Where  is  it? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  It  is  in  the  possession  of  this  committee. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Wheeler,  we  will  pass  you  a memorandum  that 
comes  to  us  from  the  custodian  of  public  property  of  the  State.  You 
will  have  to  return  it  to  him. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  It  is  my  property. 

The  Chairman.  We  do  not  want  you  to  take  that  position,  because 
the  committee  has  received  it  with  the  understanding  that  it  is  to  be 
returned.  Do  you  want  to  use  it  to  refresh  your  memory  in  testifying  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Yes.  These  are  my  private  papers  that  I placed 
with  the  legislative  committee  upon  their  promise  to  return  them 
to  me. 

The  Chairman.  You  will  have  to  work  that  out  with  them. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  I can  settle  that  with  them,  I suppose. 

The  Chairman.  Yes.  You  can  refer  to  that  for  the  purpose  of 
accounting  for  the  money  which  you  expended  on  behalf  of  Senator 
Stephenson.  I can  probably  shorten  this  very  much  by  referring  you 
to  the  testimony  you  gave  from  this  source,  and  verifying  it. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  It  would  not  shorten  it  at  all,  Senator. 

The  Chairman.  Proceed,  then. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  I issued  checks  as  follows:  To  Joseph  Garbutt,  $2. 
To  C.  W.  Clifford,  $10.  This  item,  as  I recollect  it,  was  for  workers  at 
the  polls  in  the  city  of  Evansville.  A check  of  $36 

The  Chairman.  You  may  give  the  dates,  if  you  have  them.  You 
evidently  have  the  dates. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Of  that  item? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Yes;  I have. 

The  Chairman.  You  give  the  date  of  the  Clifford  item  here  as 
August  28. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  August  28,  to  Clifford,  $10.  August  31,  to  Frank 
Mouatt,  $36. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  that  for? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  I shall  have  to  refer  to  the  stub  account.  It  is  put 
down  for  “ expenses.”  That  was  for  expenses  incurred  in  traveling 
out  around  through  the  county,  including  automobile  hire,  and  money 
that  he  paid  to  different  persons. 

The  Chairman.  For  what? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  For  services  to  be  performed  prior  to  election  day, 
or  on  election  day;  I can  not  tell  which. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  his  statement  for  that? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  I had  his  statement  at  the  time. 

The  Chairman.  The  next  item  is:  “Self,  $100.” 

Mr.  Wheeler.  That  was  for  an  amount  of  money  that  I drew  out  of 
the  bank  when  I went  out  on  a similar  trip.  I can  not  state  the  differ- 
ent items  of  that  expenditure,  except  $25.  I remember  about  how 
$25  was  spent. 

The  Chairman.  How  was  that  spent? 

Mr.  Wheeler  (continuing).  Because  I left  that  in  the  city  of 
Beloit,  and  they  sect  receipts  to  me  for  that  money. 

The  Chairman.  With  whom  did  you  leave  it? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  I can  not  say  positively. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose  did  you  leave  it? 


896 


WILLIAM  G.  WHEELER. 


Mr.  Wheeler.  I left  it  there  to  be  paid  to  find  men  in  each  ward 
to  work  for  Senator  Stephenson  on  election  day. 

Senator  Sutherland.  On  primary  election  day  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  I think  it  was  primary  election  day  and  before. 

The  Chairman.  I suppose  the  balance  of  it  you  spent  for  your 
personal  expenses  on  your  trip.  Did  you  spend  any  portion  of  it 
for  treats — liquors  or  cigars — to  electors  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Of  that  money  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Not  any  of  Senator  Stephenson’s  money. 

The  Chairman.  No  part  of  that  $100? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  The  money  I received  was  more  than  exhausted 
in  other  ways. 

The  Chairman.  What  other  ways  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  The  ways,  that  I am  stating  now. 

The  Chairman.  The  item  here  is  “$100;”  so  we  are  merely 
accounting  for  it  in  the  proper  inquiry  into  this  matter.  When  I 
ask  you  about  liquor  and  cigars  I refer  to  a class  of  expenditure 
which  is  generally  known  as  “ bar-room  campaign;”  not  to  the 
ordinary,  habitual  drink  that  a man  might  take.  Did  you  spend 
any  of  this  in  a “ bar-room  campaign?” 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Any  of  this  $600  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  The  next  item  is  $6  to  Jones.  What  was  that  for  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  That  was  for  the  same  kind  of  work  that  I have 
spoken  of;  workers  at  the  polls  and  before  the  primary. 

The  Chairman.  Then  “C.  D.  Salmon,  $75.” 

Mr.  Wheeler.  That  was  for  organization  work  in  Beloit — getting 
men  out,  and  rigs  at  the  polls  on  election  day. 

The  Chairman.  This  was  close  up  to  election,  was  it  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  It  was  all  close  to  election. 

The  Chairman.  It  would  appear  that  “Clifford”  was  on  August  28. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  The  campaign  in  Rock  County  was  very  much 
delayed. 

The  Chairman.  “L.  C.  Whittet,  $5.”  Is  that  the  same  class  of 
work  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  “$3,”  is  it  not? 

The  Chairman.  It  is  “ $5”  here. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  $3,  I think  it  is  (examining  memorandum).  $3. 

The  Chairman.  This  is  evidently  a misprint.  “Gazette  Printing 
Co.,  $18.50.”  What  is  that? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  That  was  for  printing  circulars,  campaign  circu- 
lars, for  use  in  Rock  County  and  Eau  Claire  County. 

The  Chairman.  “Frank  Mouatt,  $19.50.” 

Mr.  Wheeler.  No;  I think  it  is  but  $13.20. 

The  Chairman.  This  print  is  wrong,  is  it?  It  says  “$19.50”  here. 

Mr.  Wheeler  [examining  memorandum].  It  is  $19.50. 

The  Chairman.  You  had  already  paid  the  same  man  $36  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Yes.  He  was  out  on  two  occasions. 

The  Chairman.  “John  Boyd,  $6.” 

Mr.  Wheeler.  That  was  for  work  in  the  town  of  Lima. 

The  Chairman.  “Mr.  Garbutt,  $2.” 

Mr.  Wheeler.  That  I have  already  stated. 


WILLIAM  G.  WHEELER. 


897 


The  Chairman.  That  is  the  item  that  you  selected  first.  The 
question  which  followed  that  statement  by  you  before  the  legislative 
committee  was — 

The  receipts  that  you  have  here  are  for  the  distribution  of  some  of  the  money  rep- 
resented by  these  checks? 

Referring,  I presume,  to  the  checks  that  you  have. 

A.  Yes.  For  instance,  here  are  $75  receipts,  which  cover  the  check  to  Mr.  Salmon, 
and  a letter  from  Mr.  Salmon  explaining  the  disbursements. 

Is  that  letter  there  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  That  letter  and  the  checks  and  the  receipts  are 
here,  and  likewise  the  check  to  Mr.  Saunders. 

The  Chairman.  Will  you  read  that  letter,  if  it  is  there  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  It  is  headed:  “ Beloit  Water,  Gas  & Electric  Co., 
Beloit,  Wis.,  September  1.”  The  year  is  not  given.  “My  dear 
Wheeler:  I inclbse  bills  in  blank,  which  are  correct.”  I do  not 
know  what  he  means,  “bills  in  blank.” 

Senator  Sutherland.  Does  that  mean  “Beloit?” 

Mr.  Wheeler.  “Beloit,”  I guess  it  is;  I do  not  know.  What  is 
that  word?  It  looks  like  “ blank.” 

Mr.  Littlefield.  It  reads  “blank.”  1 do  not  know  what  he 
means  by  it. 

Mr.  Wheeler  (continuing).  “Which  are  correct.  All  the  men 
and  rigs  were  in  the  exclusive  use  of  Stephenson.  We  did  not  mix 
any  other  candidates.  We  also  had  about  as  many  more  that  were 
Stephenson  and  one  or  two  other  candidates.  At  this  writing, 
4 p.  m.,  I predict  1,700  to  1,800  votes  and  that  Stephenson  will  get 
65  per  cent.  Very  truly,  C.  B.  Salmon.  We  should  pay  these  men 
in  the  morning.” 

The  Chairman.  In  regard  to  these  papers,  I will  read  into  the 
record  the  conditions  under  which  you  left  them,  so  that  they  will 
be  in  the  record  in  this  case  also: 

Q.  And  these  checks  seem  to  aggregate  about  three  hundred  dollars? — A.  A little 
over  $300. 

Q.  Have  you  any  objection  to  leaving  these  checks  and  the  receipts  and  the  stub 
book? — A.  No;  I have  no  objection  at  all.  You  can  have  both  stub  books  if  you 
wish.  Here  is  a stub  for  the  $300  check  on  a different  book.  Now,  in  relation  to 
the  $3  to  Mr.  Whittet,  I presume,  in  justice  to  Mr.  Whittet  I should  say  that  I requested 
him  to  hire  a man  to  work  for  Stephenson  in  Edgerton. 

That  is  enough  to  read  to  identify  the  transaction. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  render  an  account  to  Mr.  Edmonds 
or  to  anyone  else  of  this  matter  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Was  any  requested  of  you  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman  (to  the  secretary).  Mr.  Smith,  those  books  will  be 
returned;  and  we  will  let  Mr.  Wheeler  settle  the  question  of  their 
possession  with  you  at  your  desk. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  I desire  to  state  that  these  expenses  that  are  stated 
do  not  represent  all  the  moneys  that  I expended. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  make  the  statement,  if  you  choose. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Yes.  I made  two  trips  to  Eau  Claire  in  the  inter- 
est of  Mr.  Stephenson;  and  while  I have  no  memorandum  of  the 
expense,  I know  that  I made  the  two  trips.  I have  ascertained  what 
the  railroad  fare,  the  sleeping-car  fare,  and  the  hotel  bill  for  one  day 
15235°— vol  1—11 57 


898 


WILLIAM  G.  WHEELER. 


would  probably  amount  to.  I made  one  trip  to  Superior  and  one  to 
Ashland,  and  subsequently 

Senator  Pomerene.  From  Milwaukee  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  No;  from  Janesville,  where  I then  lived.  I was 
living  in  Rock  County  at  that  time.  The  two  trips  to  Eau  Claire,  as 
near  as  I can  now  figure  the  expense,  amounted  to  $33.68.  The  one 
trip  to  Superior  amounted  to  $24.24.  The  one  trip  to  Ashland 
amounted  to  $25.34.  Subsequently  during  the  legislative  campaign 
I made  one  trip  to  Washington;  and  estimating  the  railroad  fare  and 
one  day’s  expense  in  Washington,  that  would  be  $70  more. 

The  Chairman.  Has  counsel  any  questions  to  ask  this  witness  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes.  Have  you  accounted  for  the  detail  of  the 
$300?  You  say  there  was  $300  of  this  sum  that  was  for  sums  that 
you  had  advanced  prior  to  receiving  the  money. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  No.  It  was  advanced  in  one  amount,  to  take  care 
of  the  campaign  in  Eau  Claire  County.  That  was  a check  that  I had 
sent  to  Eau  Claire  myself. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  To  whom  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  To  Mr.  Farr. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Give  that  name  in  full. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  F.  R.  Farr — F-a-r-r. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  is  Farr’s  address  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Eau  Claire. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  is  the  given  name  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Frank. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  For  what  purpose  was  he  to  use  it? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  The  same  purpose  that  I used  it  for  in  Rock 
County. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  $300,  or  the  items  that  you  have  given, 
excluding  the  trip  to  Washington,  for  instance,  exceed,  I think  con- 
siderably, the  $600  that  came  into  your  hands. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  received  nothing,  I take  it,  as  compensation 
for  what  you  did  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  have  already  stated,  I think,  that  you  are  a 
practicing  attorney  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  I am. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  long  have  you  been  such  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Since  1887. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  long  had  you  resided  in  Rock  County  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  I was  born  there. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  you  continued  to  live  there  until  within  a 
year  or  two,  when  you  moved  to  Milwaukee  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Until  April  1,  1909. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  So  that  up  to  that  time  you  had  been  a continu- 
ous resident  of  Rock  County  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  whether  or  not  since  your  majority  you 
have  taken  an  active  part  in  the  political  campaigns  in  that  county, 
and  are  familiar  with  the  details  involved  in  an  organization  and  in 
campaign  work  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Yes.  Since  I was  22  or  23  years  old  I have  been 
more  or  less  actively  interested  in  campaigns  in  that  county. 


WILLIAM  G.  WHEELER. 


899 


Mr.  Littlefield.  Are  you  familiar  with  the  methods  in  which 
campaigns  are  carried  on,  with  reference  to  the  ordinary  details  of 
organization  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Yes;  I was  familiar  up  to  the  time  I left  Rock 
County. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I should  like  to  have  you  state  for  the  informa- 
tion of  the  subcommittee,  if  you  please,  Mr.  Wheeler,  what  in  your 
judgment  it  would  cost  to  legitimately  and  properly  and  effectively 
organize  a typical,  sample  precinct  for  campaign  purposes,  for  the 
purpose  of  getting  out  at  the  polls  on  election  day  the  strength  to 
which  a candidate  in  the  primary  would  be  entitled  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Do  you  mean  at  a primary  election  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  I mean  at  a primary  election. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  That  expense  would  be  largely  different  from  the 
expense  under  the  old  system  of  caucuses. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Explain  why.  Just  give  your  reasons. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Because  under  the  primary  system  it  is  the  cam- 
paign of  an  individual;  and  lie  himself  necessarily  has  to  undertake 
the  whole  expense  of  organization.  Under  the  old  system  of  caucuses 
the  delegates  were  elected  and  selected,  ordinarily,  without  reference 
to  the  candidacy  of  any  individual.  The  real  campaign  for  the 
nomination  commenced  after  the  selection  of  the  delegates,  and 
personal  interviews  with  the  delegates  were  about  all  that  was 
necessary.  In  the  campaign  as  it  is  necessary  under  the  primary, 
you  must  commence  with  the  individual  voter;  and  that  makes  neces- 
sary, if  you  are  going  to  carry  on  an  effective  campaign,  a canvass, 
a poll  list,  ascertaining  not  only  the  politics  of  the  voter  but  his  indi- 
vidual preference  for  the  office  in  question.  So  if  you  are  going  to 
make  a thorough  campaign  you  must  have  this  canvass. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  the  kind  I inquire  about.  Go  right  along 
and  give  the  successive  steps  in  the  campaign. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  After  you  get  this  canvass  of  the  voters,  it  is  neces- 
sary, as  I say,  to  interview  the  voter  to  ascertain  his  personal  pre- 
ference, because  it  does  not  depend  upon  his  party.  It  depends 
upon  whether  he  is  for  or  against  the  individual  in  question;  and  that 
must  be  ascertained.  After  you  have  ascertained  those  that  are 
favorable  to  the  candidate,  it  is  necessary  to  use  argument  or  effort 
with  the  remainder  of  the  electorate  of  that  precinct;  and  that  must 
be  followed  up  until  election  day.  Then  on  election  day  it  is  neces- 
sary to  get  out  the  vote.  The  experience  under  the  primary  system 
so  far  as  I have  observed  it  is  that  it  is  more  difficult  to  get  the  voters 
out  to  vote  on  a primary  day  than  it  is  on  an  election  day — very 
much  more  so,  because  on  a primary  day  they  come  out  not  for  the 
party,  but  for  the  individual. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  They  do  not  have  the  party  cohesion  to  draw 
them  out  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  No.  That  is  lacking. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Will  you  be  kind  enough  to  give  the  subcom- 
mittee, so  far  as  you  are  able,  a detailed  estimate  of  what  in  your 
judgment  it  would  cost  in  a typical  precinct  to  perfect  a proper, 
thorough,  and  effective  organization  and  prosecute  the  campaign 
until  the  day  of  the  primary  election,  to  the  end  that  you  shall  get 
out,  so  far  as  possible,  the  full  strength  of  the  candidate  ? 


900 


WILLIAM  G.  WHEELER. 


Mr.  Wheeler.  I can  not  state  that  more  than  approximately,' 
because  Senator  Stephenson’s  campaign  was  the  only  one  in  which  I 
was  concerned  under  the  primary.  But  from  my  knowledge  of 
what  would  be  necessary,  figuring  that  there  would  be  about  200 
voters  to  a precinct,  probably,  I should  say  that  it  would  cost  in 
the  neighborhood  of  $20  to  $25  or  $35  to  get  that  canvass  in  the  first 
place. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Go  right  along  with  the  various  elements. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Then,  you  should  have  men  working  in  the  precinct 
in  advance  of  election  day — we  have  always  found  it  necessary  to  have 
at  least  two  in  a precinct — to  whom  it  is  necessary  to  pay,  usually, 
$10  apiece.  Then,  on  election  day,  there  should  be  two  carriages  for 
each  precinct,  and  two  men — one  with  each  carriage — in  addition  to 
the  driver.  That  would  involve  an  expense  of  $10  for  the  carriages, 
probably,  and  $10  for  the  two  men.  Then,  there  should  be  somebody 
to  check  up  the  poll  list — probably  $3  for  such  a man. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  whether  or  not,  in  your  judgment,  that 
is  a conservative  estimate  of  the  legitimate  expenditure. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  I think  it  is.  That  does  not  include  the  distribu- 
tion of  campaign  literature  that  seems  to  be  necessary.  That  would 
cost  something  in  addition.  It  is  customary  under  the  primary  law 
to  do  more  or  less  posting  of  lithographs  and  more  or  less  mailing  of 
campaign  literature.  That  would  have  to  be  an  additional  item. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  whether  or  not  the  estimate  that  you  have 
made  of  what  would  be  legitimate  and  ordinary  expenses,  in  order  to 
perfect  a proper  and  effective  organization,  includes  the  expense  of 
advertising  in  newspapers. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  It  does  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  whether  or  not  it  is  a fact  that  newspaper 
advertising  over  the  State  generally  is  extensively  engaged  in  by 
candidates  before  the  primary. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Yes;  it  is  quite  general. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  I suppose  the  expense  involved  in  such  a 
campaign  is  measured  simply  by  the  extent  to  which  the  respective 
candidates  see  fit  to  avail  themselves  of  that  instrumentality  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  the  estimates  that  you  have  given  do  not 
include  the  expense  of  printing  and  circulating  the  general  literature 
that  is  used  in  the  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  They  do  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  So  far  as  it  may  be  circulated  through  the  mails  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  It  is  not  included. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I will  ask  you  wLether  or  not  the  estimate  that 
you  have  given  is,  in  your  judgment,  based  upon  what  would  fairly 
be  termed  an  average  precinct  in  the  State  of  Wisconsin,  which  con- 
tains, I think,  something  like  2,200  precincts? 

The  Chairman.  At  that  point — I do  not  know  how  far  counsel 
contemplates  carrying  this 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I am  all  through. 

The  Chairman.  In  the  judgment  of  the  subcommittee,  it  is  not  evi- 
dence. We  have  allowed  it  to  run  along  to  see  what  it  would  develop 
into.  The  witness  can  answer  that  question;  but  the  subcommittee 
are  of  the  opinion  that  it  is  not  evidence  in  this  case. 


WILLIAM  G.  WHEELER. 


901 


Mr.  Littlefield.  I will  ask  you  whether  or  not  the  estimate  that 
you  have  given  is  predicated  upon  what,  in  your  judgment,  would 
be  an  average  precinct  in  the  State  of  Wisconsin? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  whether  or  not  any  of  the  sums  that  were 
disbursed  by  you  in  Se**ator  Stephenson’s  interest  in  this  primary 
election  were  disbursed,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  for  the  purpose 
of  bribing  or  corruptly  influencing  any  electors  in  that  primary 
campaign  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  They  were  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Were  any  of  the  sums  that  were  received  by 
others  from  you,  so  far  as  you  know,  used  by  them,  either  directly  or 
indirectly,  for  the  purpose  of  bribing  or  corruptly  influencing  any 
electors  in  that  primary  election? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I did  not  understand  what  you  said  would 
be  the  total  expense  in  each  precinct,  Mr.  Wheeler.  My  attention 
was  distracted. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  It  would  probably  be  between  $50  and  $75. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Fifty  dollars  to  $76  for  each  precinct  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  If  you  organize  thoroughly;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  If  you  organized  thoroughly,  it  would  cost 
upward  of  $200,000  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  In  the  State  ? 

Senator  Sutherland.  Yes. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Yes.  I think  it  does  cost  that  now. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Then,  if  I understand  you,  under  this  direct- 
primary  system  it  is  not  worth  while  for  a man  to  aspire  to  the  United 
States  Senate  unless  he  has  a couple  of  hundred  thousand  dollars  to 
spend  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Or  unless  he  can  advertise  in  some  other  way. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  the  people  of 
Wisconsin  are  not  sufficiently  discriminating  so  that  they  can  select 
the  best  man  without  having  to  advertise  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  The  primary  system,  Senator,  does  not  always  tend 
to  bring  to  the  surface  the  best  men.  That  is,  there  is  not  the  same 
opportunity  for  the  people  to  get  acquainted  with  the  best  men  that 
there  was  under  the  old  system. 

The  Chairman.  You  mean,  by  the  “old  system,”  when  we  were 
proceeding  under  a republican  form  of  government,  do  you  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  I understand  you  to  say  that  there  is 
any  reluctance  on  the  part  of  the  voters  to  go  out  to  the  primaries 
here  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  There  seems  to  be.  That  is,  you  do  not  get  the 
vote  out  at  the  primaries.  Since  we  have  had  the  primary  there  is 
not  the  same  vote  that  we  had  before.  The  vote  is  getting  smaller 
instead  of  larger. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Then,  the  impression  I have  gained  that 
under  the  direct-primary  system  the  entire  citizenship  of  the  State 
was  clamoring  to  get  out  and  say  who  should  be  nominees  on  the 
ticket  is  a mistake  ? 


902 


WILLIAM  G.  WHEELER. 


Mr. 'Wheeler.  It  does  not  seem  to  be  the  fact;  because  I think 
an  examination  of  the  vote  will  show  that  instead  of  getting  larger  it 
is  getting  smaller. 

Senator  Sutherland.  There  is  a smaller  proportion  of  the  vote 
cast  at  the  primary  than  there  is  at  the  general  election  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Oh,  very  much — very  much  smaller. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  vote  in  the  primary  is  decreasing  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Yes;  the  vote  at  the  primary  is  decreasing,  and  the 
vote  at  the  general  election  is  decreasing. 

Senator  Sutherland.  If  you  can  tell  me,  about  what  percentage 
of  the  vote  which  is  polled  at  the  general  election  is  polled  at  the 
primaries  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  I could  not  give  you  very  much  of  an  idea  of  that. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Then  state  the  percentage  of  the  registered 
vote. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  At  the  primary  ? 

Senator  Sutherland.  At  the  primary. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Frequently  not  25  per  cent. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Not  25  per  cent  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  I do  not  think  so. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is,  you  mean  that  75  per  cent  of  the 
registered  voters  refrain  from  going  to  the  primaries  at  all  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  I could  not  say  as  far  as  the  State  is  concerned, 
Senator,  but  in  some  localities. 

Senator  Sutherland.  In  your  locality  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Where  I formerly  lived,  do  you  mean — in  Janes- 
ville, Rock  County  ? 

Senator  Sutherland.  Yes. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  I do  not  know  anything  about  conditions  in 
Milwaukee. 

Senator  Sutherland.  No;  not  in  Milwaukee.  I mean  where  you 
formerly  lived. 

Mr.  Wheeler.  The  vote  on  primary  day  is  ordinarily  very  light 
as  compared  with  the  registration.  I am  satisfied  that  frequently  it 
does  not  amount  to  50  per  cent  of  the  registration. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Not  50  per  cent  of  the  registration,  and 
sometimes  less  than  that  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  I should  say  so. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  part  of  this  money,  as  I understand 
you,  must  be  spent  in  order  to  advertise  and  excite  the  interest  of 
the  voters  in  the  contest  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Yes.  Of  course  the  interest  in  the  primary 
depends  to  some  extent  upon  the  candidacy  of  the  individual.  If  it 
is  somebody  that  the  people  are  very  much  interested  in,  they  will 
come  out  to  the  primary  more  generally  than  they  will  when  they  are 
indifferent,  and  the  feeling  of  indifference  seems  to  be  on  the  increase. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  is  all. 

The  Chairman.  The  people  are  more  ready  to  come  out  on  their 
own  account,  without  being  solicited  or  driven  out,  to  support  their 
own  choice,  than  they  are  to  come  out  and  support  some  person  who 
has  selected  himself  ? Is  that  true  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  I think  that  is  probably  true. 

The  Chairman.  When  the  people’s  selected  representatives  have 
selected,  a candidate,  they  are  more  willing  to  take  the  trouble  to 


F.  J.  EPPLING. 


903 


elect  him  than  they  are  to  elect  some  man  whose  chief  recommenda- 
tion is  that  he  wants  the  office  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  I think  that  is  true.  I think  also  that  the  interest 
in  the  election  is  decreased  because  of  the  doing  away  with  party 
councils,  such  as  conventions. 

The  Chairman.  Doing  away  with  organized  government,  in  other 
words  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Senator,  I think  you  like  this  man. 

The  Chairman.  The  witness  was  interrogated  as  to  his  opinion  on 
political  situations. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes,  sir;  and  he  answered  with  a very  high 
degree  of  intelligence. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  you  not  think  it  would  stimulate  the 
interest  of  the  people  if  there  were  provided  a few  more  elections  than 
we  have  now  ? We  have  the  primary  election  and  the  general  elec- 
tion. If  we  could  work  in  a few  referendum  elections  and  recall 
elections,  do  you  not  think  that  would  stimulate  the  interest  of  the 
people  ? 

Mr.  Wheeler.  Possibly.  I am  not  very  much  of  an  advocate  of 
more  than  one  election. 


TESTIMONY  OF  F.  J.  EPPLING. 

F.  J.  Eppling,  having  been  previously  sworn,  was  examined  and 
testified  as  follows : 

The  Chairman.  Your  name  is  F.  H.  Eppling? 

Mr.  Eppling.  No,  sir;  F.  J.  Eppling. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  “F.  H. ” in  this  record, 
do  you  reside  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  Sheboygan,  Wis. 


Mr.  Eppling,  where 


The  Chairman. 
Mr.  Eppling.  I 
temporarily. 

The  Chairman. 
Mr.  Eppling.  I 
The  Chairman. 


What  is  your  occupation  ? 

am  at  the  present  time  in  the  insurance  business, 


What  is  your  profession  ? 
was  a clergyman. 

Were  you  a clergyman  during  the  summer  of  1908  ? 
Mr.  Eppling.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Of  what  denomination  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  The  Lutheran. 

The  Chairman.  Where  were  you  located  at  that  time? 

Mr.  Eppling.  Algoma,  Wis. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  participate  in  the  campaign  of  Senator 
Stephenson  for  the  United  States  Senate  in  the  year  1908  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  I did. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  have  an  interview  with  Mr.  Edmonds, 
representing  Senator  Stephenson,  on  the  27th  of  August,  1908  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  I could  not  give  any  date. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  have  an  interview  with  him? 

Mr.  Eppling.  At  various  times. 

The  Chairman.  When  was  the  first  interview  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  I could  not  say  as  to  the  exact  date. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you,  at  that  time,  receive  any  money  from 
him  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  At  the  first  interview  ? I did. 


904 


F.  J.  EPPLING. 


The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Eppling.  I did. 

The  Chairman.  How  much? 

Mr.  Eppling.  $75. 

The  Chairman.  You  can  not  give  the  date,  you  say? 

Mr.  Eppling.  I could  not. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  altogether  did  you  receive  from  him. 

Mr.  Eppling.  $400. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose  did  you  receive  that  money? 

Mr.  Eppling.  It  was  for  the  purpose  of  covering  my  expenses  in 
helping  to  organize  the  various  counties. 

The  Chairman.  What  do  you  mean  by  the  term  “organize?” 

Mr.  Eppling.  To  find  somebody  who  is  familiar  with  political 
work,  to  help  to  bring  out  the  voters,  to  properly  present  the  candi- 
date to  the  people. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  enter  upon  that  work  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  To  some  extent. 

The  Chairman.  How  long  did  you  engage  in  it  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  About  six  weeks. 

The  Chairman.  During  that  time  you  received  these  sums  of 
money  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  pay  any  of  that  money  to  other  people 
for  working  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  Not  at  all ; not  one  penny. 

The  Chairman.  It  was  all  for  your  services  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  Personal  expenses  and  compensation. 

The  Chairman.  What  class  of  work  did  you  do? 

Mr.  Eppling.  I did  not  at  first — it  was  not  my  intention  to  do  any 
work  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  Then  for  what  were  you  to  receive  the  money  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  That  is,  you  must  take  into  view — which  will  be 
properly  explained  later — how  I was  drawn  into  this  campaign. 

The  Chairman.  Please  answer  my  question.  How  were  you  tc 
expend  the  money  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  For  my  personal  expenses. 

The  Chairman.  What  were  you  to  do  for  the  money  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  I was  to  look  up  certain  parties  in  various  counties 
who  could  do  political  work  for  Mr.  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  Who  were  those  parties  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  Mr.  Werner  Pflughoeft,  in  Taylor  County;  Dr.  Frank, 
in  Clark  County;  Mr.  Bratz — an  insurance  solicitor — in  Washington 
County;  and  another  son  of  Mr.  Pflughoeft,  in  Outagamie  County. 

The  Chairman.  Those  were  the  persons  that  you  were  to  look  up. 
Was  any  part  of  this  money  in  the  nature  of  a subscription  to  the 
church  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  Not  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  It  was  all  for  your  personal  compensation  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  Positively. 

The  Chairman.  And  for  work  to  be  done  by  you  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  By  myself  personally. 

The  Chairman.  Who  gave  you  the  money  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  Mr.  Edmonds. 

The  Chairman.  All  of  it  ? 


F.  J.  EPPLING. 


905 


Mr.  Eppling.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  not  receive  any  part  of  it  from  any  other 
person  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  Not  one  penny. 

The  Chairman.  There  is  an  affidavit  in  the  report  of  the  com- 
mittee, purporting  to  have  been  made  by  you.  Are  you  familiar 
with  the  contents  of  that  paper  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  I am. 

The  Chairman.  Are  the  statements  therein  contained  true  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  In  substance. 

The  Chairman.  In  form  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  In  form  and  substance.  There  are  a few  slight 
errors  in  there. 

The  Chairman.  Will  you  indicate  wherein  the  errors  are? 

Mr.  Eppling.  That  my  wife  did  some  ' ‘stenographic  ” work,  which 
should  be  “secretary”  work.  She  is  not  a stenographer.  That  is 
one  that  I recall.  It  was  not  an  error  by  myself;  it  was  an  error 

The  Chairman.  No.  I will  call  your  attention  to  this  statement 
in  your  affidavit: 

The  $200  donation  which  he  gave  to  my  congregation  was  announced  from  the 
pulpit  that  the  donation  was  made  by  a friend  who  did  not  want  his  name  men- 
tioned, and  only  one  in  the  congregation  explicitly  asked  me  whether  Mr.  Stephenson 
had  made  the  donation,  and  I told  him  yes,  but  I told  him  I did  not  wish  that  such 
should  be  known  among  the  congregation,  since  it  was  not  given  for  any  political 
purpose. 


Was  that  $200  in  addition  to  the  sums  that  you  say  you  received? 

Mr.  Eppling.  I did  not  receive  that  for  any  political  purpose. 

The  Chairman.  Is  it  in  addition  to  the  sums  that  you  say  you 
received  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  paid  on  the  22d  day  of  August,  was  it? 

Mr.  Eppling.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chasrman.  That  you  considered  a separate  and  independent 
donation  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  A donation. 

The  Chairman.  Did  Senator  Stephenson  make  any  other  donation 
to  the  church  than  that? 

Mr.  Eppling.  Not  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  I fold  a 1 'Statement  of  the  receipts  and  expendi- 
tures for  the  new  church  at  Kolberg,  Wis.”  Was  that  your  church? 

Mr.  Eppling.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  The  first  item  is,  “Isaac  Stephenson,  $100.”  Is 
that  included  in  the  $200  donation  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  It  is. 

The  Chairman.  I find  in  connection  with  that  a receipt  which 
reads  as  follows:  “Algoma,  Wis.,  Aug.  15,  1908.  Received  of  F.  J. 
Eppling,  one  hundred  dollars,  donation  for  church.  John  Busch.” 
That  was  a donation  made  by  you,  was  it? 

Mr.  Eppling.  No,  sir.  That  included  the  $200. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  the  $100  named  in  this  statement,  is  it? 

Mr.  Eppling.  Yes,  sir.  Pardon  me,  Senator;  I did  not  quite 
understand  that  question. 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  the  $100  that  is  the  first  item  in  this  list 
of  expenditures  ? 


906 


F.  J.  EPPLING. 


Mr.  Littlefield.  What  page  does  your  honor  have  ? 

The  Chairman.  Page  4610. 

Mr.  Eppling.  I can  explain  that  in  a few  words. 

The  Chairman.  Do  so. 

Mr.  Eppling.  Mr.  Stephenson  gave  me  $200  for  my  congregation, 
and  he  left  at  my  disposal  the  way  I should  apply  it.  At  that  time  a 
church  was  being  built  in  Kolberg,  and  I gave  $100  to  Kolberg,  and 
the  other  hundred  dollars  I gave  to  my  church  at  Algoma. 

The  Chairman.  Was  the  receipt  for  $75  which  you  received  from 
Max  Wensel 

Mr.  Eppling.  Hensel. 

The  Chairman.  That  should  be  Hensel  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  Yes,  H-e-n-s-e-1. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  a mistake  in  printing,  then.  Was  that  a 
part  of  the  Stephenson  donation  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  Not  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  Why  did  you  report  it  in  connection  with  your 
affidavit  or  testimony  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  Not  with  the  $200.  It  was  for  my  personal  expense. 
I was  absent  from  my  congregation  and  I had  an  assistant.  I paid 
him  $75  during  that  time,  and  he  gave  me  a receipt  for  that,  which  I 
filed  with  Mr.  Marsh,  the  chairman,  who  promised  to  return  it,  but  it 
has  not  been  returned. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Senator  Marsh,  you  mean  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  all  there  is  of  this  donation  to  you  from 
Senator  Stephenson  is  that  he  wanted  you  to  go  out  and  see  certain 
parties,  politically,  in  his  behalf,  and  he  paid  you  this  money  for 
doing  it.  Is  that  all  there  was  of  it  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  Not  Mr.  Stephenson.  He  did  not  ask  me  to  do  a 
thing,  politically.  Mr.  Stephenson  never  asked  me  to  go  out  and  do 
any  political  work. 

The  Chairman.  Then  Mr.  Stephenson  did  not  give  you  any  part 
of  this  money  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  He  gave  me  $200  for  my  church. 

The  Chairman.  Was  that  his  own  check? 

Mr.  Eppling.  That  was  his  own  check. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  the  check  drawn  by  his  stenographer 
and  signed  by  him  and  handed  to  you  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  Yes,  sir;  on  the  Corn  Exchange  Bank  of  Chicago. 

The  Chairman  (continuing).  Which  is  referred  to  in  the  testimony 
in  this  case  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  the  check  that  was  given  to  you  as  a 
donation  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  The  other  money  you  received  from  Mr.  Edmonds. 

Mr.  Eppling.  I want  to  make  a statement  here,  if  it  is  allowable. 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Eppling.  The  private  secretary  to  Mr.  Stephenson  testified 
that  this  money  was  to  be  given  to  the  Northwestern  College. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Which  money  ? The  $200  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  The  $200.  And  that  is  absolutely  false. 

The  Chairman.  You  mean  that  the  stenographer  was  mistaken? 


F.  J.  EPPLING. 


907 


Mr.  Eppling.  Mistaken;  yes. 

The  Chairman.  That  testimony  referring  to  this  Northwestern 
institution  is  on  pages  1962,  1963,  and  1964.  That  is  found  in  the 
testimony  of  Mr.  Frank.  I merely  give  that  as  a memorandum. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I want  to  ask  about  one  statement  in  your 
affidavit.  In  your  affidavit  you  say: 

Shortly  before  the  campaign  was  closed  I wrote  to  Mr.  Edmonds  that  it  was  not  my 
understanding  and  my  wish  to  go  in  so  deep,  but  since  I had  left  it  to  him  whether  he 
thought  my  service  was  worth  anything,  and  as  Mr.  Stephenson  is  a rich  man  and  I am 
a poor  one,  thought  he  should  give  me  what  was  fair  for  my  services,  and  thereupon  he 
sent  me  a check  for  $200. 

Does  that  correctly  state  what  was  done  and  your  state  of  mind 
about  it  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  Yes,  sir;  that  correctly  states  the  situation. 

The  Chairman.  State  again  the  total  amounts  you  got. 

Mr.  Eppling.  $400. 

The  Chairman.  $400  from  Mr.  Edmonds  and  $200  from  Senator 
Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  That  is  not  for  any  political 

The  Chairman.  Aside  from  the  purpose.  That  was  the  money  you 
received  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  $600  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes,  altogether. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  render  any  account  for  that  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  I kept  track  of  every  penny  that  I expended. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  render  any  account  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  I was  not  asked  to  do  so. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  gave  none  to  Mr.  Edmonds? 

Mr.  Eppling.  I told  Mr.  Evans  explicitly  that  1 was  willing  to  keep 
track  of  every  cent  that  I expended. 

Senator  Pomerene.  When  was  that  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  At  the  beginning  of  the  campaign. 

Senator  Pomerene.  About  when  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  I went  through  a very  severe  illness  and  I can  not 
remember  any  dates. 

Senator  Pomerene.  About  when?  How  long  before  the  primary, 
approximately  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  I should  say  about  six  weeks  before  the  primary. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Where  was  that  talk  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  That  was  up  in  his  office;  in  Mr.  Edmonds's  office. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Is  that  the  time  you  made  the  arrangement 
with  him  to  do  this  work  for  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Tell  us  just  what  was  said  at  that  time. 

Mr.  Eppling.  I said  I could  not  identify  myself  with  a campaign 
in  which  liquor  and  cigars  and  other  questionable  things  were  used; 
that  I would  not  and  could  not  afford  to  do  that;  that  if  I identified 
myself  with  that  campaign  at  all  it  had  to  be  a clean,  honorable  cam- 
paign, and  that  Mr.  Stephenson  deserved  to  be  sent  to  the  United 
States  Senate.  I told  him  that  I was  willing  to  give  my  services 
gratuitously.  I did  not  ask  fpr  one  cent;  and  I told  him  that  if  the 
campaign  was  not  conducted  in  a clean  way,  if  any  of  those  whom  I 
had  suggested  to  Mr.  Edmonds  should  try  to  extort  money  from  him, 
he  should  report  to  me  at  once,  and  I would  have  nothing  further  to 
do  with  it. 


908 


F.  J.  EPPLING. 


Senator  Pomerene.  I had  special  reference  to  the  matter  of  the 
accounting.  You  said  that  you  had  told  him,  at  the  beginning,  that 
you  would  stand  ready  to  account  for  every  penny  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I ask  you  now  to  tell  the  committee  what  was 
said,  having  reference  to  that  subject.  What  was  said  on  the  subject 
of  that  accounting  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  He  said  to  me,  “Your  standing  in  the  community  is 
such  that  we  do  not  require  you  to  make  a statement.”  I did,  how- 
ever, for  my  own  sake,  make  a statement;  and  I expended  more  than 
I received. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  is,  you  kept  an  account/you  mean? 

Mr.  Eppling.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  render  a statement  of  that  account 
to  Mr.  Edmonds  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  I did  not  deliver  any,  but  I can  give  you,  in  an  off- 
hand way,  the  amount  of  money  that  I have  expended. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Have  you  your  original  accounts  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  I have  not,  with  me.  I was  sick  most  of  last  winter, 
and  in  moving  my  wife  mislaid  the  document;  but  eventually  I think 
I can  find  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  say  you  can  give  the  items? 

Mr.  Eppling.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Give  those  items,  as  nearly  as  you  can. 

Mr.  Eppling.  $75  I expended  for  my  assistant.  I bought  at  one 
time  a 2, 000-mile  ticket  at  the  Northwestern  office.  That  was  $40. 
In  cash  I possibly  expended — I could  not  say  to  the  exact  dollar — $15; 
for  stationery  and  stamps,  approximately  $6 ; for  telephone  and  tele- 
graph, about  twelve  to  fifteen  dollars. 

•Senator  Pomerene.  The  $15  item  that  you  speak  of  was  for  hotel 
expenses  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  The  hotel  expenses  were  $30.  Mr.  Edmonds  said  to 
me  at  the  time:  “We  are  very  much  surprised  that  you  do  not  need 
any  more  money.  ” I explicitly  told  him  I was  not  in  it  for  any  graft ; 
that  I was  there  to  help  Hon.  Isaac  Stephenson  as  much  as  I could  in 
a very  modest  way — to  have  him  nominated  at  the  primaries  for 
election  as  United  States  Senator. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  give  any  of  this  money  to  anyone 
else  for  any  work  that  he  was  to  do  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  Not  at  all. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  employ  anyone  to  do  any  work  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  I did,  in  a way.  I selected  those  persons  who  had 
at  one  time  worked  for  Mr.  Stephenson  and  who  felt  very  friendly  to 
him,  because  in  time  of  trouble  he  had  helped  them. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  is  not  an  answer  to  my  question.  I have 
no  objection  to  your  stating  anything  you  desire  to  say,  but  I asked 
whether  you  had  employed  anyone  or  agreed  to  pay  them  to  work  for 
Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  These  men  you  speak  of  that  you  did  ask  were 
men  who  had  received  favors  from  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  They  were  men  who  had  received  favors  from  Senator 
Stephenson  at  the  time  of  the  Peshtigo  fire. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  was  some  years  ago  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  Yes. 


F.  J.  EPPLING. 


909 


Senator  Pomerene.  They  felt  a kindly  interest  in  Senator  Stephen- 
son because  of  favors  they  had  received  from  him  ? 

Mr.  Eppling.  Yes;  and  the  kind  treatment  he  accorded  them 
while  they  were  in  his  employment. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Is  there  anything  else  you  desire  to  say  on 
that  subject? 

Mr.  Eppling.  I can  not  say  anything  more  at  this  time. 

(The  witness  was  thereupon  excused.) 

TESTIMONY  OF  ISAAC  STEPHENSON— Recalled. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  With  the  permission  of  the  committee,  I desire 
to  ask  Senator  Stephenson  a question. 

Senator,  Will  you  be  kind  enough  to  state  to  the  committee  the 
circumstances  connected  with  the  $200  item  referred  to  by  Mr. 
Eppling,  so  that  they  will  have  your  version  of  the  matter  along  with 
that  of  Mr.  Eppling  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  I never  saw  Mr.  Eppling  until  he  came  into 
my  office.  He  wanted  some  money  for  Watertown — the  Lutherans 
there.  My  secretary,  Miss  Stringham,  was  sitting  at  her  desk,  and 
she  got  up  and  went  out.  I told  him  I would  not  give  Watertown 
anything,  but  I would  give  him  $200  for  his  church  at  Algoma  in 
memory  of  Senator  Stebbins,  my  old  friend,  then  dead.  I gave  him 
the  $200.  In  the  meantime,  Miss  Stringham  came  in,  and  I told  her 
to  make  out  a check  for  $200.  She  noted  on  the  stub  ‘ ‘ Watertown.  ” 
It  was  a mistake.  I did  not  give  it  for  Watertown,  and  I did  not  ask 
Mr.  Eppling  to  work  for  me  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  She  was  under  the  impression  that  it  was  given  for 
the  purpose  under  discussion  when  she  went  out  of  the  room  ? 

Senator  Stephenson.  Yes.  It  just  happened  that  way.  It  was  a 
mistake.  And  I will  say,  right  here,  as  to  those  church  matters,  that 
I have  been  giving  every  week,  sometimes  every  day,  for  a great  many 
years;  and  I hope  to  be  able  to  keep  it  up. 

The  Chairman.  That  explains  this  matter. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I was  anxious  to  have  that  go  in  with  the  state- 
ment of  Mr.  Eppling,  because  it  relieves  him. 

ADDITIONAL  TESTIMONY  OF  GEORGE  BEYER. 

Mr.  Beyer,  do  you  want  to  make  a statement  now  ? 

Mr.  Beyer.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  proceed,  Mr.  Beyer. 

George  Beyer,  having  been  previously  sworn,  testified  as  follows: 

Mr.  Beyer.  $400  was  right,  Mr.  Chairman.  Cook  got  $300.  Then 
those  small  items  that  I paid  out  aggregate  $105.90.  That  makes 
$405.90  that  I paid  out. 

Senator  Sutherland.  The  statement  in  the  printed  testimony  is 
correct,  then? 

Mr.  Beyer.  Yes,  sir. 

Is  that  all  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  that  is  all. 

(The  witness  was  thereupon  excused.) 

TESTIMONY  OF  NIELS  JOHNSON. 

Niels  Johnson,  having  been  previously  sworn,  testified  as  follows: 

The  Chairman.  What  is  your  first  name  ? 


910 


NEILS  JOHNSON. 


Mr.  Johnson.  Niels. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  any  other  initial  ? Or  is  your  name  just 
Niels  Johnson  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  That  is  all;  Niels  Johnson. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Johnson,  what  was  your  occupation  during  the 
summer  of  1908  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  I was  deputy  game  warden. 

The  Chairman.  Under  whom  were  you  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  J.  W.  Stone. 

The  Chairman.  The  testimony  before  the  joint  committee  of  the 
legislature  and  before  this  committee  indicates  that  Mr.  Stone  received 
$2,500  of  a campaign  fund  for  the  nomination  and  election  of  Mr. 
Stephenson,  and  Mr.  Stone  has  testified  before  that  joint  committee 
that  he  gave  you,  out  of  that  $2,500,  a portion  which  he  denominates, 
at  page  1785,  as  about  the  ordinary  amount.  Did  he  give  you  any 
money  out  of  that  $2,500  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  present  at  a meeting  at  Mr.  Stone’s 
house  one  night  during  the  session  of  that  committee  in  which  he 
asked  you  and  others  to  sustain  him  in  stating  that  he  had  given  you 
a part  of  the  $2,500.  Were  you  present  at  that  meeting? 

Mr.  Johnson.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Tell  us  what  occurred  there. 

Mr.  Johnson.  Well,  he  asked  me  in  the  afternoon  up  at  the  office, 
to  come  down  to  his  house  that  evening,  at  9 or  10  o’clock,  that  he 
wanted  to  see  me.  He  did  not  state  what  for  or  anything.  I went 
down  there,  and  there  was  several  other  game  wardens  present. 

The  Chairman.  Who  were  they? 

Mr.  Johnson.  There  was  S.  P.  Richtman,  from  Fountain  City; 
George  Kingsley,  from  La  Crosse;  Frank  Tuttle,  from  Oconomowoc; 
Harry  Bowman  from  Genesee.  I think  that  was  all  the  game  war- 
dens that  were  there. 

The  Chairman.  Were  there  any  other  persons  there  besides  game 
wardens  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  There  was  a gentleman  there  by  the  name  of 
Thomas. 

The  Chairman.  J.  E.  Thomas  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  A member  of  the  legislature  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  At  that  time  ? 

Mr.  Johnson.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Tell  us  what  Mr.  Stone  said  to  these  persons  who 
were  piesent. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I know  what  the  chairman  ruled  before,  but  I 
would  like  to  have  the  record  show  that  we  feel  that  that  is  not  a 
proper  subject  for  investigation,  and  has  not  any  legal  relation  to  the 
issue.  I would  like  to  have  upon  the  record  my  formal  objection  to 
its  introduction. 

The  Chairman.  That  is,  the  use  of  the  money  by  Mr.  Stone  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Oh,  no.  That  we  do  not  object  to.  But  it 
does  seem  to  us,  if  the  chairman  please,  that  the  details  of  this 
“frame  up,”  which  is  what  this  is  all  leading  up  to,  constitute  a mate- 
rial fact,  which  is  a very  unfortunate  circumstance,  but  for  which  the 
Senator  is  in  no  sense  responsible. 


NEILS  JOHNSON. 


911 


Of  course,  if  the  committee  feel  that  it  is  legitimate  and  proper,  we 
have  nothing  to  say;  but  I have  been  hoping  the  committee  would  not 
find  it  necessary  to  cumber  the  record  with  that,  because  it  seems  to  me 
it  must  necessarily  embarrass  us  in  connection  with  the  Senator’s  case. 

There  is  nothing  in  the  record  before  the  committee,  if  the  chair- 
man please,  that  in  the  slightest  degree  involves  anybody  connected 
with  Senator  Stephenson  except  J.  W.  Stone  with  this  discreditable 
“frame  up.” 

I had  hoped  the  committee  would  feel  that  it  was  not  necessary  to 
go  into  it. 

The  way  I feel  about  it,  Mr.  Chairman,  is  that  I do  not  see  how  it 
can  have  any  connection  with  the  case.  It  simply  discredits  Stone. 

Stone  must  stand  on  his  own  feet,  as  far  as  that  is  concerned. 

In  discrediting  Stone,  however,  what  I fear  is  that  there  can  not 
fail  to  be  drawn  some  inference— because  it  is  in  the  record — that 
may  embarrass  us  in  taking  care  of  the  Senator’s  rights. 

It  is  a discreditable  circumstance,  but  I do  not  see  how  it  estab- 
lishes any  issue,  one  way  or  the  other.  If  it  comes  in,  it  is  in  as  a 
part  of  the  record,  and  we  have  not  the  slightest  thing  to  do  with  it, 
and  yet  the  way  I feel  about  it  is  that  we  are  bound  to  be  embar- 
rassed by  it. 

I want  the  committee  to  see  exactly  how  I feel  about  the  matter. 

The  Chairman.  I think  I owe  it  to  the  situation  to  state  that  Mr. 
Stone  should  have  been  on  the  witness  stand  prior  to  any  such  tes- 
timony, if  it  is  introduced  at  all ; but  Mr.  Stone  writes  that  his  son  is 
in  some  trouble  and  that  it  was  necessary  for  him  to  go  to  the  place 
where  his  son  was  in  trouble,  and  quite  an  appeal  was  made  to  the 
chairman  of  the  committee  that  Mr  Stone  be  excused  until  Tuesday, 
which  he  stated  was  the  earliest  time  that  he  could  return.  It  is  only 
because  of  concessions  having  been  made  to  certain  other  witnesses 
who  had  court  engagements  and  such  engagements  that  appealed  to 
the  committee  that  we  are  at  this  hour  inquiring  into  this  question 
before  Mr.  Stone  is  put  upon  the  witness  stand. 

I fully  realize  the  force  of  the  suggestion  of  counsel,  and  the  com- 
mittee will  give  it  consideration,  as  will  be  seen  in  a moment. 

It  seems  to  be  conceded  that  this  condition  of  affairs  existed ; that 
this  “frame  up,”  as  it  has  been  termed,  existed. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  There  is  not  any  doubt  about  it. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Edmonds  testified,  and  Mr.  Sacket  also,  that 
J.  W.  Stone  was  paid  $2,500,  to  be  used  in  behalf  of  the  Stephenson 
campaign.  That  fact  is  admitted.  That  he  did  not  make  a fair  and 
proper  application  of  that  money  will  probably  be  conceded  also; 
that  he  appropriated  it  in  a manner  different  from  that  in  which  he 
had  agreed  to  use  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  testified  that  he  did. 

The  Chairman.  And  testified  that  he  did. 

It  may  not  be  necessary  to  go  into  this  matter.  These  facts  being 
in  the  record  will  have  just  as  much  force  as  though  they  were 
brought  out  through  a long  process  of  the  examination  of  witnesses; 
and  there  are  five  of  these  witnesses  present  now,  ready  to  testify  to 
this  “frame  up,”  as  it  is  called. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  I suppose  it  will  be  conceded  that  that  frame  up 
was  actually  made,  and  that  it  was  made  for  the  purpose  of  enabling 
Mr.  Stone  to  make  a statement  that  was  false? 


912 


HUGH  LEWIS. 


Mr.  Littlefield.  I understand  that  there  is  no  question  about 
that. 

The  Chairman.  And  that  it  would  then  necessarily  have  to  be  con- 
ceded that  Mr.  Stone  used  this  money  for  his  own  purposes,  or  appro- 
priated it  to  his  own  uses. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Of  course,  Mr.  Chairman,  you  can  see  that  I do 
not  want  to  take  any  responsibility  for  Mr.  Stone.  I have  seen  him, 
as  he  has  been  sworn  here.  I do  not  want  to  assume  anything  in 
advance,  or  to  make  any  statement  from  him.  I very  frankly  state 
that  that  seems  to  be  the  condition  of  facts  developed.  If,  upon  the 
examination  of  Mr.  Stone,  he  undertakes  to  misstate  it 

The  Chairman.  Then  we  would  have  to  recall  these  witnesses. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  We  have  them  subpoenaed  here,  and  Mr.  Stone 
will  be  here  next  Tuesday. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I hope  the  chairman  does  not  feel  that  I am 
unduly  insistent  about  this. 

The  Chairman.  Not  at  all. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  We  have  our  difficulties  that  we  want  to  take 
care  of,  and  we  do  not  want  to  be  loaded  up  with  matters  with  which 
we  have  no  connection. 

The  Chairman.  The  usual  hour  of  adjournment  having  arrived, 
the  committee  will  adjourn  until  to-morrow  morning  at  10  o’clock. 

Whereupon,  at  4 o’clock  and  30  minutes  p.  m.,  the  subcommittee 
adjourned  until  to-morrow,  Saturday,  October  14,  1911,  at  10  o’clock 
a.  m. 


SATURDAY,  OCTOBER  14,  1911. 

Federal  Building, 

Milwaukee,  Wis. 

The  subcommittee  met  at  10  o’clock  a.  m. 

Present:  Senators  Heyburn  (chairman),  Sutherland,  and  Pome- 
rene. 

Present  also:  Mr.  C.  E.  Littlefield,  Mr.  W.  E.  Black,  and  Mr.  H.  H. 
J.  Upham,  counsel  for  Senator  Isaac  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  The  witness  who  was  on  the  stand  at  the  time  of 
the  adjournment  will  be  excused  from  testifying  to-day.  He  will 
remain  in  attendance  until  called  again. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Mr.  Chairman,  Mr.  Morgan — who,  I think,  has 
been  subpoenaed— has  just  sent  his  card  up  to  me,  and  I assume  that 
he  is  present.  I do  not  think  he  has  been  sworn. 

The  Chairman.  He  has  not  been  sworn.  He  is  on  the  list  of  wit- 
nesses for  to-day.  He  will  be  sworn. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I think  he  wants  to  be  sworn  and  examined 
to-day,  if  it  is  convenient. 

The  Chairman.  Yes,  he  will  be. 

TESTIMONY  OF  HUGH  LEWIS. 

Hugh  Lewis,  being  duly  sworn,  was  examined  and  testified  as 
follows: 

The  Chairman.  State  your  place  of  residence. 

Mr.  Lewis.  Madison,  Wis. 

The  Chairman.  How  long  have  you  resided  there  ? 


HUGH  LEWIS. 


913 


Mr.  Lewis.  Forty  years. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  your  present  occupation  ? 

Mr.  Lewis.  I am  a messenger  in  the  House  of  Representatives  in 
Washington. 

The  Chairman.  How  long  have  you  been  there  ? 

Mr.  Lewis.  Thirty-four  years. 

Senator  Pc^merene.  At  Washington,  you  say  ? 

Mr.  Lewis'!  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  When  you  are  not  at  Washington  performing 
those  duties,  your  residence  is  at  Madison,  Wis.  ? 

Mr.  Lewis.  With  my  family. 

The  Chairman.  Your  family  lives  there  ? 

Mr.  Lewis.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  were  a soldier  during  the  War  of  the  Rebel- 
lion, were  you  ? 

Mr.  Lewis.  I was. 

The  Chairman.  In  a Wisconsin  regiment  ? 

Mr.  Lewis.  The  Second  Wisconsin  Infantry. 

The  Chairman.  How  long  did  you  serve  ? 

Mr.  Lewis.  I served  until  I lost  my  arm  in  that  capacity.  I con- 
tinued in  the  service  until  the  end  of  the  war. 

The  Chairman.  Colonel,  you  took  part  in  the  Stephenson  cam- 
paign in  1908,  did  you  ? 

Mr.  Lewis.  I did. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  receive  money  from  the  Stephenson  cam- 
paign committee  for  doing  so  ? 

Mr.  Lewis.  I did. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  receive  the  money  for  your  own  services 
or  to  be  distributed  by  you? 

Mr.  Lewis.  I received  no  money  for  my  own  services.  It  was  dis- 
tributed in  his  interest. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  did  you  receive  ? 

Mr.  Lewis.  Three  hundred  and  sixty  dollars. 

The  Chairman.  The  record  shows  that  on  July  28  you  received 
S300.  Is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Lewis.  I do  not  think  it  is  correct. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Two  hundred  dollars  ? 

Mr.  Lewis.  Two  hundred  dollars. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  My  notes  show  that  it  was  $200. 

The  Chairman.  If  you  will  turn  to  page  534  in  Mr.  Sacket’s  testi- 
mony you  will  find  that  it  is  stated  as  $300.  The  witness  will  bring 
out  the  facts.  I am  basing  the  questions  upon  the  testimony  as 
printed. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes.  Where  we  may  have  made  the  error  is  that 
I took  my  notes  of  Exhibit  49. 

The  Chairman.  Further  on  the  page  the  counsel  will  see  what  I 
refer  to. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Oh,  yes;  that  is  right. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  did  you  receive  the  first  time  ? 

Mr.  Lewis.  The  very  first  time,  $100. 

The  Chairman.  Yes.  Then  how  much  did  you  receive  the  next 
time  ? 

Mr.  Lewis.  Sixty  dollars. 

The  Chairman.  Then  how  much  did  you  receive  the  next  time  ? 

15235°— VOL  1—11 58 


914 


HUGH  LEWIS. 


Mr.  Lewis.  I think  $200. 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  all  the  money  you  received? 

Mr.  Lewis.  That  is  all  the  money  I received. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  do  with  it  ? 

Mr.  Lewis.  I spent  it  in  just  the  manner  that  it  was  expected  that 
I should. 

The  Chairman.  Just  state  how  you  did  expend  it. 

Mr.  Lewis.  My  first  work  was  to  go  into  a locality  where  I had 
friends,  and  had  formerly  lived — in  Columbia  and  Dodge  Counties. 
My  work  was  to  get  men  to  circulate  nomination  papers  and  find  out 
who  were  the  Stephenson  men,  the  prominent  men  there,  and  advise 
with  them  how  to  get  up  their  nomination  papers — get  the  business 
men  to  get  prominent  men,  Stephenson  men,  and  so  on  and  so  forth, 
and  advise  with  them  in  that  way.  That  was  about  the  first  work. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  give  us  the  names  of  any  of  the  men  that 
you  procured  to  work  in  that  way  ? 

Mr.  Lewis.  No;  I could  not.  The  nomination  papers  would  show 
that.  That  is,  allow  me,  Senator,  the  places  that  I was  in  were 
Cambria,  in  Columbia  County,  and  Randolph,  both  in  Dodge  and 
Columbia — award  in  each  one — Fox  Lake,  Beaver  Dam,  Juneau,  and 
some  towns  close  to  them.  In  all  those  places  I am  well  known. 

The  Chairman.  You  paid  some  money  to  Mr.  Ames,  did  you  ? 

Mr.  Lewis.  I never  paid  a dollar  to  Mr.  Ames. 

The  Chairman.  You  never  gave  him  any  money  to  work  with  ? 

Mr.  Lewis.  No,  sir 

The  Chairman.  I will  correct  that.  You  were  paid  by  a check 
drawn  by  Edmonds  to  Mr.  Ames  ? 

Mr.  Lewis.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  get  all  of  your  money  from  Edmonds 
directly  ? 

Mr.  Lewis.  I think  I got  it  from  Mr.  Puelicher.  I am  sure  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  To  whom  else  did  you  pay  money  out  of  the 
money  you  received  from  Mr.  Puelicher  ? 

Mr.  Lewis.  Senator,  it  was  my  expense.  If  you  will  allow  me 
right  here,  I will  state  that  I made  six  trips  to  Milwaukee.  The  first 
time  I went  in  response  to  a long-distance  telephone  call.  I was 
with  the  governor  in  camp  with  the  troops.  I came  here  in  response 
to  a long-distance  telephone  call. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  were  you,  a member  of  the  governor’s 
staff  ? 

Mr.  Lewis.  I was.  I came  here  and  saw  Mr.  Sacket  and  Mr. 
Puelicher,  and  they  wanted  me  to  take  hold  of  Dane  County.  I had 
some  experience  in  that  line  heretofore,  etc.  My  health  was  not 
very  good  at  that  time,  and  I said  I could  not  assume  the  responsi- 
bility of  taking  care  of  any  territory.  They  were  very  sorry,  and  so 
on,  and  so  forth,  and  asked  me  if  I could  name  anybody.  I said: 
llI  will  look  the  ground  over;  I will  go  back  home  and  come  back  here 
after  I consult  with  Stephenson  men  in  Madison.”  I did,  and  the 
consequence  was  we  selected  Ames,  and  recommended  Mr.  Morgan — 
Mr.  Morgan  and  Mr.  Ames.  I came  here  and  recommended  them, 
and  they  were  selected  to  take  charge  of  Dane  County.  I was  not. 
I made  four  trips  to  Dodge  and  Columbia  Counties  at  different  times. 
The  first  time,  as  I have  stated,  I took  the  nomination  papers  and 
placed  them  in  their  hands,  and  so  forth.  Some  of  those  nomina- 


HUGH  LEWIS. 


915 


tion  papers  were  given  to  me  to  be  brought  here;  others  were  sent 
by  mail.  I made  a week’s  travel,  or  thereabouts,  with  an  automobile 
and  took  Mr.  Morgan  with  me  part  of  the  time;  and  then  my  back 
gave  way,  and  I left  Mr.  Ames  to  take  the  automobile  for  the  balance 
of  the  time  that  I had  agreed  to  take  it  and  pay  for  it.  Right  here  I 
will  say  that  I took  an  interest  in  the  candidate  for  Congress  in  that 
district.  He  was  an  old  comrade,  an  old  soldier,  and  in  his  absence, 
when  he  was  away,  I had  charge  of  his  interests.  In  fact,  I had  the 
whole  charge  as  far  as  Madison  and  its  vicinity  was  concerned,  for 
him.  We  hired  men  jointly  that  would  take  an  interest  in  Rus- 
sell’s campaign  and  Mr.  Stephenson’s  campaign. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  is,  Russell  was  your  comrade,  and  a 
candidate  for  Congress  ? 

Mr.  Lewis.  In  the  Army;  yes,  sir.  I was  paying  his  bills  for  him, 
of  course  with  money  separate  from  Stephenson’s  bills — money  of 
which  I kept  an  account — and  looking  after  his  interests.  I had  the 
whole  charge  as  far  as  Madison  was  concerned,  and  Dane  County,  for 
Mr.  Russell;  I looked  after  it,  and  had  them  going  pretty  well, 
although  the  headquarters  of  one  of  the  candidates  were  in  Madi- 
son— that  is,  for  Senator. 

The  Chairman.  Colonel,  let  me  ask  you  a question  there:  You 
received  $150  from  Mr.  Russell,  did  you? 

Mr.  Lewis.  To  pay  his  campaign;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  for  the  Russell  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Lewis.  That  has  got  nothing  to  do  with  it  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  I find  it  in  the  Russell  account  in  this  testimony. 

Mr.  Lewis.  Yes;  I can  explain  that. 

The  Chairman.  Let  me  ask  you  a question  directly:  Did  you 
expend  this  money  that  you  received  from  the  Stephenson  campaign 
fund  in  making  a saloon  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Lewis.  Not  one  nickel. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  pay  any  of  this  money  to  any  person  to 
secure  his  vote  for  Senator  Stephenson,  either  at  the  primary  or 
otherwise  ? 

Mr.  Lewis.  Not  one  nickel. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  pay  money  to  any  other  person  out  of 
this  fund  that  was  to  be  used  by  him  for  the  purchase  or  corruption 
. of  votes  in  favor  of  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Lewis.  Never. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  pay  money  out  of  this  fund  to  any  other 
person  that  used  it  in  a saloon  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Lewis.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Colonel,  you  had  $360.  What  did  you  do 
with  that? 

Mr.  Lewis.  In  the  first  place,  I paid  my  expenses,  going  around. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Approximately,  what  was  the  amount  of  your 
personal  expenses,  if  you  can  give  it  ? 

Mr.  Lewis.  In  making  those  six  trips  here,  at  the  invitation  of 
the  committee,  I came  here  and  consulted  them,  for  instance 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  have  already  testified  as  to  that.  The 
question  now  is  as  to  the  amount  of  your  expenses,  as  nearly  as  you 
can  state  it. 

Mr.  Lewis.  My  whole  expenses,  from  the  first  ? 


916 


HUGH  LEWIS. 


Senator  Pomerene.  I mean,  now,  your  personal  expenses. 

Mr.  Lewis.  Yes.  My  personal  expenses  for  railroad  fare,  hotel 
bills,  and  such  things  as  that  ? 

Senator  Pomerene.  Yes. 

Mr.  Lewis.  Seventy-five  or  eighty  dollars  would  cover  the  whole 
thing. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  would  leave  $190  ? 

Mr.  Lewis.  Then,  again,  I paid  for  a meeting  that  they  wanted  at 
Stoughton.  There  were  no  funds  to  pay  for  it,  and  I thought  it  was 
a good  thing  to  have  that  meeting,  and  I paid  for  that.  I remember 
the  amount  was  $31.55  that  I paid  for  a hall  and  the  band  and  the 
bill  posting.  Then,  in  addition  to  that,  there  was  the  expense  of  the 
speaker  who  went  there.  I do  not  remember  how  much  that  was. 
It  was  only  a short  distance — 10  or  12  miles. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  else  do  you  remember  in  the  way  of 
expenses  ? 

Mr.  Lewis.  Then  I paid  for  a hall,  unfortunately,  at  Palmyra. 
The  best  recollection  I have  of  that  is  that  it  was  only  $5.  My  best 
recollection  is  that  on  this  occasion  the  speaker  did  not  speak  there, 
because  the  opposition  stood  at  the  door  and  said  there  was  not  going 
to  be  any  meeting.  I was  not  there  myself,  but  that  was  the  report, 
and  when  the  speaker  got  there  he  had  nobody  to  address. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  He  did  not  have  any  audience? 

Mr.  Lewis.  No.  That  was  part  of  the  trick,  you  see. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  hired  the  hall,  but  the  speaker  did  not  have 
any  audience  to  address  ? 

Mr.  Lewis.  That  is  it;  and  I paid  for  it. 

Then  I took  from  here,  in  person,  from  headquarters,  a satchel  that 
Mr.  Sacket  bought  me,  which  he  paid  for  out  of  the  fund — and  I did 
not  see  that  he  put  that  in  his  items;  but  he  bought  me  a satchel,  and 
I took  a lot  of  their  literature  home  with  me.  It  was  pretty  good 
stuff,  and  I had  a pretty  good  list  from  previous  campaigns.  I had 
charge  of  Davidson’s  campaign  as  treasurer,  all  over  the  State,  two 
years  before  that,  and  I had  a pretty  good  list.  I thought  it  was  a 
favored  list.  And  I bought  some  stamps  and  mailed  this  matter.  I 
could  not  give  the  amount  that  I spent  for  stamps.  It  would  not 
amount  to  more  than  $25  for  stamps,  probably  less.  And  I sent  this 
matter  out.  Then  they  sent  me  by  express  a lot  of  literature  here, 
pictures  of  the  Senator,  a streamer,  and  a lot  of  small  cards,  buttons, 
etc.,  and  when  we  would  go  out  with  this  automobile  into  a little 
place,  I could  not  mail  them  myself,  and  I had  to  pay  probably  a 
couple  of  dollars  or  so  for  that. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  employ  any  men? 

Mr.  Lewis.  No. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  employ  any  men  at  all? 

Mr.  Lewis.  On  this  trip  ? 

Senator  Pomerene.  On  any  of  these  trips,  or  out  of  this  $360. 

Mr.  Lewis.  Only  at  election  day. 

Senator  Pomerene.  How  many  men  did  you  employ  ? 

Mr.  Lewis.  We  have  got  12  precincts  in  the  city  of  Madison. 

Senator  Pomerene.  For  what  purpose  did  you  employ  them? 

Mr.  Lewis.  To  be  at  the  polls  and  pass  sample  ballots  to  the 
voters,  and  solicit  votes  for  Mr.  Stephenson,  to  give  them  pictures, 
and  to  remind  them  to  vote  for  Mr.  Stephenson. 


HUGH  LEWIS. 


917 


Senator  Pomerene.  And  to  bring  in  the  voters  ? 

Mr.  Lewis.  There  was  some  of  that  done,  by  a carriage  or  two. 

Senator  Pomerene.  These  men  were  employed  to  discuss  the  merits 
of  Senator  Stephenson’s  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Lewis.  They  knew  all  about  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  his  merits  as  a man? 

Mr.  Lewis.  Yes;  as  they  passed  in.  They  can  not  go,  under  our 
law,  too  close  to  the  polls.  They  must  keep  at  a certain  distance. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Certainly;  I understand  that;  but  they  were 
employed  for  the  purpose  of  getting  men  to  the  polls  and  for  the  pur- 
pose of  cultivating  Stephenson  sentiment  throughout  the  community, 
were  they? 

Mr.  Lewis.  Certainly. 

Senator  Pomerene.  How  much  did  you  pay  them  ? 

Mr.  Lewis.  1 had,  as  I told  you  before,  Senator,  an  envelope,  one 
of  these  official  linen  envelopes  on  which  I had  jotted  down  memo- 
randa. This  was  a long  time  ago,  of  course,  but  I had  on  this  envel- 
ope, on  one  side,  the  amount  that  I should  charge  against  Stephenson, 
and  the  amount  on  the  other  side  that  I should  keep  separate  for  the 
rest  of  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  have  lost  that  envelope,  have  you  ? 

Mr.  Lewis.  Yes,  sir.  I have  hunted  for  it  ever  since  I was  sub- 
poenaed here,  but  I can  not  find  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  are  not  able  to  find  it. 

Mr.  Lewis.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Are  you  able  to  give  the  approximate  amounts 
you  paid  to  these  men  ? - 

Mr.  Lewis.  I think  on  the  whole  it  would  amount  to — I do  not 
want  to  be  kept  strictly  to  this 

Senator  Pomerene.  I understand  that. 

Mr.  Lewis  (continuing).  Probably  $130. 

Senator  Pomerene.  How  much  did  you  give  to  each  man  ? Did 
you  have  any  particular  sum  that  you  gave  to  each  man  ? 

Mr.  Lewis.  Some  $5;  nothing  less  than  $5. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Some  $10. 

Mr.  Lewis.  Some  $10;  and  one  man,  I remember  his  name,  I had 
to  pay  more,  because  he  was  a good  worker.  I had  him  before.  He 
is  a good  mechanic  and 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  is  his  name? 

Mr.  Lewis.  I think  his  name  is  Johnson.  He  is  a mechanic. 

Senator  Pomerene.  In  Madison  ? 

Mr.  Lewis.  He  is  in  Madison  now,  and  he  is  working  up  there.  I 
think  the  last  time  I saw  him  he  was  working  on  the  dome  of  the 
capitol  there  as  a machinist. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I believe  that  is  all. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  may  state,  in  just  a word,  about  the  $150 
that  you  had  to  use  in  the  interest  of  Mr.  Russell. 

Mr.  Lewis.  I had  more  than  that. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  had  more  than  that  ? 

Mr.  Lewis.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  That  goes  into  the  question  of  another  candidate 
and 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I wanted  to  show  that  it  had  nothing  whatever 
to  do  with  this  case. 


918 


P.  F.  DOLAN. 


The  Chairman.  That  is  admitted. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  have  already  stated  that,  Mr.  Lewis  ? 

Mr.  Lewis.  Yes.  It  was  more  than  $150. 

Senator  Pomerene.  As  you  would  employ  these  men  you  would 
employ  them  to  look  after  the  interests  of  both  Senator  Stephenson 
and  Mr.  Russell  ? 

Mr.  Lewis.  Exactly.  Once  in  awhile  I could  not  get  them  to 
act  for  both.  Generally  they  would,  however. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  tried  to  equalize  the  expense  between  the 
two  ? 

Mr.  Lewis.  Yes;  between  the  two. 

(The  witness  was  thereupon  excused.) 

(By  direction  of  the  chairman  the  names  of  the  following  persons 
were  called  as  witnesses: 

P.  F.  Dolan,  Henry  H.  Morgan,  L.  C.  Haslam,  G.  C.  Kolb,  and 
George  C.  Dart. 

Messrs.  Dolan,  Morgan,  and  Cobb  responded  and  were  duly  sworn 
by  the  chairman.) 

The  Marshal.  Mr.  Dart  was  taken  to  the  hospital  day  before  yes- 
terday. 

The  Chairman.  Yes.  He  promised  to  come  here  this  morning.  I 
did  not  know  whether  he  was  present  or  not. 

TESTIMONY  OF  P.  F.  DOLAN. 

P.  F.  Dolan,  having  been  previously  sworn,  was  examined  and 
testified  as  follows: 

The  Chairman.  State  your  place  of  residence. 

Mr.  Dolan.  Shawano,  Wis. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  reside  there  during  the  campaign  of  1908  ? 
Mr.  Dolan.  I did. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  participate  in  that  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  On  whose  behalf  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  In  behalf  of  Mr.  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  Who  employed  you  to  act  for  Mr.  Stephenson  ? 
Mr.  Dolan.  ]^r.  Sexton. 

The  Chairman.  Where  was  the  employment  entered  into  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  At  Shawano. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  money  did  you  receive  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  $400. 

The  Chairman.  From  whom  did  you  receive  $400  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  I can  not  say.  I think  it  was  from  Mr.  Edmonds. 
The  Chairman.  Where  did  you  receive  it? 

Mr.  Dolan.  About  August  26. 

The  Chairman.  Where  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  In  Shawano. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  Shawano  a county  or  a place  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  It  is  the  city  of  Shawano,  in  Shawano  County. 

The  Chairman.  How  far  is  that  from  Milwaukee  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  About  140  miles. 

The  Chairman.  Was  Mr.  Edmonds  there  at  the  time  you  received 
that  money  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Was  the  money  sent  to  you  by  draft  or  check? 


P.  F.  DOLAN. 


919 


Mr.  Dolan.  By  draft. 

The  Chairman.  Payable  to  your  order? 

Mr.  Dolan.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose  was  the  $400  paid  to  you  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  To  organize  the  county  in  behalf  of  Mr.  Stephenson's 
campaign. 

The  Chairman.  What  do  you  mean  by  organizing  the  county  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  Getting  them  to  work  and  distributing  literature. 

The  Chairman.  To  do  what  work  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  To  distribute  literature  and  to  hand  out  cards. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  receive  that  money  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  I think  about  August  26,  I am  not  positive  as  to  the 
date. 

The  Chairman.  Just  before  the  election? 

Mr.  Dolan.  Before  the  primary. 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  before  the  primary  election ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  do  with  the  money?  Give  the 
items,  if  you  can. 

Mr.  Dolan.  Yes,  sir;  I can. 

The  Chairman.  Just  account  for  it,  please. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I would  suggest,  as  the  witness  goes  along,  if 
the  chairman  please,  that  he  not  only  give  the  name,  but  state  what 
the  particular  individual  was  to  do  and  did  do,  so  far  as  he  knows. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  do  that,  Mr.  Dolan. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  fully,  right  along,  yourself,  so  as  to  save 
the  necessity  for  separate  questions. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  is  that  memorandum  you  have  in  your 
hand? 

Mr.  Dolan.  It  is  the  report  that  I made  to  Mr.  Edmonds  on  the 
2d  day  of  February. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Is  it  the  original  or  a copy  of  it  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  It  is  a copy  of  the  original. 

Senator  Pomerene.  A carbon  copy? 

Mr.  Dolan.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  may  proceed,  taking  up  the  items  as  you 
have  them. 

Mr.  Dolan.  I paid  for  postage  $27. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  was  that  for  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  That  was  for  sending  out  literature  that  I got  from 
the  office  here  in’  Milwaukee.  Also  some  that  we  had  printed  in 
Shawano. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Circulars,  lithographs,  and  matters  of  that  sort  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  some  that  you  had  printed  there  in 
Shawano  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  Yes,  sir.  To  the  Shawano  County  Advocate,  ■for 
printing,  $18.50.  To  the  Shawano  Journal,  $8. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  sort  of  printing  was  that?  Just  go  into 
the  details  of  these  items,  briefly,  as  you  go  along,  to  save  the  neces- 
sity for  asking  separate  questions. 

Mr.  Dolan.  We  had  them  strike  off  some  printed  matter.  I do 
not  remember  just  exactly 

Senator  Pomerene.  Of  which  paper  are  you  speaking  now  ? 


920 


P.  F.  DOLAN. 


Mr.  Dolan.  The  Shawano  County  Advocate.  It  was  pretty  much 
the  same  in  all  of  the  papers,  but  we  had  some  cards  printed,  too,  and 
the  Advocate  printed  those.  Eight  dollars  and  fifty  cents  was  paid 
to  the  Shawano  Journal,  and  to  the  Volkesblatte,  $6.  Then  I paid 
D.  H.  George  a check  of  $8.50  for  doing  work  in  the  city. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  kind  of  work  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  To  get  men  to  hand  out  cards  at  the  polls  on  election 
day;  and  I do  not  know  what  else  he  did.  And  W.  T.  Zachow 
looked  after  the  eastern  part  of  the  county;  and  I paid  him  $138. 

The  Chairman.  Give  me  that  name  in  full. 

Mr.  Dolan.  W.  Z.  Zachow. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Give  his  address. 

Mr.  Dolan.  Shawano,  Wis. 

The  Chairman.  Proceed. 

Mr.  Dolan.  For  auto  hire,  one  day,  $10.  Railroad  fare  and  hotel 
bills,  $15. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  that  your  own  individual  expense? 

Mr.  Dolan.  Yes.  Labor  for  addressing  and  stamping,  $10. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  was  the  literature  that  was  sent  out  by 
mail? 

Mr.  Dolan.  Yes;  that  was  the  labor  in  connection  with  the  posting 
of  it.  Men  to  hand  out  Stephenson  cards  on  election  day,  $54.  I 
paid  them  $3  apiece.  There  were  18  of  them. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  give  the  names  of  them  now  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  I can  give  you  the  names  of  a few. 

The  Chairman.  Give  us  all  that  you  can  remember. 

Mr.  Dolan.  J.  M.  Robinson;  his  address  is  Gresham;  Mont 
Bowman,  same  address;  Charles  Madison,  Wittenberg;  M.  A.  Sor- 
ley,  Tigerton;  D.  F.  Lightbody,  Matoon;  Julius  Erdmann,  Shawano; 
Harry  McDonald,  Burnham  wood.  I do  not  recall  any  more  of  them 
at  this  time. 

The  Chairman.  Proceed  with  the  items  on  your  memorandum. 

Mr.  Dolan.  Telephoning,  $3.50.  Those  total  $297.  Then  I paid 
$95.90  out  for  beer  and  cigars — a saloon  bill. 

The  Chairman.  To  whom  were  the  beer  and  cigars  delivered  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  The  fellows  that  might  be  standing  around  in  the 
saloons. 

The  Chairman.  Were  they  electors  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin? 

Mr.  Dolan.  I suppose  so. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  personally  make  that  expenditure  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Proceed  with  the  next  item.  Did  you  report  that 
expenditure  to  Mr.  Stephenson,  or  to  any  member  of  his  committee  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  I reported  it  to  Mr.  Edmonds. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Edmonds  paid  that  after  you  reported  that 
item,  did  he  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  He  had  given  you  the  money  before? 

Mr.  Dolan.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  merely  reported  to  him  the  manner  in  which 
you  had  expended  it  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  After  you  had  expended  it.  Very  well;  proceed. 

Mr.  Dolan.  That  amounted  to  $392.90,  leaving  a balance  of  $7.10, 
for  which  I sent  a check  to  Mr.  Edmonds. 


P.  F.  DOLAN.  921 

Senator  Sutherland.  I would  like  to  know  a little  more  in  detail 
how  you  expended  this  $95.90. 

Mr.  Dolan.  The  competition  up  in  our  country  was  quite  strong, 
and  I made  a personal  campaign,  went  to  the  different  saloons,  dis- 
tributed the  literature,  and  bought  drinks  or  cigars  for  the  boys  who 
were  in  there. 

Senator  Sutherland.  How  did  you  go  about  that?  Did  you 
just  call  up  the  people  and  ask  them  to  have  a drink? 

Mr.  Dolan.  Yes;  and  then  paid  the  bills. 

Senator  Sutherland.  And  the  cigars  were  taken  in  the  same  way, 
were  they — or  did  you  buy  cigars  by  the  box  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  They  were  taken  in  the  same  way.  I did  buy  a few 
boxes  of  cigars  that  I took  with  me  through  the  country,  and  when  I 
drove  out  through  the  country  I handed  one  out  occasionally. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  was  included  in  the  $95.90? 

Mr.  Dolan.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Do  you  mean  it  was  expended  in  this  inci- 
dental way,  in  distributng  literature  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  Yes. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Or  did  you  go  deliberately  into  the  saloons 
for  the  purpose  of  spending  money  and  inviting  people  up  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  But  incident  to  your  other  work,  as  you  went 
along,  you  would  call  people  up  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I do  not  understand  that  you  carried  on 
what  is  called  a saloon  campaign — that  is,  going  from  one  saloon  to 
another,  and  inviting  people  up  to  the  bar? 

Mr.  Dolan.  That  was  not  my  intention. 

Senator  Sutherland.  That  was  not  your  main  purpose  in  going 
to  the  saloon  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Sutherland.  What  is  your  business? 

Mr.  Dolan.  I am  in  the  real-estate  business. 

Senator  Sutherland.  In  what  place  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  In  Shawano. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I think  that  is  all. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  gave  a list  of  18  men  whom  you  employed 
and  paid  $3  per  man.  For  what  purpose  were  they  employed? 

Mr.  Dolan.  We  had  cards  made  about  2J  by  5 inches,  and  printed 
on  them  were  the  words  “Vote  for  Isaac  Stephenson  for  Senator.” 
I gave  them  to  those  men  to  stand  around  outside  of  the  polls  and 
distribute — to  pass  them  to  the  voters  as  they  went  to  vote. 

Senator  Pomerene.  They  were  to  be  the  ordinary  workers  at  the 
polls? 

Mr.  Dolan.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  it  was  a part  of  their  duty,  under  their 
• terms  of  employment,  to  go  out  and  get  the  voters  and  bring  them  in  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  No;  they  just  stood  at  the  polls. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  handed  out  these  cards? 

Mr.  Dolan.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  talked  up  Stephenson  sentiment? 

Mr.  Dolan.  I suppose  they  did.  I do  not  know  whether  they  did 
or  not. 


922 


P.  F.  DOLAN. 


Senator  Pomerene.  You  gave  one  man  in  Shawano  $138.  What 
was  that  for  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  He  organized  and  looked  after  the  eastern  part  of  the 
county.  There  are  35  precincts. 

Senator  Pomerene.  When  you  employed  him,  give  the  committee 
the  conversation  which  was  held  between  you  and  him  as  near  as 
you  can. 

Mr.  Dolan.  I really  did  not  employ  him.  When  Mr.  Sexton  came 
to  Shawano 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  is  Mr.  Sexton’s  first  name? 

Mr.  Dolan.  I do  not  know. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  He  is  in  the  list  here. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Very  well.  He  is  a man  who  has  figured  in 
some  of  the  other  testimony. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes.  I will  give  you  his  name  right  now  so 
there  will  not  be  any  question  about  his  identity.  It  is  T.  J.  Sexton. 

Mr.  Dolan.  I do  not  remember  his  initials. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  the  man  we  have  in  the  record  here. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Very  well.  Tell  us  what  conferences  you 
had  with  him — what  was  said. 

Mr.  Dolan.  When  he  came  there,  he  came  up  to  my  office  to  see 
me.  I refused  to  go  ahead  with  the  work,  I was  busy,  and  did  not 
have  the  time.  He  stayed  around  there  a couple  of  days,  I guess, 
and  insisted  on  my  doing  it.  I told  him  I would  if  he  would  get  a 
man  to  handle  the  eastern  part  of  the  county,  and  also  somebody  to 
look  after  the  city.  I was  quite  well  acquainted  in  the  western  part, 
and  would  do  that  work  myself.  We  had  talked  the  matter  over  a 
little,  and  it  appeared  he  had  talked  with  Mr.  Zachow  previous  to  this 
time;  and  he  had  asked  me  if  it  would  be  satisfactory  if  Mr.  Zachow 
would  take  the  eastern  part  of  the  county.  I told  him  it  would. 
After  that  Mr.  Zachow  came  up,  and  the  literature  was  sent  to  him. 
I think  I expressed  some  of  it  to  him  at  Cecil.  He  has  a place  of 
business  in  Cecil. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  is  his  business? 

Mr.  Dolan.  He  is  a man  of  varied  interests.  He  is  a banker  and 
a mill  man,  a paper  man  and  a merchant. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  is,  a paper  manufacturer? 

Mr.  Dolan.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Who  is  that — Mr.  Zachow  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  Yes.  He  was  to  look  after  the  eastern  part  of  the 
county,  and  get  men  to  hand  out  these  cards. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  did  you  say?  What  was  the  conversa- 
tion between  you  and  him  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  I don’t  remember. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Give  us  the  substance  of  it. 

Mr.  Dolan.  That  was  it — that  he  was  to  take  the  eastern  part  of 
the  county  and  handle  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Was  there  anything  specific  as  to  the  manner 
in  which  he  was  to  expend  any  part  or  all  of  this  money  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Why  did  you  keep  an  account  of  your  dis- 
bursements ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  I supposed  I would  have  to  answer  to  somebody,  and 
I wanted  to  know  what  I was  doing. 


P.  F.  DOLAN. 


923 


Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  do  that  by  direction  of  Mr.  Edmonds  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  was  your  own  idea  as  to  the  manner  in 
which  you  should  conduct  this  business? 

Mr.  Dolan.  I wanted  to  know  when  I got  through  with  the  $400, 
so  that  I did  not  put  my  own  money  into  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  after  you  had  expended  this  money,  and 
found  you  had  a balance  of  $7.10  on  hand,  you  closed  your  account, 
and  sent  Mr.  Edmonds  a check  for  $7.10? 

Mr.  Dolan.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Was  that  made  payable  to  his  order? 

Mr.  Dolan.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  How  did  you  get  the  $400?  In  what  form 
did  it  come  to  you  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  I think  it  was  a draft.  I am  not  positive. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Who  sent  that  to  you  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  I do  not  know.  I think  it  was  Mr.  Edmonds. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Was  it  sent  by  mail? 

Mr.  Dolan.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Was  there  a letter  accompanying  it? 

Mr.  Dolan.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Have  you  that  letter? 

Mr.  Dolan.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Have  you  it  with  you  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Do  you  remember  the  substance  of  it? 

Mr.  Dolan.  No;  I do  not.  He  just  said  that  he  inclosed  me  a 
draft.  I do  not  remember  the  substance  of  the  letter. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I think  that  is  all. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  When  you  went  into  these  saloons,  when  you 
were  out  upon  these  trips,  and  posted  the  literature  in  the  interest  of 
Senator  Stephenson,  did  you  get  the  permission  of  the  saloon  keeper 
to  post  that  literature,  or  did  you  pay  anything  for  the  privilege  of 
thus  posting  it  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  No;  I never  asked  them  to  post  it.  I went  in,  and 
those  that  were  there  I bought  a drink;  and  then,  if  I had  cards  in 
my  pocket,  I handed  them  the  cards,  or  the  literature,  and  went  out. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  post  the  literature  in  the  saloons — the 
lithographs,  etc.  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  Very  often;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Then,  as  I understand  it,  the  treating  was  sim- 
ply confined  to  this : As  you  would  step  in  the  saloon  for  that  pur- 
pose, you  would  invite  whoever  happened  to  be  in  there  to  take  a 
drink  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  you  gave  them  cigars,  as  the  case  might  be, 
and  paid  for  them  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  there  any  campaign  conversation  going  on 
during  the  time  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  Why,  I talked  it  whenever  I had  a chance;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  talked  with  everybody,  you  say? 

Mr.  Dolan.  Yes.  That  was  what  I was  out  for. 


924 


P.  P.  DOLAN. 


Mr.  Littlefield.  Urging  the  claims  and  interests  of  Senator 
Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  say  the  competition  up  there  was  vigorous. 
What  are  we  to  understand  by  that?  Just  give  us  a little  detail 
about  that.  I want  to  know  what  you  were  up  against. 

Mr.  Dolan.  Mr.  Hatton,  of  New  London,  who  was  in  the  race  for 
the  senatorship  at  that  time,  has  large  timber  holdings  in  the  western 
part  of  Shawano  County,  and  he  has  operated  there  for  a number  of 
years.  Of  course  he  has  employed  a great  many  men,  and  those  men 
were  strongly  in  favor  of  Mr.  Hatton.  I tried  to  overcome  that 
sentiment  as  much  as  I could. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  discover  any  evidence  of  activity  upon 
the  part  of  the  friends  of  Mr.  Hatton  in  that  vicinity,  as  you  were 
making  your  trip  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  Quite  often;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Of  what  character.  Were  they  making  a cam- 
paign similar  to  that  you  were  making  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  I never  met  anyone  that  was.  I talked  with  men  who 
had  worked  for  him,  and  that  were  talking  for  Hatton. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Are  you  more  or  less  familiar  with  the  methods 
of  campaigning  in  that  section  of  the  country  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  is  the  nature  of  the  population  out  through 
there,  as  to  its  nationality  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  It  is  mostly  German. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  Germans  are  people,  I suppose,  that  cus- 
tomarily and  ordinarily  drink  their  beer  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  As  a matter  of  course.  Is  that  true  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  Yes;  those  that  I have  come  in  contact  with  were 
always  ready  for  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  it  is  rather  a custom  of  theirs,  a practice,  a 
habit  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  at  any  time  use  any  money  that  was  in 
your  hands  to  be  used  in  the  interest  of  Senator  Stephenson,  either 
directly  or  indirectly,  for  the  purpose  of  bribing  or  corruptly  in- 
fluencing any  electors  in  that  section  to  support  the  Senator  on  the 
primary  election  day  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  Not  one  cent. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  anyone  to  whom  you  gave  money,  so  far  as 
you  know — and  that  includes  Mr.  Zachow  and  any  other  gentleman 
to  whom  you  intrusted  funds  for  any  purpose — use  any  of  the  money 
thus  intrusted  to  them,  to  your  knowledge,  either  directly  or  indi- 
rectly, for  the  purpose  of  bribing  or  corrupting  any  of  the  electors  in 
that  section  on  primary  election  day,  in  the  interest  of  Mr.  Stephen- 
son? 

Mr.  Dolan.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  any  information  ever  come  to  you  that  any- 
thing of  that  sort  had  been  done  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  None. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  all. 

The  Chairman.  The  witness  is  excused. 


H.  H.  MORGAN. 


925 


Mr.  Littlefield.  He  is  excused  finally;  is  he? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Were  you  for  Senator  Stephenson  before  this 
arrangement  was  made  between  you  and  Mr.  Edmonds  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  how  long  had  you  been  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  From  about  the  time  he  started  to  carry  Bob  La 
Follette,  on,  I think. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  quite  a number  of  years. 

Mr.  Dolan.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  from  that  time  on  you  have  been  a friend 
of  the  Senator’s  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  a supporter  of  his  ? 

Mr.  Dolan.  Yes. 

TESTIMONY  OF  H.  H.  MORGAN. 

H.  H.  Morgan,  having  been  heretofore  duly  sworn,  was  exam- 
ined and  testified  as  follows: 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Morgan,  what  position  do  you  hold  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  I am  at  present  assistant  United  States  attorney  for 
the  western  district  of  Wisconsin. 

The  Chairman.  Where  do  you  reside? 

Mr.  Morgan.  Madison,  Wis. 

The  Chairman.  How  long  have  you  resided  there  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  A few  days  over  41  years.  I was  born  there. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  participate  in  the  campaign  of  Senator 
Stephenson  for  the  United  States  Senate  in  1908? 

Mr.  Morgan.  I did;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  money  did  you  receive  to  be  expended 
during  that  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  $299,  to  the  best  of  , my  recollection.  I received 
$299  from  Mr.  Stephenson’s  Milwaukee  representative. 

The  Chairman.  Who  was  that  representative  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  E.  A.  Edmonds. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  receive  it  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  There  is  another  sum  that  I would  like  to  mention. 

The  Chairman.  I will  ask  about  that.  I have  a memorandum 
before  me.  Did  you  receive  that  directly  from  Mr.  Edmonds  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  I received  it  in  the  form  of  a Milwaukee  check,  as  I 
remember  it,  sent  by  Mr.  Puelicher. 

The  Chairman.  Payable  to  your  order  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  To  my  order. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  receive  that  check? 

Mr.  Morgan.  I fear  I can  not  give  the  correct  date  without  looking 
at  some  memoranda  that  I have. 

The  Chairman.  Look  at  your  memorandum  and  state  when  it  was 
made.  Refer  to  it  and  then  testify. 

Senator  Pomerene.  The  memorandum  to  which  you  are  now  re- 
ferring is  one  that  was  made  at  the  time  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  Yes.  The  20th  of  August,  1908. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  the  amount  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  Two  hundred  and  twenty-six  dollars. 


926 


H.  H.  MORGAN. 


The  Chairman.  Is  that  the  sum  that  you  say  was  received  by 
draft  or  check  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  Mr.  Puelicher’s  draft  or  check;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  How  did  it  come  to  be  in  an  odd  amount  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  Because  I had  asked  Mr.  Edmonds  for  that  precise 
amount,  giving  him  a detailed  requisition,  as  I might  call  it. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  state  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  to  be 
expended  when  you  called  for  it  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  I did,  in  detail. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  a statement  there,  or  a copy  of  the 
communication  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  I have  a copy  of  the  first  communication  sent.  A 
letter,  I recollect,  had  been  sent  Mr.  Edmonds,  and  I had  decided 
that  a trifle  more  would  be  used  for  a reason  which  I stated. 

The  Chairman.  Pass  the  additional  item  and  refer  us  to  the 
communication . 

Mr.  Morgan.  It  is  in  the  shape  of  a letter  to  Mr.  Edmonds,  dated 
August  7,  1908. 

The  Chairman.  Read  the  entire  letter. 

Mr.  Morgan.  It  was  in  reply  to  a letter  that  I had  just  received 
from  Mr.  Edmonds. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  the  letter  from  Mr.  Edmonds  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  I am  not  sure  that  I have  that  letter,  but  I probably 
have  it. 

The  Chairman.  Just  examine  and  see  if  you  have  it,  and  we  will 
have  that  letter  first. 

Mr.  Morgan  (after  examining  papers).  I do  not  find  that  letter. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  you  have  not  the  letter  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  To  the  best  of  my  recollection,  I have  not. 

The  Chairman.  Read  your  letter,  and  then  make  a search  after- 
wards, when  you  are  off  the  stand,  for  the  Edmonds  letter. 

Mr.  Morgan.  Yes.  It  is  dated  August  20,  1908. 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  the  letter  that  refers  to  the  odd  sum  of  $226  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Just  read  that  letter. 

Mr.  Morgan.  That  refers  to  the  receipt  of  it.  It  is  as  follows 

The  Chairman.  That  is  a letter  that  you  sent  to  Mr.  Edmonds  in 
reply  to  one  in  which  the  check  came  ? That  is  the  one  we  want 
first,  the  one  in  which  you  say  you  told  him  the  specific  purposes 
for  which  the  money  was  required. 

Mr.  Morgan.  This  seems  to  be  the  letter  which  I have  here,  it 
being  a letter  of  August  7. 

The  Chairman.  Read  the  whole  letter. 

Mr.  Morgan.  The  letter  is  as  follows: 

August  7,  1908. 

Mr.  E.  A.  Edmonds,  Milwaukee,  Wis. 

My  Dear  Mr.  Edmonds:  Your  letter  of  the  6th,  inquiring  about  conditions  here,  is 
received.  The  real  facts  here  are  these:  Dane  County  has  probably  been  the  scene 
of  the  hottest  fights  in  the  State  during  the  late  campaigns.  No  one  living  away 
from  here  can  realize  how  bitterly  the  people  are  lined  up — that  is,  purely  on  the 
La  Follette  proposition.  The  close  La  Follette  leaders  here,  I honestly  believe,  will 
support  Bryan.  I know  that  several  of  them  have  so  announced  and  I know  that 
one  in  particular — a high  appointee  in  the  capitol — offered  to  bet  that  Bryan  would 
carry  the  State.  I tell  you  this  that  you  may  realize  that  the  fight  is  fierce. 

Mr.  A.  It.  Ames  is  good  just  as  far  as  he  can  go.  I am  going  to  propose  to  cooperate 
with  him  in  person  and  I am  arranging  to  go  out  over  the  county  next  week  in  com- 


H.  H.  MORGAN. 


927 


pany  with  one  or  two  of  the  best  men  1 can  pick  out.  As  I have  stated  heretofore,  the 
stalwarts  are  naturally  suspicious  of  Senator  Stephenson.  This  is  not  strange  in  the 
light  of  history.  One  of  us  on  whom  they  rely  have  to  guarantee  the  Senator’s  posi- 
tion. We  have  to  show  that  he  is  first  and  last  a Republican  and  that  he  will  stand 
by  the  President  and  will  vote  with  the  party.  I have  picked  several  splendid 
workers  for  the  polls  and  by  the  end  of  next  week  will  have  a large  area  provided  for. 
Mr.  Ames  will  be  glad  to  work  with  me,  and  will  be  valuable. 

The  advertisement  in  the  State  Journal,  calling  attention  to  Senator  Stephenson, 
cites  the  fact  that  he  has  been  La  Follette’s  backer  in  the  past.  This  advertisement 
works  both  ways.  It  will  catch  some  La  Follette  men,  while,  on  the  other  hand,  it 
heaps  a lot  of  work  on  us  to  keep  the  stalwarts  right.  This  is  natural,  as  you  must  see. 
Cook  is  making  a fierce  effort  to  get  the  stalwarts  and  improves  all  openings  like 
these.  We  are  planning  to  call  an  extensive  meeting  of  stalwarts  here  so  that  these 
leaders  can  go  to  their  respective  localities  and  set  things  right. 

The  Scandinavians  of  Dane  County  have  been  a great  power  and  follow  La  Follette 
to  the  limit.  The  Hatton  men,  the  leaders  in  particular,  are  without  a doubt  lining 
this  nationality  up  as  far  as  they  can  right  on  this  proposition. 

We  can  appeal  for  Stephenson  here  on  the  following  grounds: 

1.  Straight  Republicanism. 

2.  Personal-liberty  principles. 

3.  That  Senator  Stephenson  attended  every  roll  call  of  the  Senate  and  every  com- 
mittee meeting  with  which  he  was  connected.  (This  last  will  refute  the  age  objection 
sometimes  raised.) 

I have  a further  idea  and  will  put  it  as  a proposition.  In  10  days  from  this  date  I 
can  get  practically  a complete  and  an  absolutely  up-to-date  list  of  all  rural  patrons  in 
the  county  and  the  entire  polling  lists  of  Madison  and  Stoughton.  These  wall  include 
many  Democrats.  I recommend  that  envelopes  be  at  once  addressed  to  the  above 
persons,  in  round  numbers  8,000,  and  that  the  mailing  be  done  on  the  24th  instant. 

There  will  be  nothing  lost  by  sending  to  a number  of  Democrats.  It  will  create 
talk,  and  I know  that  many  are  going  into  the  Republican  primaries  to  support  a 
personal-liberty  assembly  candidate.  I further  will  ask  to  suggest  a letter  to  be  sent, 
submitting  the  same  to  you  for  approval.  I can  have  all  addressing  done  here  and 
prefer  to  buy  stamped  1-cent  envelopes  than  to  buy  and  stick  stamps. 

There  is  a pencil  mark  over  the  “one”  there  [indicating].  I think 
that  I changed  it  to  “two,”  this  I am  reading  from  being  a carbon 
copy. 

Any  other  matter  can  be  put  in  the  envelope,  too,  as  you  may  desire.  I have  taken 
this  proposition  up  with  a party  who  will  guarantee  to  have  all  done  and  ready  by 
the  24th. 

I estimate  the  cost  as  follows:  Stamped  envelopes,  $88;  addressing,  $16;  railroad 
fare  in  getting  some  rural  lists  that  we  have  not  in  hand,  $10;  and  about  $50  for  rent 
of  room  and  pay  for  parties  for  making  copies  of  rural  lists.  This  aggregates  $164,  so 
I may  safely  say  that  I will  guarantee  to  keep  under  $175.  This  is  exclusive  of  the 
printing.  You  know  what  that  is  worth  and  you  can  have  it  done  in  Milwaukee  or  I 
can  have  it  done  here.  Must  be  union  work.  The  rural  mailing  I believe  will  be  of 
great  value  and  the  city  mailing  will  stir  people  up. 

Please  consider  this  at  your  earliest  possible  convenience  and  let  me  hear,  as  the 
time  is  short. 

If  I know  by  Tuesday  morning,  or  better  by  Monday,  I can  get  things  under  way 
before  I go  out  into  the  county  to  supplement  Ames’s  work  in  getting  men  for  the  polls. 

Very  truly,  yours. 

The  Chairman.  You  read  that  to  account  for  the  odd  figures, 
$226,  the  amount  of  a draft.  That  amounts  to  only  $164. 

Mr.  Morgan.  Yes.  As  I suggested,  I saw  Mr.  Edmonds  shortly 
after  that 

The  Chairman.  Before  receiving  the  draft  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  Yes.  I made  a number  of  trips  to  Milwaukee  and 
explained  to  him,  as  I remember  it,  that  I did  not  like  to  have 
matter  sent  out  in  Dane  County  in  1-cent  envelopes;  that  I believed 
it  ought  to  be  sent  in  2-cent  envelopes,  and  all  addressed  on  the 
typewriter,  as  it  would  receive  better  consideration  from  the  ad- 
dressees; and  I believe  that  difference  in  the  cost  of  stamps  prac- 
tically represents  the  difference  in  the  requisition. 


928 


H.  H.  MORGAN. 


The  Chairman.  That  would  be  $62.  Do  you  think  it  made  a dif- 
ference of  $62  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  I think  it  would  have  made  about  that,  inasmuch  as 
my  lists  were,  I estimated,  8,000.  I do  not  suppose  I had  counted 
the  lists.  I simply  estimated  them. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I notice  in  the  letter  that  you  advise  send- 
ing out  literature  to  Democrats,  and  say  that  a number  of  them  will 
come  into  the  Republican  primaries.  You  meant  by  that  that  a 
number  of  Democrats  would  go  into  the  Republican  primaries  and 
vote,  so  as  to  effect  the  nomination  of  a Republican  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  If  the  Senator  will  give  me  an  opportunity,  I can 
demonstrate  that  beyond  a doubt  by  some  returns  that  we  have. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I ask  you,  first,  whether  that  was  what  you 
meant  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is,  whether  you  meant  that  they  would  be 
likely  to  do  that  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  Yes.  As  I say,  there  was  a personal 

Senator  Sutherland.  One  other  question  before  you  go  to  that: 
Then  do  you  mean  that  those  Democrats  who  would  go  into  the 
Republican  primaries  to  vote  upon  the  question  as  to  who  should  be 
the  Republican  nominee  would  support  the  Republican  nominee  at 
the  polls,  or  would  support  the  Democratic  ticket  at  the  polls  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  It  would  depend  on  whether  or  not  they  favored 
that  individual.  If  they  liked  the  man,  they  might  vote  for  the 
Republican;  otherwise  they  would  vote  for  the  Democratic  ticket. 
I can  explain  that  in  this  way : It  often  happened  that  the  Demo- 
crats would  simply  have  one  nominee,  one  person  standing  as  a 
candidate,  while  the  Republicans  would  have  a number.  The  Demo- 
cratic candidate  would  need  but  half  a dozen  votes  or  10,  or  perhaps 
20,  votes  in  order  to  get  on  the  ticket.  The  Democrats  then,  by 
coming  into  the  caucus,  would  be  able  to  vote  for  the  candidate 
they  selected,  trying  to  pick  out  the  weakest  Republican  candidate, 
whom  they  could  beat  with  their  man  at  the  polls  later. 

Senator  Sutherland.  In  other  words,  the  Democrats  would  go 
into  the  Republican  primary  and  substantially  dictate  who  the 
Republican  nominee  should  be;  and  as  they  only  had  one  candidate 
at  the  polls  then,  they  would  dictate  the  weakest  Republican  to  run 
against  the  Democratic  nominee  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  I can  say  frankly  that  I believe  that  has  been  done, 
and  I believe  I can  demonstrate  it  by  showing  the  returns  of  the  vote 
at  the  primaries  and  the  vote  at  the  following  election. 

The  Chairman.  Proceed  with  the  next  item  of  expense.  I will  ask 
you  when  you  received  any  further  sum  of  money  than  the  $226  that 
you  accounted  for  ? State  it  in  your  way. 

Mr.  Morgan.  At  a later  time  I received  $73;  but  I have  no  minute, 
no  letter  or  memorandum  of  the  date.  However,  my  recollection  is 
that  both  the  check  for  $226  and  the  check  for  $73  were  indorsed  by 
me  to  E.  W.  Keyes,  postmaster  at  Madison,  inasmuch  as  a very  large 
part  of  that  sum  was  taken  to  purchase  stamps  at  that  time. 

The  Chairman.  Is  it  a fact  that  you  went  to  the  postmaster  to 
purchase  stamps,  gave  him  checks  in  payment,  and  he  gave  you  the 
change  representing  the  difference  between  the  amount  of  the  check 
and  the  amount  to  be  paid  for  stamps  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  Yes;  it  being  Milwaukee  exchange. 


H.  H.  MORGAN.  929 

The  Chairman.  It  is  hardly  worth  while  to  spend  time  on  that. 
That  is  $73.  What  other  sum  of  money  did  you  receive  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  Mr.  A.  R.  Ames  was  in  charge  of  the  county.  T^he 
county  has  about  80,000  population,  16,000  voters,  and  67  voting 
precincts. 

The  Chairman.  What  name  is  that  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  A.  R.  Ames,  of  Madison. 

The  Chairman.  Was  he  representing  the  Stephenson  campaign 
fund  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  He  was. 

The  Chairman.  And  it  was  in  that  capacity  that  you  did  business 
with  him  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  He  had  requested  me  to  assist  him. 

The  Chairman.  All  right.  Now  go  ahead. 

Mr.  Morgan.  Mr.  Ames  had  been  doing  what  he  could  to  procure 
men  to  circulate  literature. 

The  Chairman.  First,  how  much  did  he  give  you  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  He  gave  me  $50.  Col.  Lewis,  who  has  just  testified, 
told  me  that  he  was  about  to  make  a trip  to  Columbia  County  in  an 
automobile;  and  as  he  was  a man  rather  aged,  he  asked  me  to  go 
with  him.  I said  I would.  Mr.  Ames  had  not  been  able  to  go  to 
that  part  of  the  county.  Because  of  the  expanse  of  the  territory,  it 
was  impossible  for  one  man  to  do  it.  Having  known  Col.  Lewis 
many  years,  I said  I would  be  glad  to  go  with  him.  Mr.  Ames  then 
said  that  there  were  some  towns  north  of  Madison — Waunakee,  Dane, 
Morrisonville,  Windsor,  and  De  Forest — on  the  direct  line  to  the  city  of 
Portage,  in  Columbia  County;  and  he  said  he  had  arranged,  through 
a Mr.  Me  Watty,  of  Waunakee — whose  initials  I can  not  give;  he  was 
then  in  the  lumber  or  implement  business  at  Waunakee — Mr.  Ames 
told  me  that  Mr.  Me  Watty  was  a very  ardent  stalwart,  as  he  expressed 
it  then,  and  had  agreed  to  attend  to  the  organization  of  the  towns 
of  Vienna,  Vermont,  Roxbury,  and  two  or  three  adjoining  towns. 
By  “ organizing,”  I mean  that  Mr.  Ames  said  that  Me  Watty  had 
arranged  to  get  a man  to  attend  the  polls  at  each  one  of  those  places, 
they  being 

The  Chairman.  Let  us  get  at  this  perhaps  more  directly.  You 
had  this  sum  of  $50  from  Mr.  Ames,  and  you  are  now  accounting  for 
the  use  you  made  of  it  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  say,  as  I understand  you,  that  you  went  on 
this  trip  in  the  automobile  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Where  did  you  spend  the  money  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  I met  Mr.  McWatty  at  Waunakee,  and  said  that  Mr. 
Ames  had  asked  me  to  speak  to  him.  He  said  that  was  understood 
between  him  and  Mr.  Ames;  that  he  was  arranging  to  take  care  of 
the  five  towns.  To  the  best  of  my  recollection,  I handed  him  approxi- 
mately $25  and  discussed  the  use  of  it  with  him  at  that  time. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  did  you  tell  him  to  use  it? 

Mr.  Morgan.  Those  being  country  districts  required  the  use  of 
teams. 

The  Chairman.  Suppose  we  pass  over  the  reasoning  until  after 
you  have  given  the  fact. 

15235°— vol  1—11 59 


930 


H.  H.  MORGAN. 


Mr.  Morgan.  To  employ  men  with  teams  to  bring  voters  to  the 
polls,  and,  further,  to  pay  the  owner  of  the  team,  or  some  one  to  assist 
hiiji,  to  stand  at  or  near  the  polls  and  deliver  Mr.  Stephenson’s 
cards  to  the  voters,  and  call  their  attention  to  the  fact  of  his  candidacy. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  what  you  paid  the  money  for  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  Absolutely. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  use  it  for  that  purpose  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  I have  not  direct  proof  that  he  did,  except  that  the 
returns  from  those  towns  indicated  that  he  did. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  state  to  you  at  any  time  that  he  had  used 
it  for  that  purpose  ? 

Mr.  Morgan  I have  not  seen  him  since. 

The  Chairman.  Then  that  rests  upon  the  fact  that  you  gave  him 
the  money  for  that  purpose.  To  whom  else  did  you  give  any  part 
of  this  $50  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  J.  S.  Parkinson,  of  Windsor. 

The  Chairman.  You  gave  him  how  much? 

Mr.  Morgan.  I gave  him  either  $2.50  or  $3. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  To  hire  a man  to  take  his  place  in  his  store  so  that 
on  primary  day  he  could  attend  the  primaries.  He  is  a friend  of 
mine,  and  I knew  he  was  a stalwart.  I knew  he  was  for  Mr. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  he  could  attend  the  primaries  for  what 
purpose  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  For  circulating  Mr.  Stephenson’s  cards,  a bunch  of 
which  I handed  him,  and  also  to  awaken  Stephenson  sentiment. 

The  Chairman.  By  talking  to  electors  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  And  arguing  with  them,  and  answering  some  of  the 
arguments  that  had  been  circulated  there  against  Mr.  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  To  whom  else  did  you  pay  any  part  of  this  $50  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  Peter  Duppen. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  did  you  pay  him  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  Two  dollars. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  duties  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  To  leave  his  farm  work  and  attend  the  primary,  and 
circulate  cards  which  I handed  to  him  at  that  time. 

The  Chairman.  Was  he  a Stephenson  supporter  before  you  gave 
him  this  money  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  He  so  indicated  to  me. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  tell  you  so  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  I can  not  say  that  he  did,  but 

The  Chairman.  Then  you  paid  him  the  $2  as  wages  for  attending 
the  polls;  did  you  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  vote  for  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  I have  no  idea. 

The  Chairman.  He  did  not  tell  you  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  He  did  not;  and  I did  not  inquire. 

The  Chairman.  To  whom  else  did  you  pay  any  part  of  this  $50  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  I paid  to  the  editor  of  the  Waunakee  Index 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  is  his  name,  please. 

Mr.  Morgan.  I am  unable  to  give  it.  It  can  be  found  in  the 
Wisconsin  Bluebook,  under  “The  Waunakee  Index.” 


H.  H.  MORGAN. 


931 


The  Chairman.  How  much  did  you  pay  him  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  My  best  recollection  is  that  I paid  him  $6. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose? 

Mr.  Morgan.  Fox  running  Mr.  Stephenson’s  card,  with  an  adver- 
tisement, in  two  issues  of  his  weekly  paper. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  the  next  item  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  The  editor  of  The  Morrisonville  Times.  I believe 
it  is  The  Morrisonville  Times — the  name  of  the  paper. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  his  name  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  I am  unable  to  give  his  name. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  did  you  pay  him  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  The  same  amount,  for  the  same  service. 

The  Chairman.  Give  the  next  item. 

Mr.  Morgan.  To  J.  H.  Purcell,  of  Madison. 

The  Chairman.  Who  was  he? 

Mr.  Morgan.  He  was  in  the  real  estate  business,  and  had  desk 
room  and  offices  connected  with  mine. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  did  you  pay  him  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  $10. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  To  hire  a horse  and  buggy  to  go  into  the  town  of 
Fitchburg,  where  he  used  to  live  (going  there  Saturday  and  not 
returning  until  Monday) ; giving  to  him  several  hundred  large  posters 
bearing  Mr.  Stephenson’s  lithograph,  together  with  some  advertising 
matter,  to  be  posted  around  the  town  of  Fitchburg  and  the  corner 
of  the  town  of  Verona  and  the  edge  of  the  town  of  Madison  and  over 
into  Dunkirk,  if  he  could  get  that  far.  That  was  to  pay  for  the  rig 
and  his  board  and  lodging,  and  I imagine  there  would  be  nothing 
left  for  him;  and  I hardly  think  he  expected  to  get  anything  for 
himself. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  the  next  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  Thomas  Moran,  of  Madison,  $10 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  To  make  a similar  trip  to  Windsor,  De  Forest,  and 
Morrisonville,  paying  his  expenses  for  that  trip. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  the  next  item  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  On  that  trip  the  amounts  that  I have  named  aggre- 
gate, as  I have  footed  them  here,  $62;  but  in  my  conversation  with 
Mr.  Edmonds  at  Milwaukee  I remember  stating  that  there  were  two 
or  three  men  in  Madison  who  I thought  it  would  be  wise  to  have 
take  trips  outside,  giving  him  the  estimated  amounts  of  probably 
$10  each;  and  that  accounts  for  the  fact  that  there  was  some 

The  Chairman.  It  accounts  for  the  fact  that  you  spent  $12  more 
than  you  had  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  I probably  contributed  that  at  the  time,  and  it  was 
made  up  in  the  $73  check  itemized  afterwards. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  receive  any  other  money  from  the 
Stephenson  campaign  fund  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  Absolutely  nothing. 

The  Chairman.  It  appears  in  the  testimony  taken  before  the 
senate  committee  that  you  were  charged  with  receiving  $2,555  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  That  is  a malicious  falsehood,  put  into  that  by 
some  one — I would  be  very  glad  to  find  out  who. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  not  receive  any  such  sum? 


932 


H.  H.  MORGAN. 


Mr.  Morgan.  I did  not ; no,  sir.  I have  been  reproached  for  it  by 
people  throughout  the  State;  and  it  is  an  outrage. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  a statement  contained  in  the  record  certified 
by  the  governor  of  this  State  to  the  United  States  Senate;  and  for 
that  reason  I have  called  your  attention  to  it. 

Mr.  Morgan.  I appreciate  that.  I will  say  it  got  in  there  evi- 
dently through  error,  and  I am  perfectly  willing  to  give  them  the 
benefit  of  the  doubt  in  the  matter.  I never  had  it. 

Senator  Sutherland.  It  is  in  the  report  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  a finding  of  the  State  solons. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  in  the  report  of  the  committee. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I have  not  read  the  evidence  enough  to  know 
whether  there  is  any  foundation  for  the  conclusion  or  not. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  not  pursue  it.  I wanted  to  know  whether 
or  not  it  is  true,  and  the  witness  says  it  is  not  true. 

Mr.  Morgan.  I can  account  for  that,  I believe,  Senator,  in  a 
measure. 

The  Chairman.  Do  so. 

Mr.  Morgan.  My  recollection  is  that  the  testimony  given  before  the 
Wisconsin  Senate  committee  by  some  witness  was  to  the  effect  that 
I had  received  $255 ; and  by  moving  that  up  one  decimal  point  you 
would  have  $2,550.  That  is  the  explanation  I have  made  to  my 
friends.  It  was  not  verified,  however,  before  being  printed  and  sent 
to  the  senate. 

The  Chairman.  In  the  record,  however,  it  comes  to  the  senate  as 
one  of  the  enumerated  sums  of  money;  and  this  witness  was  not 
called 

Mr.  Morgan.  I was  subpoenaed,  and  answered  my  subpoena  very 
promptly,  and  was  on  hand  to  be  called  at  any  time.  The  senators 
failed  to  call  me. 

The  Chairman.  The  memorandum  shows  that  you  did  not  testify 
before  either  of  the  former  committees. 

Mr.  Morgan.  I was  under  subpoena  and  in  attendance  waiting  to 
be  called,  and  had  my  testimony  ready. 

Senator  Pomerene.  The  total  amount  you  received  was  $299, 
was  it  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  $299,  from  Mr.  Edmonds,  by  Mr.  Puelicher’s  checks, 
and  the  $50  that  Mr.  Ames  advanced  to  me  for  the  special  purpose. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  nothing  more? 

Mr.  Morgan.  Nothing  more;  no,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I think  that  is  all. 

The  Chairman.  Has  counsel  any  questions  to  ask  of  the  witness  ? 

Mr . Littlefield . Yes . 

You  were  cut  short  in  your  answer  in  relation  to  Mr.  Duppen. 
When  you  were  inquired  of  as  to  whether  he  told  you  he  was  for 
Senator  Stephenson  when  you  employed  him,  you  said:  “I  can  not 
say  that  he  did,  but,”  and  there  your  answer  was  cut  off.  If  you 
desire  to  finish  that  answer,  make  such  complete  statement  as  you 
desire. 

Mr.  Morgan.  I had  known  Mr.  Duppen  for  a matter  of  some  years, 
and  believed  him  at  that  time  to  be  of  the  same  political  faction  that 
I was  a member  of,  and  I assumed,  from  my  conversation  with  him, 
that  that  would  be  agreeable  to  him.  He  took  the  matter  up 
promptly  and  said  he  was  glad  to  do  it. 


H.  H.  MORGAN. 


933 


Mr.  Littlefield.  The  sum  advanced  to  him,  I take  it,  was  not  a 
consideration  for  his  support  of  the  Senator  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  Not  in  the  least;  no,  sir.  He  is  a working  man,  a 
young  man,  and  he  had  to  leave  his  day’s  work  there  on  the  farm. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  A man  that  you  had  known  for  a long  time  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  I had  known  him;  he  is  a very  honorable  young 
German. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Mr.  Morgan,  was  any  of  the  money  that  came 
into  your  hands  used  by  you,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  for  the 
purpose  of  bribing  or  corruptly  influencing  any  voters  in  this  primary 
campaign,  in  the  interest  of  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  Absolutely  not,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  any  money  that  was  disbursed  by  you  to 
these  various  people,  so  far  as  you  know,  used  by  any  of  them,  either 
directly  or  indirectly,  for  the  purpose  of  bribing  or  corruptly  influ- 
encing any  electors  in  that  primary  election  campaign  in  the  interest 
of  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  I never  heard  any  intimation  to  that  effect,  and  I 
believe  it  was  not  used  for  any  purpose  of  that  kind. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  were  having  frequent  conferences,  as  I 
understand,  with  Mr.  Ames,  who  was  a resident  of  Madison? 

Mr.  Morgan.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield,  Who  had  formal  charge  of  the  Senator’s  cam- 
paign ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I should  like  to  ask  you  whether  or  not  any  of 
the  funds  that  were  disbursed  by  Mr.  Ames,  or  any  of  the  activities  of 
Mr.  Ames,  so  far  as  you  know,  were,  either  directly  or  indirectly, 
intended  to  bribe  or  corruptly  influence  any  electors  in  that  primary 
election  campaign  in  the  interest  of  Senator  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Morgan.  They  certainly  were  not;  and  I knew,  to  a great 
extent,  what  he  was  doing  and  what  his  friends  were  doing — what 
persons  that  he  interested  were  doing. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I think  that  is  all,  Mr.  Morgan. 

Senator  Pomerene.  How  long  have  you  been  assistant  United 
States  attorney  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  Since  April  1,  1905.  My  term  expired  April  1,  1909, 
and  I have  been  reappointed  since  April  1,  1909. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Are  you  the  assistant  United  States  attorney  in 
the  same  district  where  Mr.  George  Gordon  is  the  United  States 
attorney  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  I am;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  He  is  your  superior  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I think  that  is  all. 

The  Chairman.  The  witness  is  excused. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  Mr.  Morgan  allowed  to  go  back  to  Madison  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  There  was  a letter  that  Mr.  Morgan  was  to 
look  for.  The  chairman  requested  that  you  look  for  a letter  that  you 
had  received  from  Mr.  Edmonds,  Mr.  Morgan.  Will  you  kindly  do  so  ? 

Mr.  Morgan.  Of  what  date  ? 

Senator  Pomerene.  The  one  to  which  the  letter  you  read  was  an 
answer. 

Mr.  Morgan.  I remember  that  letter,  and  I hope  that  I have  it. 


934 


L.  W.  THAYER. 


Senator  Pomerene.  If  you  can  find  it,  please  send  it  to  us. 

Mr.  Morgan.  I will;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  C.  W.  Thayer  will  be  the  next  witness.  Come 
to  the  stand. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  that  “C.  W.”  or  “L.  W.”? 

Mr.  Thayer.  “L.  W.” 

The  Chairman.  It  is  “C.  W.”  on  the  memorandum,  and  it  is 
“Edward  B.  Thayer”  in  Brown’s  testimony,  at  page  116.  We  will 
ascertain  the  witness’s  name  in  a moment. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  name  is  it  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  “L.  W.” 

TESTIMONY  OF  L.  W.  THAYER. 

L.  W.  Thayer,  haying  been  previously  sworn,  was  examined  and 
testified  as  follows : 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Thayer,  where  do  you  reside? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I reside  at  Ripon,  Wis. 

The  Chairman.  How  long  have  you  resided  there? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Twenty-three  or  twenty-four  years. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  receive  any  money  in  connection  with 
Senator  Stephenson’s  campaign  in  1908? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I did. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  $600. 

The  Chairman.  From  whom  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  E.  A.  Edmonds. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose? 

Mr.  Thayer.  For  the  purpose  of  organizing  the  western  half  of 
Fond  du  Lac  County,  and  taking  up  the  work  in  Green  Lake  County. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  use  it  for  that  purpose? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  All  of  it  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  do  you  mean  by  “ organizing ” ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I mean  to  have  men  talk  to  the  electors  with  reference 
to  the  qualifications  of  the  candidate,  to  distribute  literature,  and  to 
get  out  the  vote. 

The  Chairman.  Then  you  paid  out  some  of  it  to  other  men? 

Mr.  Thayer.  A large  amount  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  did  you  pay  out  to  others? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I wish  to  state  to  the  subcommittee  that  I have  no 
memorandum. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  never  have  a memorandum  of  the  sums 
paid  out  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Never. 

The  Chairman.  Or  the  persons  to  whom  you  gave  money  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  No,  sir;  no  memorandum  whatever. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  any  memory  on  the  subject? 

Mr.  Thayer.  It  is  very  difficult — I doubt  whether  I could,  except- 
ing guesswork,  and  that  would  be  far-fetched.  It  was  three  years  ago. 

The  Chairman.  Unless  you  have  some  recollection,  we  do  not  want 
guesswork. 


L.  W.  THAYER.  935 

Mr.  Thayer.  I could  give  nothing  except  guesswork  with  reference 
to  it. 

The  Chairman.  What  do  you  mean  by  “guesswork”  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I mean  that  if  I were  to  designate  somebody  to  whom 
I paid  money,  it  might  be  an  injustice  to  me  and  as  well  to  the  man 
that  I claimed  I gave  the  money  to. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  you  can  not  tell  the  subcommittee  the 
name  of  any  person  to  whom  you  gave  money,  or  the  amount  of  it  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Only  by  guesswork. 

The  Chairman.  Let  us  see  you  try  this  guessing  proposition. 

Mr.  Thayer.  All  right. 

The  Chairman.  Make  a guess  now. 

Mr.  Thayer.  Well,  I could  say  Wynne  Scribner,  of  El  Dorado. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  do  you  guess  you  gave  him  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Anywhere — I can  not  define  the  amount. 

The  Chairman.  What  do  you  guess? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I might  have  given  him  $20;  I might  have  given 
him  $25. 

The  Chairman.  Might  you  have  given  him  $100? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I would  not  guess  that  I did. 

The  Chairman.  You  would  not  guess  that?  Do  you  guess  that 
you  might  have  given  him  $50  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I might  have  given  him  $50. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  guess  that  you  gave  him  any  at  all  ? 

Mr.  Thayter.  I suggested  just  now  that  I guessed  probably  I might 
have. 

The  Chairman.  You  might  have  done  it?  You  might  have  given 
some  to  some  other  person  not  named. 

Mr.  Thayer.  Very  true. 

The  Chairman.  Does  the  fact  that  you  might  have  done  it  afford 
any  proof  that  you  did  do  it  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  That  w*ould  be  hard  for  me  to  determine  in  my  mind. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  It  seems  to  me  that  is  rather  a dialectical  ques- 
tion, if  the  chairman  please. 

The  Chairman.  I ask  that  for  the  purpose  of  testing  his  memory. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I submit,  if  the  chairman  please,  that  that  can 
not  under  any  circumstances  be  evidence. 

The  Chairman.  The  suggestion  of  counsel  will  be  noted. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I should  like  to  have  my  objection  go  on  the 
record,  if  the  chairman  please. 

The  Chairman.  Counsel  may  state  his  objection. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  My  objection  is  that  that  can  not,  by  any  possi- 
bility or  under  any  known  rule  of  evidence,  be  admissible. 

The  Chairman:  The  objection  will  be  noted. 

Proceed  now  and  answer  the  question.  The  reporter  will  read  the 
question. 

The  reporter  read  as  follows: 

The  Chairman.  Does  the  fact  that  you  might  have  done  it  afford  any  proof  that  you 
did  do  it? 

Mr.  Thayer.  No  positive  proof. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  we  are  not  to  take  the  fact  that  you  guess 
it  as  evidence  that  you  did  it?  Is  that  it? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I would  wish  it  to  be  on  the  basis  of  doubt. 

The  Chairman.  Doubt  that  you  did,  or  doubt  that  you  did  not? 


936 


L.  W.  THAYER. 


Mr.  Thayer.  Because,  it  not  being  certain  whether  I did  or  not 

The  Chairman.  Doubt  that  you  did  make  that  payment,  or  doubt 
that  you  did  not  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I would  say  that  I think  I did. 

The  Chairman.  In  this  connection,  repeat  the  total  sum  you 
received. 

Mr.  Thayer.  How  is  that? 

The  Chairman.  Repeat  the  total  amount  of  money  that  you 
received. 

Mr.  Thayer.  I received  $600. 

The  Chairman.  From  Mr.  Edmonds? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  To  be  expended  in  the  campaign? 

Mr.  Thayer.  In  the  campaign. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  your  business? 

Mr.  Thayer.  My  business?  I am  an  owner  of  real  estate. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  have  any  knowledge  of  the  laws  of  the 
State  of  Wisconsin  at  the  time  you  were  undertaking  to  perform 
this  service  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I had  a knowledge  in  the  way  of  the  law  that  desig- 
nated what  intimidation  and  bribery  were,  or  the  law  that  would 
define  one’s  action  in  campaigning. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  you  had  a knowledge? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I say  I had  a passing  knowledge  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  have  any  knowledge  as  to  the  require- 
ment that  a candidate  should  file  an  expense  account  of  all  the 
moneys  expended  by  him  or  used  in  his  behalf  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I had  knowledge  of  the  fact  that  a candidate,  the 
principal,  was  supposed  to  file  an  account. 

The  Chairman.  How  did  you  suppose  he  would  file  an  account  if 
you  did  not  keep  some  kind  of  memorandum? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Since  no  request  was  made  of  me  to  keep  an  itemized 
account,  I took  it  for  granted  that  the  candidate  or  the  principal 
would  file  his  account  from  office  expenditures. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  not  know  whether  or  not  a request  would 
be  made,  I suppose,  at  the  time  you  were  expending  this  money  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  No.  But  my  thought  was  that  it  was  the  general 
rule  or  custom  to  file  the  expense  accounts  not  so  closely  in  detail. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  think  the  mere  statement  that  the  candi- 
date had  paid  you  $600  would  be  a sufficient  designation  of  the  item  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I thought,  judging  from  the  custom  of  filing  reports, 
that  it  would. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I did  not  get  that  answer. 

Mr.  Thayer.  I said,  I judged  from  the  custom  of  filing  expense 
accounts  that  it  would. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  of  this  sum  of  $600  did  you  keep  for 
your  own  account? 

Mr.  Thayer.  A sufficient  amount  to  pay  my  expenses.  I can 
not  define  it. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  was  it  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I could  not  tell  you. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  estimate  it  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  No,  sii^ 

The  Chairman.  Was  it  $500? 


L.  W.  THAYER. 


937 


Mr.  Thayer.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Was  it  $400? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I do  not  think  so.  I can  not  tell  what  it  was. 

The  Chairman.  Might  it  have  been  $400  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I think  not. 

The  Chairman.  Was  it  $300? 

Mr.  Thayer.  For  my  personal  expense? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Thayer.  It  is  hard  for  me  to  answer  that  question  because 
of  having  no  data. 

The  Chairman.  Might  it  have  been  $300  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  That  is  a difficult  question  for  me  to  answer  under 
the  circumstances. 

The  Chairman.  It  might  not  have  been  $300,  might  it  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  It  might  not  have  been  half  that,  and  it  might  have 
been  more. 

The  Chairman.  Where  did  you  keep  the  $600  after  you  received  it  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  The  $600  ? Three  hundred  dollars  of  it  I took  with 
me. 

The  Chairman.  In  cash,  in  your  pocket? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  took  it  where  with  you? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I took  it  with  me  through  the  district,  in  traveling — 
in  traveling  throughout  the  district. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  have  any  of  that  money  when  you  got 
back  home  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I might  have  had  some  of  it  when  I got  home, 
because  I got  home  quite  often. 

The  Chairman.  How  long  were  you  on  these  trips  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Sometimes  I was  away  a day  and  a half  or  two  days. 

The  Chairman.  How  often  were  you  away  at  all  from  your  office  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I was  away  pretty  much  all  the  day. 

The  Chairman.  What  time  would  that  be  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I think  I was  two  days  at  one  time,  if  I remember 
right — it  might  have  been  more — on  an  automobile  trip. 

The  Chairman.  Whose  automobile  ? One  you  hired  or  one  you 
owned  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I had  one  automobile  that  I can  remember  of  having. 
One  automobile  I can  remember ; others  I do  not  remember,  because 
I do  not  know  the  man  who  drove  the  automobile  nor  the  owner, 
either.  I hired  it.  One  was  Mr.  Burgess’s  automobile,  of  Kipon. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  did  you  pay  him  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I can  not  recall  the  amount.  I think  I paid  him 
for  the  use  of  his  automobile.  In  fact,  I am  quite  sure  I did. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  not  quite  sure  you  paid  him  anything? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I think  I was  two  and  a half  or  three  days  in  his 
machine. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  not  sure  that  you  paid  him  anything  for  it  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I would  not  swear  to  it,  because  I have  nothing  to 
show  in  the  way  of  a memorandum. 

The  Chairman.  In  connection  with  your  ordinary  business,  do 
you  keep  books? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I keep  accounts;  yes. 


938 


L.  W.  THAYER. 


The  Chairman.  Do  you  keep  a journal  of  the  business  transactions 
in  which  you  engage  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  depend  upon  your  memory  at  all  in 
business  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Not  generally. 

The  Chairman.  You  generally  make  memoranda  of  business 
transactions ; do  you  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  any  memoranda  of  business  transac- 
tions ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Not  with  me. 

The  Chairman.  Do  the  memoranda  that  you  keep  show  cor- 
rectly all  of  the  acts  and  things  you  do  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  trust  to  your  memory,  generally;  do  you? 

Mr.  Thayer.  There  are  some  things  that  I do  not,  that  are  not 
recorded. 

The  Chairman.  If  you  make  an  engagement  for  a period  five  days 
ahead,  at  the  time  of  making  it  do  you  make  a memorandum  of  it 
or  trust  your  memory  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  If  I were  going  to  be  certain  to  be  on  time  and  keep 
that  engagement  I might  make  a memorandum  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  go  to  any  particular  college  or  school 
when  you  were  a young  man  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Nothing  outside  of  the  business  college. 

The  Chairman.  Where  was  that  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  the  name  of  it? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Jones’s  Commercial  College. 

The  Chairman.  How  long  did  you  go  there? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Nine  months  or  a year. 

The  Chairman.  In  what  year  did  you  attend  that  college  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I attended  Jones’s  Commercial  College  in  1876  or 
1877. 

The  Chairman.  How  many  months  did  you  attend  it  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I think  about  nine  months. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  did  you  pay  for  your  tuition  there  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I could  not  tell  you. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  you  can  not  tell  me.  Is  it  because  you 
do  not  want  to  tell  or  because  you  do  not  recollect? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I would  be  very  glad,  Senator,  to  tell  you  if  I could; 
but  I could  not  tell  you  now. 

The  Chairman.  Have  no  recollection  of  what  your  education  cost  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I can  not.  I can  remember  the  year,  because  that  is 
something  that  became  impressed  upon  my  mind;  but  the  amount 
that  I paid  I could  not  testify  to. 

The  Chairman.  For  whom  did  you  vote  at  the  first  election  at 
which  you  cast  your  vote  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  That  is  another  thing  that  is  impressed  upon  my 
mind  because  of  the  date. 

The  Chairman.  Do  not  remember  whether  it  was  a presidential  or 
bielection  ? 


L.  W.  THAYER. 


939 


Mr.  Thayer.  I can  very  easily  remember  by  when  I cast  my  first 
vote. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  cast  your  first  vote  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I can  tell  you  the  candidate  that  I supported. 

The  Chairman.  Tell  us  in  what  year  you  cast  your  first  vote. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Then  tell  whom  you  saw  when  you  walked  up  to 
the  polls.  Put  that  in,  too. 

The  Chairman.  I will  ask  counsel  to  allow'  this  witness  to  depend 
upon  his  own  memory. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  It  occurred  to  me  that  that  is  a good  detail  to 
work  in.  * 

Mr.  Thayer.  I am  unable,  now,  to  tell  the  year.  I remember  the 
candidate,  because  that  became  impressed  upon  my  mind. 

The  Chairman.  In  what  year  were  you  born  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  1854. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  remember  for  whom  you  cast  your 
first  vote  for  President  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Who  was  it  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Rutherford  B.  Hayes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I do  not  know  whether  that  is  a good  selection  or 
not. 

The  Chairman.  I am  merely  testing  the  witness’s  memory. 

For  whom  did  you  cast  your  second  vote  for  President  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I could  not  testify. 

The  Chairman.  For  whom  did  you  cast  your  last  vote  for  President  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  For  President  Taft. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  a distinct  recollection  of  that  vote? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Yes,  sir;  I have  a distinct  recollection  of  that. 

The  Chairman.  Where  did  you  cast  it  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I cast  it  in  Eipon.  / 

The  Chairman.  Has  Ripon  more  than  one  precinct  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Ripon  has  four  precincts. 

The  Chairman.  At  which  precinct  did  you  cast  your  vote  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  In  the  precinct  in  which  I live — the  fourth. 

The  Chairman.  You  can  remember  those  things,  but  you  can  not 
remember  a single  item  of  expenditure  that  you  made  out  of  this  $600 ; 
can  you  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Nothing  that  I can  give  evidence  positively  about,  as 
to  what  I expended.  It  would  be  guesswork  to  testify. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  spend  any  of  it  for  liquor  or  cigars  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Yes,  sir;  I think  I did. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I could  not  say. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  spend  as  much  as  $20  for  cigars  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I would  rather  consider  it  necessary  to  pay  more  than 
that  in  the  territory. 

The  Chairman.  You  think  you  did  spend  more  than  that  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I would  think  so. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  spend  as  much  as  $20,  do  you  think,  for 
whisky  or  liquors  of  any  kind  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I can  not  testify  as  to  the  amount.  I know  I spent 
some. 


940 


L.  W.  THAYER. 


The  Chairman.  Did  you  spend  as  much  as  S50  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Senator,  I can  not  say,  because  I can  not  define  the 
amount. 

The  Chairman.  You  see,  you  are  the  party  responsible  for  remem- 
bering— not  the  subcommittee.  Do  you  remember? 

Mr.  Thayer.  No;  I do  not. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Can  you  not  remember  positively  the  name 
of  a single  individual  to  whom  you  paid  money  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Not  to  testify  positively. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Irrespective  of  the  amount? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  is  your  best  recollection  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I can  not,  even  on  the  basis  of  my  best  recollection, 
define  an  amount. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  name,  then  ? 

Senator  Sutherland.  To  how  many  different  people  did  you  pay 
money  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I can  only  guess  at  that. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Then  guess  at  it. 

Mr.  Thayer.  As  I said  a moment  ago,  Mr.  Scribner,  of  Eldorado — 
I think  I paid  him  some  money. 

Senator  Sutherland.  No;  to  how  many  people  altogether  did  you 
pay  money  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  Senator  wants  to  know  now  how  many  you 
paid  money  to,  according  to  your  best  recollection. 

Mr.  Thayer.  I could  not  mention  over  three  or  four. 

Senator  Sutherland.  I have  not  asked  you  to  give  the  names ; but 
how  many  in  the  aggregate  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I spent  money  throughout  the  entire  district — paid 
it  to  workers. 

Senator  Sutherland.  How  many  different  people,  altogether,  in 
your  best  judgment  ? I am  not  asking  you  to  be  accurate. 

Mr.  Thayer.  There  might  have  been  30,  35,  or  40. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Thirty  or  thirty-five  different  people  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Yes.  There  are  41  precincts. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Can  you  not  give  me  the  name  ©f  one  of  those 
individuals  to  whom  you  feel  reasonably  certain  you  paid  money  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I can  not,  in  the  absence  of  a memorandum. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Not  a single  individual  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Not  a single  individual. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Nor  the  amount  you  gave  to  a single  indi- 
vidual ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Nor  the  amount,  in  the  absence  of  a memorandum. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Nor  when  you  gave  it? 

Mi*.  Thayer.  No;  I could  not. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Nor  the  purpose  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Nor  the  purpose. 

Senator  Sutherland.  Nor  the  purpose  for  which  you  gave  the 
money  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I could  not  remember. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Were  you  sworn? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I was  sworn;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Do  you  appreciate  the  solemnity  of  an  oath  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I do. 


L.  W.  THAYER. 


941 


Senator  Pomerene.  When  you  have  been  telling  the  subcommittee 
here  that  you  do  not  remember  these  things,  do  you  want  us  to  under- 
stand that  you  are  telling  the  truth  about  that  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Have  you  a wife? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Do  you  remember  her  name? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  is  it  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Her  name  is  Rosette  Thayer. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Have  you  any  children  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  How  many  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I have  three. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Do  you  mean  to  tell  us  that  you  would  be 
intrusted  with  $600  to  expend  in  a campaign,  and  at  this  time  you  are 
not  able  to  give  us  the  name  of  a single  person  to  whom  you  gave  any 
money  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Three  years  afterwards,  in  the  absence  of  any  memo- 
randum, I claim  that  I am  not  able  to. 

Senator  Pomerene.  How  much  of  this  did  you  keep  for  your  own 
compensation  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I think  there  was  $50  in  the  end. 

Senator  Pomerene.  How  do  you  remember  that? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Because  that  was  in  the  bank.  That  became 
impressed  upon  my  mind. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Where  was  the  rest  of  this  money? 

Mr.  Thayer.  There  was  $600;  $300  was  left  in  the  bank  and  $300 
was  taken  out.  That  I found  by  the  bank  book. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  bank  book? 

Mr.  Thayer.  My  bank  book. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  left  $300  in  the  bank? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Is  that  still  there? 

Mr.  Thayer.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  did  you  do  with  it? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I drew  on  it — $100  at  one  time  and  $150  at  another. 

Senator  Pomerene.  For  what  purpose  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  For  organizing  and  using  in  the  interest  of  Mr. 
Stephenson. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  remember  that  you  did  that,  do  you  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I only  remember  it  because  I found  that  the  checks 
showed  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  When  did  you  look  up  these  checks  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I can  not  tell.  It  was  not  very  long  ago. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  was  your  occasion  for  looking  them  up  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  To  find  out,  to  see  if  I could  not  refresh  my  memory 
in  some  way  or  other. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Why  did  you  want  to  refresh  your  memory? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Because  I was  sunpoenaed  to  appear  before  this  com- 
mittee. 

Senator  Pomerene.  When  were  you  subpoenaed  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I can  not  give  you  the  date. 


942 


T,.  W.  THAYER. 


Senator  Pomerene.  When,  with  reference  to  the  time  you  received 
this  subpoena,  did  you  look  up  your  bank  book  and  checks  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I presume  not  very  long  after. 

Senator  Pomerene.  How  long  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I could  not  say. 

Senator  Pomerene.  How  many  checks  did  you  find  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I found  two. 

Senator  Pomerene.  To  whom  were  they  made  payable  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  One  was  made  payable  to  “Cash,”  sent  to  me  at  the 
Northwestern  Station,  I think. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Sent  to  you  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  By  the  cashier  in  response  to  a telephone  call  of  mine 
to  send  it  to  me. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  he  send  you  a check? 

Mr.  Thayer.  He  brought  the  check,  or  sent  it  down,  and  I signed 
it  there  in  the  station. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  did  he  give  you  the  cash  then  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Who  was  the  cashier  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  James  L.  Stone. 

Senator  Pomerene.  When  did  you  get  the  next  $100. 

Mr.  Thayer.  The  next  was  $150,  right  afterwards — a day  or  two 
after  that. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  have  these  checks  yet,  have  you  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  you  have  your  bank  book  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Cashier’s  checks  ? How  could  he  have  cashier’s 
checks  ? 

Senator  Pomerene.  He  did  not  say  “cashier’s  checks.” 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I understood  him  to  say  that. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Lie  said  checks  were  brought  down,  and  he 
signed  them.  I take  it  that  they  would  be  canceled  and  returned. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Oh,  yes;  I got  the  idea  they  were  cashier’s 
checks. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  did  not  say  “cashier’s  checks,”  did  you? 
Mr.  Thayer.  No,  sir  ; I did  not. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I thought  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  No;  I misunderstood  him,  then. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Have  you  these  checks  or  the  bank  book  with 
you  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I have. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Now  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Let  us  see  them. 

Mr.  Thayer.  I think  I have.  I may  be  mistaken.  [Producing 
book  and  cl iecks.] 

Senator  Pomerene.  On  what  date  did  you  receive  this  money? 

Mr  Thayer.  I would  have  to  refer  to  this.  I can  find  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  If  you  can  refresh  your  memory,  look  at  it 
and  see  when  you  deposited  that  $600. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  He  did  not  say  he  deposited  $600. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Yes,  that  is  right;  $300. 

Mr.  Thayer.  Three  hundred  dollars,  I think,  August  28,  1908 
Senator  Pomerene.  Is  that  the  day  you  received  the  $600  ? 


L.  W.  THAYER. 


943 


Mr.  Thayer.  I think  I received  it  before  that  date. 

Senator  Pomerene.  How  long  before  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I could  not  say.  It  might  have  been  three  or  four 
days,  or  it  might  have  been  longer,  before  that. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Was  that  in  cash  or  by  check? 

Mr.  Thayer.  That  was  by  check  or  draft. 

Senator  Pomerene.  The  first  check  you  hand  us  is  dated  August  31, 
1908,  and  reads:  “Pay  to  cash  or  bearer,  $100.”  I want  to  offer  this 
check  in  evidence. 

(The  check  referred  to  was  subsequently  marked  “Exhibit  Thayer 
No.  3,  October  14,  1911;”  the  other  check  produced  by  the  witness 
was  marked  “Exhibit  Thayer  No.  2,  October  14,  1911;”  and  the 
bank  book  produced  by  the  witness  was  marked  “Exhibit  Thayer 
No.  1,  October  14,  1911.”  Said  checks  are  as  follows:) 

Exhibit  Thayer  No.  3,  October  14,  1911. 

Ripon,  Wis.,  August  31,  1908 . 

German  National  Bank  pay  to  Cash  or  bearer  one  hundred  dollars  $100. 

I,  W Thayer 

(German  National  Bank.  Aug.  31,  1908.  Ripon,  Wis.  Paid.) 

Exhibit  Thayer  No.  2,  October  14,  1911. 

Ripon,  Wis.,  September  2,  1908. 

German  National  Bank  pay  to  Self  or  bearer  one  hundred  and  fifty  dollars,  $150. 

L W Thayer 

(German  National  Bank.  Sept.  2,  1908.  Ripon,  Wis.  Paid.) 

Senator  Pomerene.  Our  records  seem  to  show  that  you  received 
this  $600  on  August  27. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  If  the  Senator  will  excuse  me,  please,  our  records 
show  that  the  check  was  sent  on  that  day. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I say,  “seem  to  show.” 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Not  that  he  received  it  ? 

Senator  Pomerene.  Just  a moment,  please,  until  I finish  my  ques- 
tion. I say,  our  records  seem  to  show  that  this  money  was  received 
about  August  27.  Do  you  recall  now  when  you  did  receive  it  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  No,  sir;  I do  not. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Is  that  about  the  time  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I can  only  judge  by  the  time  the  deposit  was  made.  I 
had  an  idea  that  I received  it  before  that. 

Senator  Pomerene.  How  long  before  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I could  not  say. 

Senator  Pomerene.  The  second  check  you  hand  us  is  dated  Sep- 
tember 2,  1908,  for  $150. 

Mr.  Thayer.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Is  that  the  date  you  received  it  from  the  bank  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  That  is  the  date. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  the  checks  are  drawn  and  dated  as  of  the 
dates  when  you  received  the  money  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  They  must  have  been. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Have  you  not  any  other  memoranda  at  home 
showing  what  was  done  with  this  money? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I have  not,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Or  any  part  of  it  ? 


944 


L.  W.  THAYER. 


Mr.  Thayer.  Or  any  part  of  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Do  you  recall  the  names  of  any  persons  that 
you  had  working  at  the  polls  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I could  not  give  positive  evidence  with  reference  to 
those  I had  working,  because  it  is  indefinite  in  my  mind  as  to  just  who 
I did  pay  the  money  to. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Do  you  remember  any  Stephenson  man  down 
there  in  your  county  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  There  were  a good  many  Stephenson  men  there. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Do  you  remember  any  one? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I mentioned  Mr.  Scribner’s  name.  He  was  a 
Stephenson  man. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Do  you  remember  whether  you  voted  for 
Stephenson  or  not  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I should  like  this  witness  to  refresh  his 
memory  and  be  back  here  some  day  next  week;  and  I should  like 
him  meanwhile  to  try  to  remember  the  names  of  some  of  these  per- 
sons. 

Mr.  Thayer.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  The  witness  will  appear  here  on  Wednesday  at  10 
o’clock. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Are  the  members  of  the  committee  through? 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  the  witness  is  with  the  counsel. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Had  you  been  doing  any  work  or  disbursing  any 
funds  in  connection  with  the  organizing  of  this  county  ? What  county 
was  it — Dunn  County  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  The  western  part  of  Fond  du  Lac. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Had  you  been  doing  any  work  or  disbursing  any 
money  in  connection  with  the  organization  of  Senator  Stephenson’s 
campaign  in  the  western  part  of  Fond  du  Lac  County  before  you 
received  the  check  from  Mr.  Edmonds  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I should  like  to  say  to  you,  Mr.  Thayer — I think 
it  may  be  proper — that  in  this  examination  I am  giving  you  I do  not 
know  that  I expect  you  to  be  able  to  make  statements  with  absolute 
definiteness;  but  I want  your  best  recollection  at  this  time  on  all 
of  the  matters  as  to  which  I inquire  of  you.  Do  I make  that  clear  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  If  you  are  not  able  to  testify  specifically  to  a 
particular  matter,  I want  the  best  recollection  you  have  about  that 
matter.  Do  I make  myself  clear  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  With  that  understanding  I will  go  on.  Accord- 
ing to  your  best  recollection,  how  long  had  you  been  at  work  in  the 
campaign  before  you  received  the  S600  from  Mr.  Edmonds  ? 

Mr.  Delayer.  I should  imagine  it  was  two  weeks,  probably,  pre- 
vious to  that. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Had  you  had  a previous  conference  with  Mr. 
Edmonds,  or  some  one  representing  the  Senator  before  you  went  to 
work  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I had  a conference  with  Mr.  Morse  at  Fond  du  Lac. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  With  whom? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Roy  Morse. 


L.  W.  THAYER. 


945 


Mr.  Littlefield.  Mr.  Morse  is  an  attorney  at  Fond  du  Lac? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  A man  who  has  been  in  practice  there  for  quite 
a number  of  years  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Have  you  known  him  a long  while? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I have  been  acquainted  with  him  for  quite  a number 
of  years. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  About  how  long? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Ten  years,  I should  judge. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  it  pursuant  to  a conversation  with  Roy 
Morse  that  you  engaged  in  this  work  in  the  interest  of  the  Senator  in 
that  part  of  Fond  du  Lac  County  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  1 had  been  through  the  district  somewhat,  previous 
to  talking  with  Mr.  Morse,  in  the  interest  of  Mr.  Lyons,  who  was  then  a 
candidate  for  the  State  senate.  Then  Mr.  Morse,  I think,  came  out 
and  visited  me  at  the  lake,  and  asked  me  if  I would  not  take  part  in 
the  organization  of  Fond  du  Lac  County,  the  western  part. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Mr.  Morse  wanted  to  know  if  you  would  take  a 
part  in  the  organization  of  Fond  du  Lac  County? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  or  not  agree  to  do  so? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I agreed  to  do  so.  I was  very  much  in  favor  of  Mr. 
Stephenson,  anyway,  and  wished  to  see  him  nominated. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  did  you  first  do?  I should  like  to  have 
you  state  to  the  committee  in  your  own  way,  Mr.  Thayer,  what  you 
first  started  to  do,  beginning  there  and  going  along  in  your  own  way, 
and  just  telling  what  you  did  do  according  to  the  best  recollection 
that  you  are  able  to  give  now.  Start  right  in.  What  was  the  first 
thing  that  you  did  after  you  had  your  talk  with  Mr.  Morse  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  The  first  thing  I did  I visited  some  of  the  precincts 
in  the  different  towns. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Explain  which  precincts,  to  your  best  recollec- 
tion. 

Mr.  Thayer.  I think  I first  took  a trip  down  over  to  Dartford,  or 
Green  Lake,  rather,  and  from  there  to  Markesan  and  Waupun. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  take  that  trip  with  an  automobile  or 
with  a team? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I took  it  with  an  automobile. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  it  your  own  machine,  or  was  it  the  machine 
of  this  other  gentleman  to  whom  you  have  referred  ? I have  forgotten 
his  name. 

Mr.  Thayer.  It  was  the  machine,  I think,  of  the  other  man.  In 
fact,  I am  certain  it  was. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  was  his  name? 

Mr.  Thayer.  His  name  was  Mr.  Burgess,  of  Ripon. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Burgess,  of  Ripon? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Yes,  sir.  I said  that  was  the  first.  That  might  not 
have  been  the  first. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  are  giving  your  best  recollection  about  it, 
as  I understand. 

Mr.  Thayer.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  are  not  in  danger  of  bein^  hung,  drawn,  and 
quartered  if  you  are  not  able  to  absolutely  recollect  every  specific 
15235°— VOL  1—11 CO 


946 


L.  W.  THAYER. 


detail.  All  you  are  to  do  is  to  do  the  best  you  can,  and  give  your  best 
recollection.  Do  you  understand  me  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I take  it  that  is  a proper  suggestion.  Having 
that  in  mind,  your  best  recollection  is  that  you  started  out  on  the 
first  trip  with  the  machine  of  Mr.  Burgess  ? Am  I right  about  that  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  remember  who  went  with  you  on  the 
trip  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I think  Mr.  Burgess  and  I were  alone. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Mr.  Burgess,  then,  was  driving  his  machine,  I 
suppose  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Driving  his  machine. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  carry  anything  with  you  in  the  machine 
in  the  line  of  literature  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  was  it  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  It  was  lithograph  pictures  of  Mr.  Stephenson,  and  the 
whole  line  of  literature  that  was  sent  out  by  headquarters. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Where  did  you  get  that  literature  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  It  was  sent  to  me  from  the  headquarters. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  know  whether  it  was  sent  by  Mr. 
Edmonds  or  Mr.  Sacket  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I could  not  say. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  started  out  with  this  machine  with  Mr. 
Burgess,  loaded,  I suppose,  with  this  literature,  and  went  through 
these  towns  that  you  have  described  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  did  you  do  when  you  went  through  these 
towns  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I met  various  parties  in  the  different  precincts. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  met  various  parties? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  For  what  purpose  did  you  meet  them  on  this 
trip,  when  you  were  out  with  this  machine,  loaded  with  this  literature  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  For  the  purpose  of  engaging  these  men  to  organize 
the  different  precincts. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  say  “organize  the  different  precincts.” 
What  did  you  do  with  the  literature  that  you  had  in  your  machine 
when  you  met  these  men  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  It  was  handed  out  to  them. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Handed  out  to  the  men? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  For  what  purpose? 

Mr.  Thayer.  For  the  purpose  of  distributing  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Are  we  to  understand  that  the  men  whom  you 
saw  in  these  various  towns  were  distributing  this  literature  without 
charge  or  cost  to  the  Stephenson  campaign  fund  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  No,  sir;  they  were  compensated. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Who  hired  them  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I did. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Are  you  able  to  give  the  names  of  any  of  these 
gentlemen  whom,  on  this  first  trip,  you  employed  to  distribute  this 


L.  W.  THAYER. 


947 


literature?  Give  your  best  recollection — not  necessarily  a guess; 
but  I simply  want  you  to  give,  so  far  as  you  can,  your  best  recollection. 

Mr.  Thayer.  There  was  one  man  by  the  name  of  Schrader  at 
Markesan. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Schrader  at  Markesan — yes.  Was  there  any 
other  gentleman  in  the  town  of  Markesan  that  you  employed  to 
distribute  literature  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I can  not  recall. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  remember  the  name  of  any  gentleman 
that  you  saw  in  the  next  town  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I saw  a Mr.  Brown  at  Brandon. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  Mr.  Brown  one  of  the  men  that  you 
employed  to  distribute  literature  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I gave  him  literature,  and  he  was  to  distribute  it, 
I can  not  say  whether  I paid  him  or  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Now  take  the  next  town. 

Mr.  Thayer.  In  the  town  of  Waupun,  I think  Mr.  Miklejohn. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  recollect  whether  Mr.  Miklejohn 
received  compensation  for  his  work,  or  whether  he  was  doing  it 
gratuitously  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I am  not  certain  about  Mr.  Miklejohn. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  leave  the  literature  with  him? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Were  there  any  more  than  these  three  towns, 
according  to  your  recollection,  that  you  visited  on  this  first  trip  ? 

Mr.  Thayhr.  Let  me  see.  I went  to  Markesan,  Brandon,  and 
Waupun.  I think  those  were  the  only  ones  on  that  trip. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  About  how  long  did  it  take  you  to  make  that 
trip  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  That  trip  we  made  in  one  day. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Who  paid  the  expenses  of  the  trip  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I paid  the  expenses. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  that  a rural  section  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Yes;  a rural  section. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  In  that  section  of  the  State  do  we  find  the 
familiar  institution  known  as  the  saloon  on  street  corners  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  it  or  not  a fact  that  the  saloon  is  the  place 
where  the  people  in  the  vicinity  gather  to  visit  with  each  other  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  It  is  quite  common  in  those  places;  people  gather 
and  congregate  at  such  places. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  put  up  any  literature  in  any  of  these 
saloons  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Quite  a good  many  of  them. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  do  you  say  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  In  very  many  of  them.  I left  them  there. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  occurred  when  you  were  putting  up  litera- 
ture in  the  saloons,  with  reference  to  the  people  that  you  might 
see  in  the  saloon  at  the  time  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  We  would  go  into  a saloon  with  literature,  and  the 
first  thing  that  would  occur  would  be,  probably,  finding  10  or  15 
people  in  there,  to  invite  them. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Invite  them  to  what? 


948 


L.  W.  THAYER. 


Mr.  Thayer.  Either  to  a smoke  or  a drink. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I do  not  understand  that  that  is  necessarily 
anything  to  be  ashamed  of  in  that  section  of  the  country  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  No. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  saloon  is  quite  a frequent  incident? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Yes;  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  the  habit  of  drinking  beer  is,  I take  it,  more 
or  less  prevalent  throughout  there.  Can  you  give  the  committee 
any  approximation  of  the  sum  of  money  that  you  expended  on  that 
trip,  either  in  the  employment  of  these  men  to  distribute  literature, 
or  in  buying  beer  and  cigars  for  treating  the  people  that  you  hap- 
pened to  find  in  the  saloons  when  you  entered  them  for  the  purpose 
of  putting  literature  in  the  saloons  ? Give  your  best  recollection. 

Mr.  Thayer.  I can  only  do  that  in  a general  way. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I only  ask  you  in  a general  way,  Mr.  Thayer. 

Mr.  Thayer.  That  might  have  cost  me  a hundred  dollars. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  mean  on  that  trip  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  It  might  have;  because,  you  see,  we  passed  through 
several  precincts  going  from  Markesan  around  up  through  to  Wau- 
pun.  It  might  have  cost  me  that  much,  and  it  might  not  have  cost 
me  that  much.  But  I am  telling  you  it  might  have. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Are  you  able  now  to  remember  the  names  of 
any  other  than  the  three  men  you  have  already  given  me  that  you 
employed  to  distribute  literature  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  many  trips  of  that  character  did  you  make 
during  the  progress  of  the  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I think  I was  out  two  days  and  a half  in  this  auto 
that  I speak  of. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  mean  on  another  trip  than  the  one  you 
have  just  described? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Yes;  on  the  other  trips. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  many  other  trips  did  you  make  during  the 
progress  of  that  campaign,  either  in  that  automobile  or  in  your  own, 
according  to  your  best  recollection  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I went  by  buggy  quite  a good  deal,  and  with  autos. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  either  by  buggy  or  otherwise? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I covered  the  district  pretty  well. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  many  election  prqcincts  were  there  in  the 
district  that  you  were  to  cover  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Forty-one,  I think. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  much  of  your  time  did  you  spend  after 
you  began  to  do  this  work,  between  that  and  the  primary  election 
day  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Practically  all  of  my  time. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  employ  men  for  any  purpose  other  than 
the  distribution  of  literature?  If  so,  for  what  purpose? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I had  men  engaged  to  talk  of  the  qualifications  of  the 
candidate  and  to  get  out  the  vote  through  their  efforts. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Are  you  able  now,  from  your  best  recollection, 
to  give  to  the  committee  the  names  of  any  of  those  gentlemen  ? I am 
not  asking  you  about  the  amounts  you  paid  to  them;  but  I want  you 
to  gi  ve  the  committee  from  your  best  recollection,  if  you  have  any  as 
to  that,  the  names  of  any  of  the  gentlemen  you  remember. 


L.  W.  THAYER. 


949 


Mr.  Thayer.  I have  not.  I was  absolutely  without  memoranda, 
and  when  the  primary  campaign  closed  I regarded  it  as  a closed 
incident.  I have  not  been  in  the  habit  of  keeping  detailed  accounts 
of  campaigns. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  I understand  from  the  suggestion  that  you 
make  now  that  you  have  been  engaged  in  a similar  manner  in  cam- 
paigns before  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I have  been;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Have  you  held  public  office? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  office? 

Mr.  Thayer.  That  of  assemblyman. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  When  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I was  elected  to  the  assembly  in  1892. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  State  assembly  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Were  you  elected  to  the  senate  at  any  time  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I was;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  were  elected  to  the  senate? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  When  were  you  elected  to  the  senate  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I was  elected  to  the  senate  in  1894. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Then  you  have  been  a member  of  the  assembly 
and  a member  of  the  State  senate  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  ever  hold  any  other  public  office, 
elective  in  its  character? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I was  a member  of  the  county  board. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  do  you  mean  by  that  ? Is  that  what  wre 
call  “ county  commissioners’’  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  have  charge  of  the  affairs  of  the  county  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  long  did  you  serve  as  a member  of  your 
county  board  ? Was  it  in  this  county  of  Fond  du  Lac  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  long  did  you  serve  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I think  eight  years. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Up  to  what  time  ? That  is,  when  did  you  cease 
to  be  a member  of  the  county  board  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I think  I was  a member  of  the  county  board  at  the 
time  I was  elected  to  the  assembly,  which  I think  was  in  1892. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  continue  to  be  a member  up  to  about 
1900  ? Was  your  service  as  a member  of  the  county  board  continuous  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I do  not  care  to  go  into  the  details;  but  the 
effect  of  it  is  that  for  a period  of  at  least  eight  years,  whether  con- 
tinuous or  otherwise,  you  were  a member  of  the  county  board  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Does  the  count}"  board  have  officers — a chairman, 
a secretary,  etc.  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  position  did  you  hold  in  connection  with 
the  county  board  ? 


950 


L.  W.  THAYER. 


Mr.  Thayer.  I was  chairman  of  the  county  board. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  For  how  long? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Two  years. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  that  in  the  latter  part  of  your  service  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Does  it  rotate  ? That  is,  does  the  chairmanship 
go  to  the  men  that  have  been  on  the  board  for  a longer  period,  or  are 
they  elected  to  it  ? 

Mr.  Black.  They  are  elected. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Then  it  is  not  a question  of  rotation,  but  a ques- 
tion of  election  to  the  chairmanship  of  the  board  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  So  that,  as  I understand  you  to  say,  the  last 
two  years  of  your  service  you  were  elected  chairman  of  the  county 
board  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  To  go  along  a little  bit  further:  You  have  already 
testified  about  employing  men  for  distributing  literature  and  for 
canvassing  throughout  that  section,  presenting  the  qualifications 
and  the  claims  of  the  Senator.  Is  the  committee  to  understand  that 
there  was  or  was  not  an  active  campaign  going  on  in  that  section  in 
the  interest  of  either  one  or  all  of  the  other  candidates  for  Senator  ? 
What  is  the  fact  about  that  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Do  you  refer  to  the  campaign  of  1908  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes,  sir;  I refer  to  the  campaign  of  1908,  when 
Mr.  McGovern,  Mr.  Cook,  and  Mr.  Hatton  were  all  candidates  for  the 
same  nomination.  My  question  is,  Was  or  not  an  active  campaign 
being  carried  on  in  that  section  in  the  interest  of  either  or  all  of  the 
three  other  candidates  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  There  was  considerable  competition. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  mean  by  that  to  say  that  there  was  an 
active  campaign  for  either  one  or  all  of  the  other  three  candidates  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  have  stated  that  you  employed  men  to 
distribute  literature,  and  men  to  canvass  the  district  in  the  interest 
of  the  Senator.  Did  you  employ  men  throughout  that  section  for 
any  other  purpose  ? If  so,  what  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  For  no  other  purpose,  except,  as  I say,  on  the  lines 
of  distributing  campaign  matter,  and  to  advocate  the  qualifications 
of  the  candidate. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  have  any  men  employed  throughout  the 
various  precincts  for  the  purpose  of  looking  out  for  the  vote  on  elec- 
tion day,  canvassing  on  election  day,  and  with  rigs  to  get  voters  out  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Yes,  sir.  They  were  employed  in  the  various 
precincts. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  By  whom  ? By  you  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Not  by  me  directly,  always;  through  others  at  times. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  desire  to  be  understood  as  saying  that 
you  had  such  men  employed  in  substantially  all  the  precincts  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Not  all  of  them. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Not  all  of  them.  Are  you  able  to  give  the  com- 
mittee a reasonable  approximation  as  to  what  you  expended  in  that 
manner  ? I am  not  suggesting  that  you  make  a guess,  but  that  you 
give  us,  according  to  your  best  recollection,  a reasonable  approxi- 


L.  W.  THAYER. 


951 


mation.  I do  not  expect  you  to  state  it  to  five  or  ten  dollars,  and  tlie 
committee  does  not.  What  I want  to  know  is  whether  you  are  able 
to  give  the  committee  an  approximation  of  your  best  recollection  as  to 
what  you  expended  in  that  manner  out  of  the  $600  in  this  campaign. 
You  must  understand,  Mr.  Thayer,  that  you  are  not  required  to  state 
it  to  five  or  ten  dollars,  but  to  give  the  best  recollection  you  have,  and 
be  candid  about  it. 

Mr.  Thayek.  I wish  to  be  candid. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I have  not  any  doubt  about  it. 

Mr.  Thayer.  I am  only  sorry  that  I have  not  got  concrete  in- 
formation. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I ask  you  to  give  your  best  recollection,  and 
give  the  committee,  so  far  as  you  can,  an  approximation  of  the  sum 
that  you  authorized  to  be  expended  for  the  use  of  watchers  and  men 
around  the  polls  in  the  interest  of  the  Senator,  or  for  getting  men  in 
to  vote  on  tne  primary  election  day,  by  rigs  or  otherwise.  Just  give 
the  committee  the  best  approximation  you  can. 

Mr.  Thayer.  You  have  reference  to  the  entire  district  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes,  sir;  the  whole  amount,  now. 

Mr.  Thayer.  I should  think  it  cost  me  anywhere  from  $250  to  $300 
for  the  entire  district. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  the  nearest  approximation  you  can 
make ; is  it  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Yes,  sir.  I am  not  certain,  of  course. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I should  like  to  have  you,  if  you  please,  do  the 
best  you  can  to  give  the  committee  the  names  of  as  many  men  as  you 
can  who  did  that  kind  of  work  for  you — that  is  to  say,  who  watched 
around  the  polls  and  helped  get  voters  out  to  the  polls  on  primary 
election  day.  I do  not  ask  you  to  give  the  specific  amount  you  paid 
to  each;  but  I should  like  to  have  you  give  the  committee,  so  far  as 
you  can,  the  names  of  the  men  so  far  as  you  can  remember  them. 

Mr.  Thayer.  If  I am  requested  to  appear  before  the  committee 
again 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I suppose  it  would  be  fairer  to  Mr.  Thayer,  if  he 
is  to  come  back  again,  to  let  him  give  the  names  at  that  time. 

The  Chairman.  The  purpose  of  requesting  the  witness  to  appear 
again  was  that  he  might  refresh  his  memory  as  to  the  persons  to 
whom  he  paid  money. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  chairman  will  perceive,  of  course,  what  I 
want  to  do  with  the  witness.  I want  to  give  the  witness  an  oppor- 
tunity to  do  the  best  he  can. 

The  Chairman.  If  counsel  is  more  fortunate  than  the  committee 
in  getting  the  witness  to  name  them  it  may  not  be  necessary  for  him 
to  appear  again. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Then  perhaps  I will  not  pursue  this  line  of 
inquiry  further.  But  I wanted  to  do  the  best  I could  to  give  the 
committee  all  the  information  the  witness  had  without  waiting  for  it. 

The  Chairman.  It  does  not  seem  to  the  committee  that  it  is  worth 
while  to  waste  time  when  the  witness  says  he  can  not  remember  one 
of  them.  We  have  asked  him  to  come  back  at  a subsequent  time. 
At  this  time,  therefore,  it  might  be  passed  over. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I will  not  pursue  that  line  any  further,  then.  I 
will  simply  ask  him  this  general  question,  with  the  expectation  that 


952 


L.  W.  THAYER. 


later  lie  will  refresh  his  recollection  and  give  the  committee  the 
benefit  of  it: 

I will  ask  you,  Mr.  Thayer,  whether  or  not  any  sum  of  money  was 
expended  by  you  in  this  campaign,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  for 
the  purpose  of  bribing  or  corruptly  influencing  any  voters  or  electors 
in  that  section  to  support  Senator  Stephenson  at  the  primary  election ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Not  a dollar. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  any  money  expended  by  any  of  the  gentle- 
men to  whom  you  intrusted  money  for  the  purposes  you  have  de- 
scribed, within  your  knowledge,  either  directly  or  indiectly,  for  the 
purpose  of  bribing  or  corruptly  influencing  electors  in  the  primary 
election  in  the  interest  of  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  Not  to  my  knowledge. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I think,  with  the  suggestion  the  chairman  has 
made,  that  that  is  all  for  the  present. 

Senator  Pomerene.  At  the  time  these  checks  were  returned  to 
you,  were  they  accompanied  by  a memorandum  giving  the  amounts 
of  the  several  checks — a list  of  the  checks  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  You  have  reference,  Senator,  to 

Senator  Pomerene.  When  you  had  your  book  balanced  and  these 
checks  and  others  were  returned  to  you,  were  they  accompanied  by 
a memorandum,  typewritten  or  otherwise,  showing  the  amounts  of 
the  several  checks  returned  ? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I think  they  were. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Have  you  that  memorandum? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I have  not — not  with  me;  no,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Have  you  it  at  home? 

Mr.  Thayer.  I think  I have. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I wish  you  would  bring  it  with  you,  if  you 
will,  please. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I would  like  to  look  at  these  checks  and  the 
bank  book  for  a minute,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  He  will  be  back  here  on  Wednesday. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  There  may  be  something  about  which  I shall 
want  to  ask  him. 

The  Chairman.  The  two  checks  and  the  book  will  be  marked  as 
exhibits  in  connection  with  the  testimony  of  this  witness. 

(The  book  referred  to  was  marked  “Exhibit  Thayer  No.  1,  October 
14,  1911,”  and  the  two  checks  were  marked,  respectively,  “Exhibit 
Thayer  No.  2,  October  14,  1911,”  and  “Exhibit  Thayer  No.  3,  Octo- 
ber 14,  1911.”) 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Before  he  goes  I would  like  to  have  an  opportu- 
nity to  look  at  the  checks.  There  may  be  something  about  them 
which  I wish  to  ask  him. 

The  Chairman.  Yes.  I wish  to  get  the  other  witness  on  the  stand 
at  this  time,  however. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Very  well.  If  I have  any  questions  to  ask  Mr. 
Thayer  I will  call  him  back. 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

(The  name  of  William  C.  Haslam  was  called  as  a witness  and  he  did 
not  respond.) 

The  Chairman.  Have  we  any  information  concerning  Mr.  Haslam? 

The  Clerk.  He  said  he  would  be  here  and  wanted  to  get  off.  I 
do  not  think  he  is  far  away. 


A.  I.'  HULBERT. 


953 


The  Chairman.  He  does  not  answer  to  his  name. 

(By  direction  of  the  chairman,  A. I.  Hulbert  was  called  as  a witness, 
and  responded.) 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I should  like  to  have  Mr.  Thayer  remain  in 
attendance  until  I have  an  opportunity  to  look  at  this  account. 

The  Chairman.  He  will  remain  in  attendance  for  the  present. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  May  I be  allowed  to  ask  that  he  remain  in  attend- 
ance until  I know  that  I do  not  care  to  ask  him  anything  ? 

The  Chairman.  Except  that  he  must  have  time  to  return  home 
and  make  those  examinations. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I will  see  him  before  we  get  through  with  the 
recess.  I merely  want  an  opportunity  to  look  over  this  account.  I 
may  want  him  to  look  up  certain  information. 

TESTIMONY  OF  A.  I.  HULBERT. 

A.  I.  Hulbert,  having  been  previously  sworn,  was  examined  and 
testified  as  follows: 

The  Chairman.  Where  do  you  reside  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  Barron,  Barron  County,  Wis. 

The  Chairman.  The  committee  will  now  take  a recess  until  2 
o’clock. 

(Whereupon,  at  12  o’clock  and  15  minutes  p.  m.,  a recess  was  taken 
until  2 o’clock  p.  m.) 

after  recess. 

At  the  expiration  of  the  recess  the  subcommittee  reassembled. 

TESTIMONY  OF  A.  I.  HULBERT— Resumed. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Hulbert,  how  long  have  you  resided  in  Barron  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  Twenty- three  years. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  your  occupation  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  I am  a deputy  game  warden. 

The  Chairman.  Now  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  such  deputy  game  warden  in  1908? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  take  part  in  Senator  Stephenson’s 
primary  campaign  in  1908  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  No;  I do  not  think  I did. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  you  did  not  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  No.  I say  no,  sir;  I did  not,  in  a way. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  receive  any  money  from  Mr.  Edmonds 
during  that  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  I do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  How  did  it  come  to  you  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  I can  explain  it  to  you,  maybe. 

The  Chairman.  Suppose  you  do. 

Mr.  Hulbert.  When  the  campaign  first  started  out  I got  a letter 
from  Mr.  Edmonds,  I think,  asking  me  to  take  charge  of  Barron 
County.  I told  him  I could  not  do  it;  that  I had  all  the  work  I could 
do,  and  was  under  civil  service  and  could  not  do  it.  It  went  on 
from  that  time  down  until,  I think  it  was,  the  29th  of  August.  Mr. 
Porter  later  on  took  charge  of  Barron  County. 


954 


A.  I.  HTJLBERT. 


Mr.  Littlefield.  What  name  is  that  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  Mr.  Warren  Porter.  I met  him  at  Cameron.  He 
is  an  old  soldier,  and  was  going  to  the  soldiers’  reunion.  He  said 
he  had  Barron  County  fixed  up  all  right,  with  the  exception  of  the 
city  of  Barron.  He  wanted  to  know  of  me  if  I would  not  pay  cer- 
tain parties  that  he  had  spoken  to  some  money,  to  look  after  the 
polls  in  the  city  of  Barron.  He  wanted  to  know  if  I would  not  do 
that  for  Uncle  Ike.  That  is  the  way  he  mentioned  it.  I told  him 
I had  kept  out  of  it  so  far,  and  I did  not  want  to  be  mixed  in  it. 
He  said,  “Will  you  do  it  for  me?’'  and  I said  I would.  So  I paid 
different  parties  there  a small  sum  of  money  out  of  my  own  pocket, 
which  I was  to  receive  from  Mr.  Porter  when  he  got  back.  I did 
not  expect  any  money.  He  went  to  Milwaukee. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Whom  do  you  mean  by  “he”  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  Warren  Porter.  He  went  to  Milwaukee;  and  the 
the  next  day  or  so,  or  maybe  two  days  afterwards,  the  check  came 
from  Mr.  Edmonds.  Whether  he  sent  that  or  not  I could  not  state. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Whether  who  sent  it  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  Mr.  Porter. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Oh!  Whether  Mr.  Porter  had  the  $100  sent  to 
you,  you  can  not  tell  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  No.  I got  that  check,  and  that  is  the  way  I got 
it.  I can  not  explain  it  any  other  way  than  that. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Go  right  on  and  state  the  parties  to  whom  you 
paid  the  sums  and  the  amounts.  There  is  no  objection  to  that,  I 
suppose. 

Mr.  PIulbert  (referring  to  memorandum  book).  It  is  rather  dim. 
I wrote  it  with  a pencil.  I took  it  down  at  the  time  I paid  each  one. 
You  see,  I expected  to  get  my  money  from  Warren  Porter.  I paid 
E.  W.  Pierce  $5  and  $2.50.  The  $5  was  for  working  at  the  polls, 
as  I understood  it,  and  the  $2.50  was  for  posting  bills.  He  is  a bill 
poster  and  did  some  posting  of  bills.  I do  not  know  just  what  it 
was.  I paid  John  Webster  $3. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  For  what?  Give  the  names  and  the  amounts. 
State  for  what  the  money  was  paid. 

Mr.  Hulbert.  I could  not  tell  you  what  it  was  for.  Warren 
Porter  told  me  who  to  pay. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Oh!  You  were  paying  out  these  sums  at  the 
request  of  Mr.  Porter  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  By  virtue  of  an  arrangement  that  had  pre- 
viously been  made  by  him  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  I met  him  at  Cameron.  He  was  going  away,  and 
said  he  had  not  done  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  He  gave  you  these  names  and  requested  you 
to  hand  the  men  these  different  sums  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  Pie  did  not  tell  me  how  much.  He  said  to  give 
them  what  they  asked,  but  not  to  give  over  $5  to  any  one  of  them. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Go  right  along. 

Mr.  Hulbert.  Tom  Case,  $2;  Charles  Wyckoff,  $1;  John  Tim- 
blin,  $2. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Give  their  residences. 

Mr.  Hulbert.  All  in  the  city  of  Barron.  I paid  “Chuck”  Post 
$3.  He  lives  a mile  and  a half  from  Barron,  in  the  town  of  Barron. 


A.  I.  HULBERT. 


955 


He  was  to  look  after  the  polls,  as  I understood  it.  They  hold  their 
caucus  in  the  city,  in  a hall,  and  he  was  to  look  after  the  polls  there. 
That  is  what  I understood  from  Porter.  I paid  Charles  Miller  $3. 
He  lives  about  9 miles  from  Barron,  in  a town  there.  I did  not  pay 
that  until  three  or  four  weeks,  probably  a month,  or  maybe  two 
months  afterwards.  I do  not  remember.  I paid  it  later  on.  I 
phoned  him.  He  told  me  to  phone  him,  and  I phoned  him  with 
regard  to  it.  Charles  Williams  I gave  50  cents.  Williams  was  a 
man  that  drove  a team;  that  is,  he  drove  a team  to  haul  voters  to 
the  polls.  I paid  all  but  the  men  that  drove  the  teams  before  I 
received  any  money  at  all,  before  I knew  I was  going  to  get  any 
money,  or  had  any  idea  of  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Have  you  finished  the  list  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  does  it  aggregate  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  $24.50. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  is  that  amount  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  $24.50. 

The  Chairman.  If  counsel  have  gone  over  the  items,  I will  go 
back  to  the  primary. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes.  I will  ask  him  this  general  question — 
whether  or  not  those  are  all  the  sums  that  he  did  disburse  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  receive  a check  in  an  envelope  from 
Mr.  Edmonds  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Without  any  letter  accompanying  it  at  all  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  There  was  a letter  in  with  it. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  do  with  the  letter? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  I think  I burned  it  up  later  on. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  remember  the  contents  of  the  letter  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  As  near  as  I can  remember,  I think  the  letter  said: 
“I  am  this  day  mailing  you  a present  which  should  have  been  mailed 
before,  but  was  overlooked. ” 

The  Chairman.  Was  that  before  or  after  the  primary  election  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  I think  I got  that  either  on  the  31st  or  on  the  1st. 
That  is  as  near  as  I can  remember. 

The  Chairman.  You  got  it  either  the  day  before  the  primary 
election  or  on  that  day  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  Yes,  sir;  I do  not  know  which.  I would  not 
want  to  swear  to  that. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  expend  that  in  the  interest  of  Senator 
Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  No,  sir;  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  In  whose  interest  did  you  spend  it  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  Fused  that  for  myself;  I kept  it. 

The  Chairman.  You  kept  the  $100  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  not  pay  out  any  of  it  at  all? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  I paid  out  my  own  money,  and  that  is  the  way  I 
was  reimbursed. 

The  Chairman.  Disregard  the  identity  of  the  money.  Did  you 
pay  out  any  money  of  your  own  in  the  interest  of  Senator  Stephenson  ? 


956 


A.  I.  HULBERT. 


Mr.  Hulbert.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  pay  it  out  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  I paid  it  out,  as  I say,  all  but  for  the  boys  that 
drove  the  teams,  before  I got  this  money  from  Mr.  Edmonds. 

The  Chairman.  How  much,  altogether,  did  you  pay  out  before  you 
got  this  $100  from  Edmonds  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  I would  not  state  certainly  whether  I saw  Mr.  Post 
before  that  or  not.  He  lives  up  in  the  country. 

The  Chairman.  Assume  that  you  did.  How  much  did  you  pay 
out  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  About  $3.50,  as  near  as  I can  remember. 

The  Chairman.  Altogether? 

Air.  Hulbert.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  $3.50? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  Yes,  sir;  that  is,  if  I paid  Mr.  Post  before. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  the  amount  paid  Mr.  Post? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  $3.  That  would  make  $6.50,  if  I paid  him  after  I 
got  the  money. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  this  $100  more  than  reimbursed  you  for 
the  money  that  you  had  paid  out? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  had  paid  that  money  out  in  the  interest  of 
Senator  Stephenson’s  campaign,  had  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  I understood  I was  to  pay  that  out  for  Mr.  Porter, 
and  that  Mr.  Porter  wras  to  pay  me.  I took  it  down  here 

The  Chairman.  I mean,  wTere  you  working  for  Senator  vStephen- 
son’s  nomination? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  WTere  you  friendly  to  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  Yes,  sir  ; I was. 

The  Chairman.  You  were  not  working  against  him;  were  you? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  No,  sir;  I was  not. 

The  Chairman.  Whatever  you  did  was  friendly  to  him  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  When  you  received  the  $100  you  kept  it  and 
counted  it  a present,  did  you  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  I kept  it;  I did  not  know  what  else  to  do  with  it. 

The  Chairman.  The  reason  you  have  been  questioned  about  this 
is  because  the  Senate  Committee,  in  its  report,  on  page  2247,  com- 
ments upon  your  having  been  paid  $100.  You  are  called  for  the  pur- 
pose of  explaining  whether  or  not  you  received  that  to  work  for  Sena- 
tor Stephenson.  Were  you  already  working  for  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  commence  working  for  Senator  Stephen- 
son after  you  received  the  $100? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  Maybe  I do  not  exactly  understand;  but  my 
understanding  of  this  is  that  I had  not  been  counted  on  to  work  in 
the  campaign  for  anybody.  I did  not  ask  anybody 

The  Chairman.  Whom  were  you  supporting?  For  whom  did  you 
vote? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  I voted  for  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  first  make  up  your  mind  to  vote 
for  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  When  he  first  came  out. 


A.  I.  HULBERT.  957 

The  Chairman.  Then  you  were  a friend  of  Senator  Stephenson’s  ? 

Mr.  Hhlbert.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  were  not  doing  any  friendly  act  in  the  interest 
of  any  other  man’s  nomination;  were  you? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  No,  sir;  I was  not. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  spent  $24.50  at  the  request  of  Porter? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  Yes,  sir;  at  the  request  of  Warren  Porter. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  then  you  spent  $3  in  addition  to  that  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  No. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  part  of  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  is  part  of  it  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Were  you  reimbursed  by  Porter? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  No,  sir.  He  did  not  pay  me  back  at  all. 

Senator  Pomerene.  So,  with  the  $100,  you  had  a balance  then  of 
$75.50? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Which  was  a present  to  you  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  From  the  time  Senator  Stephenson  announced 
his  candidacy  you  had  been  working  in  his  behalf  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  I did  not  understand  it  that  way. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Were  you  ? Were  you  talking  in  his  behalf  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  I did  not  talk  politics  with  anybody. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  did  you  get  this  $100  for? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  That  is  what  I say — I do  not  know. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  do  not  know  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Do  you  often  get  presents  of  that  kind  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  No,  sir.  It  is  the  first  one  I ever  got,  and  I am 
sorry  I got  that. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  did  go  around  and  employ  a number  of 
these  men,  though  ? 

Mi*.  Hulbert.  Yes,  sir;  at  the  request  of  Mr.  Porter  I did  that. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  did  you  say  to  them  when  you  employed 
them  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  I told  them  just  what  Mr.  Porter  told  me.  He  said 
that  he  had  gone  off  in  a hurry;  he  wanted  to  go  to  meet  some  of  his 
company  in  Milwaukee,  and  he  forgot  to  pay  those  bills  and  wanted 
me  to  pay  them  for  him.  I told  every  one  of  them  I was  paying 
those  bills  for  Mr.  Porter. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Was  that  before  or  after  the  primary? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  That  was  before  the  primary. 

Senator  Pomerene.  How  long  before  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  I think  it  was — well,  I met  Mr.  Porter  in  Hamburg, 
6 miles  from  home,  and  he  was  then  on  his  way  to  Milwaukee.  I 
think  that  was  on  the  29th.  I could  not  swear  positively. 

Senator  Pomerene.  It  was  near  the  date  of  the  primary? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  never  asked  Porter  for  the  money  after- 
wards, did  you  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  I spoke  to  him  about  it;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  was  said  between  you  ? 


958 


A.  I.  HULBERT. 


Mr.  Hulbert.  I do  not  know  just  exactly  what  there  was  said,  but 
I spoke  to  him  about  the  fact  that  he  never  had  paid  me  that  money 
yet,  and  he  asked  me  if  I did  not  get  my  pay?  I said  I got  some 
money,  but  where  it  came  from  I did  not  know,  or  what  it  was  for. 
He  said:  “If  you  are  paid  well  enough,  if  you  are  satisfied,  all  right; 
keep  still.” 

Senator  Pomerene.  “If  you  are  satisfied,  all  right ” ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  “Keep  still” ; yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  “Keep  still”  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Why  did  he  say  that  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  I do  not  know,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  When  was  that  said  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  That  might  have  been  a month  and  it  might  have 
been  six  weeks. 

Senator  Pomerene.  After  the  primary  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  After  the  primary.  As  I understood  it,  as  I remem- 
ber now,  he  went  away  on  a visit  somewhere.  He  went  to  the  sol- 
diers’ reunion. 

Senator  Pomerene.  This  was  Edmonds  who  sent  you  this  check 
for  $100? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  Yes,  sir;  as  I remember  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  had  had  some  talk  with  him  before,  had 
you  not? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  I never  had  any  talk  with  Mr.  Edmonds,  any  more 
than  he  wrote  me  a letter  and  asked  me  to  take  charge  of  Barron 
County. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  you  declined  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  Yes,  sir;  I declined.  I told  him  I could  not  do  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  notwithstanding  that  fact  he  sent  you 
$100? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I wish  you  would  explain  to  us  why  he  should 
send  you  $100. 

Mr.  Hulbert.  I can  not  do  it,  Senator. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  have  any  talk  with  Senator  Steph- 
enson about  this  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Do  you  know  whose  money  this  was  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  No,  sir;  I do  not,  any  more  than  I supposed  it 
was 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  knew  that  Edmonds  was  the  manager  for 
Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  that  he  had  tried  to  employ  you  to  look 
after  Barron  County  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  He  did,  in  the  early  part. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  that  then  you  refused  to  do  it;  but  after 
you  had  refused  to  do  it  you  did  take  enough  interest  in  it  to  go  and 
employ  these  men  and  pay  them  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  Yes,  sir.  I did  that  much  with  the  understanding 
that  it  was  for  Mr.  Porter. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  render  any  account  to  anyone  of  this 
money  that  you  had  expended  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  No,  sir;  I did  not. 


A.  I.  HTJLBERT. 


959 


Senator  Pomerene.  Were  you  ever  called  upon  to  render  an 
account  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  No,  sir;  I never  was. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  did  not  volunteer  any? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Referring  to  the  memorandum  that  you  have, 
did  you  make  that  at  the  time  you  made  the  payments  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  I did;  yes,  sir.  I did  that  so  I could  show  Mr. 
Porter  who  I had  paid  and  how  much  I had  paid.  I did  not  expect 
anything  else,  only  to  get  my  money  back.  That  was  all  I wanted. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  As  I understand  this,  Mr.  Hulbert,  Mr.  Porter 
was  a man  well  known  to  you  in  that  community  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  Yes,  sir.  I knew  Mr.  Porter  for  a good  many  years. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you,  at  the  time  you  had  this  conversation 
with  Mr.  Porter,  when  he  left  this  message  with  you,  know  that  he 
was  acting  in  the  interest  of  Senator  Stephenson’s  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  I did;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  He  had  to  go  away  on  some  business  of  his  own  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  He  said  he  wanted  to  meet  some  of  his  company; 
yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Precisely;  he  had  to  leave  town  on  some  business 
of  his  own.  He  gave  you  the  names  of  these  men? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  He  did  not  tell  you  how  much  to  pay  to  them  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  He  said  not  to  pay  over  $5. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Exactly.  He  gave  you  a limit  of  $5  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  you  were  to  take  the  money  and  pay  it  to 
these  men  for  these  purposes,  he  giving  you  the  names  of  the  men  ? 
Is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  Yes,  sir;  he  gave  me  the  names  of  the  men. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  all  you  had  to  do  with  it  was  simply  to  see 
these  men  and  pay  them  not  more  than  $5  apiece  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  you  gave  them  the  sums  that  you  have  in 
mind  here  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  Yes,  sir;  with  the  exception  of 

Mr.  Littlefield.  There  may  have  been  an  item  of  $3.50  that  you 
paid  later;  but  if  that  was  paid  at  the  same  time,  you  simply  paid 
them  the  money  at  the  request  of  Mr.  Porter  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  Yes,  sir;  I did. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  after  that,  did  you  know  that  Mr.  Porter 
went  into  the  headquarters  and  saw  Mr.  Edmonds  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  I supposed  he  did;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Do  not  say  what  you  supposed.  Do  you 
know  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  No;  I do  not  know  whether  he  did  or  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I thought  he  stated  something  like  that.  How 
many  days  was  it  after  you  had  advanced  this  money  at  the  request 
of  Mr.  Porter  that  you  received  a check  from  Mr.  Edmonds  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  About  two  days,  I think. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  About  two  days  after  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  Mr.  Porter  told  me  he  was  going  to  Milwaukee. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Porter  told  you  that  he  was  going  to  Milwaukee? 


960 


A.  I.  HULBERT. 


Mr.  Hulbert.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  long  was  it  after  Porter  told  you  that  lie 
was  going  to  Milwaukee  that  you  got  the  check  from  Mr.  Edmonds  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  About  two  days. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  About  two  days  after  that  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  As  near  as  I can  remember. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  From  that  I take  it  you  inferred,  judging  from 
what  you  said  on  your  direct  examination,  that  Mr.  Porter  had  been 
to  Milwaukee,  and  had  seen  Mr.  Edmonds,  and  had  told  him  what 
you  were  doing? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  Yes,  sir.  I had  an  idea  that  that  was  what  he 
had  done. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  next  thing  that  you  knew  about  it  was  that 
you  got  a check  from  Mr.  Edmonds  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  the  next  thing  that  occurred  was  that  a 
month  or  so  afterwards  you  discussed  it  with  Mr.  Porter  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  Mr.  Porter  wanted  to  know  if  you  had  gotten 
money  enough  to  reimburse  you  for  what  you  had  disbursed? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  you  said  you  had? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  I said  I was  satisfied. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  you  had  received  more? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  I had  received  more. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  At  the  time  you  got  this  check  from  Mr.  Ed- 
monds, so  far  as  you  know,  neither  Porter  nor  Edmonds  knew  how~ 
much  money  you  had  disbursed  in  this  manner  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  had  not  seen  Porter  to  make  any  report  to 
him  as  to  the  precise  amounts  you  had  paid  these  men  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  I do  not  think  he  came  back  for  about  a month,  as 
near  as  I can  remember. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  He  left  for  Milwaukee,  and  you  did  not  see  him 
again  for  about  a month  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  No;  he  went  to  the  soldiers’  reunion,  and  stopped 
to  see  his  brother,  I think,  on  the  way. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Who  introduced  this  question  as  to  the  sums  that 
you  had  advanced  at  Mr.  Porter’s  request  when  you  saw  him  next 
after  he  left  for  Milwaukee — you  or  Mr.  Porter,  so  far  as  you  remember  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  I would  not  w^ant  to  state  that.  I do  not  just 
remember  about  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  are  not  quite  certain  about  it? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  No,  sir;  I am  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  But  in  any  event,  the  subject  matter  was  brought 
up  between  you  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  I think  I brought  it  up,  but  I would  not  be  certain. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  never  have  received  anything  from  Mr. 
Porter  on  account  of  the  sums  that  you  paid  out  at  Mr.  Porter’s 
request  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  No,  sir;  not  a cent. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  paid  out,  as  you  say,  no  other  sums  than 
those  that  you  have  indicated  ? 


A.  I.  HULBERT. 


961 


Mr.  Hulbert.  No,  sir;  not  a cent. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  did  no  work  in  that  campaign? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  In  the  interest  of  Mr.  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield  You  did  no  campaigning? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  No  campaigning;  no,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  did  not  discuss  the  question  in  his  interest? 

Mr  Hulbert.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I understand  you  to  say  that  you  had  been  for 
him  ever  since  his  candidacy  was  announced? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  But  you  did  not  do  any  canvassing  or  discussing? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  solicit  any  votes  for  the  Senator  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  any  of  this  money  that  was  disbursed  by 
you  under  these  circumstances  disbursed  for  the  purpose  of  either 
directly  or  indirectly  bribing  or  corruptly  influencing  any  elector  in 
that  primary  election  in  the  interest  of  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  No,  sir;  not  by  me. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Were  any  of  the  sums  that  you  paid  to  these 
men,  so  far  as  you  know,  used  by  either  or  any  of  them,  either  directly 
or  indirectly,  for  the  purpose  of  bribing  or  corruptly  influencing  any 
electors  in  that  primary  election  in  the  interest  of  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  No,  sir;  not  so  far  as  I know. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  ever  have  any  information  that  any 
such  use  was  made  of  it  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  No,  sir;  I did  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  all. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  were  a game  warden  at  the  time,  were 
you  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  I was;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Was  that  the  reason  why  you  did  not  take  an 
active  part  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  Yes,  sir.  I was  a game  warden  and  under  civil 
service,  and  not  supposed  to  take  any  part  in  politics. 

Senator  Pomerene.  If  you  had  not  been  a game  warden,  of  course 
you  would  have  been  more  active  for  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  I think  I should. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  did  not  prevent  your  accepting  a present, 
did  it? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I have  heard  a good  deal  about  the  civil  service 
in  connection  with  the  game  wardens.  I do  not  know  how  much 
you  may  know  about  the  law,  Mr.  Hulbert,  but  I should  like  to  have 
you  call  my  attention  to  the  section  in  the  law  that  prohibits  a game 
warden  from  taking  any  active  part  in  a political  campaign.  I have 
not  been  able  to  And  it,  but  it  may  be  that  you  can. 

Mr.  Hulbert.  I do  not  know  that  I can  find  it.  It  is  in  the  civil- 
service  laws,  I think. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  there  anything  in  the  civil-service  law  except 
a provision  that  prohibits  any  official  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin  mak- 
15235°— vol  1—11 01 


962 


A.  I.  HULBERT. 


ing  any  assessment  on  other  officers,  agents,  and  employees  of  the 
State  of  Wisconsin?  Do  you  know  of  any  statute  outside  of  that? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  I do  not  know  that  I do,  but 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  that  what  you  refer  to  as  this  civil-service 
law  that  is  talked  about  so  much? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  A law  that  provides  that  no  assessment,  contri- 
bution, or  advancement  shall  be  collected  by  an  official  of  the  State 
of  Wisconsin  from  other  officers,  agents,  and  employees?  That  is  the 
law  you  mean,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  section  is  it? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  We  have  it  right  here  somewhere;  and  it  has  not 
any  more  to  do  with  the  political  activity  of  these  game  wardens  than 
the  occupation  of  Orion. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I have  not  had  an  opportunity  to  consult  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I will  get  it  for  your  honor.  I want  to  see  if  this 
is  really  what  these  men  had  in  their  minds. 

I will  read  this,  Mr.  Hulbert,  and  see  if  this  is  what  you  had  in  your 
mind : 

No  officer,  agent,  clerk,  or  employee  under  the  government  of  the  State  shall, 
directly,  or  indirectly,  solicit  or  receive  or  be  concerned  in  any  manner  in  soliciting 
or  receiving  any  assessment,  subscription,  or  contribution  for  political  service, 
whether  voluntary  or  involuntary,  for  any  political  purpose  whatever,  from  any 
officer,  agent,  clerk,  or  employee  of  the  State. 

Is  that  what  you  mean?  Do  you  know  anything  of  any  other 
statute  except  that  ? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  No;  I do  not  know  that  I know  of  any  other 
statute,  but  I know  that  we  have  been  told  that  we  were  not  supposed 
to  take  part  in  politics. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  This  is  the  only  law  that  you  know  anything 
about  that  relates  to  the  subject  matter? 

Mr.  Hulbert.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  It  is  simply  a statute  prohibiting  assessments. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  is  all  so  far  as  you  know  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  all  I have  ever  been  able  to  find.  That 
is  what  this  committee  predicates  its  very  extraordinary  conclusions 
upon. 

The  Chairman.  That  is,  the  State  senate  investigating  committee. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Not  this  committee? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Oh,  no.  I hope  not.  I do  not  suggest  any  such 
unfounded  and  utterly  groundless  reflection  so  far  as  this  committee 
is  concerned;  but  the  solons  that  prepared  this  report  are  the  men 
that  have  undertaken  to  warp  and  twist  matters  for  the  purpose  of 
embarrassing  these  people  who  are  the  game  wardens. 

The  Chairman.  I hope  they  will  be  before  the  committee. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes;  I hope  so.  There  is  no  statute  of  Wiscon- 
sin that  denaturizes  even  a game  warden,  or  deprives  him  of  his 
right  as  an  American  citizen  to  participate  in  a campaign.  I under- 
take to  state  that  as  a matter  of  law. 

The  Chairman.  Is  there  any  further  examination  of  this  witness  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  all.  I just  wanted  to  find  out  what  this 
bugbear  was. 


WILLIAM  C.  HASLAM. 


963 


TESTIMONY  OF  WILLIAM  C.  EASLAM. 

William  C.  Haslam,  having  been  duly  sworn,  was  examined  and 
testified  as  follows: 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Haslam,  where  do  you  reside? 

Mr.  Haslam.  Chicago,  111. 

The  Chairman.  Where  did  you  reside  during  the  summer  of  1908  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  Appleton,  Wis. 

The  Chairman.  What  business  were  you  engaged  in  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  Deputy  game  warden. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  participate  in  the  campaign  of  Senator 
Stephenson  for  nomination  as  United  States  Senator  before  the 
direct  primaries  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  I did. 

Tbe  Chairman.  Did  you  receive  money  from  Senator  Stephenson 
or  from  his  campaign  managers  for  assisting  in  that  campaign? 

Mr.  Haslam.  I did. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  $626. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  receive  it  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  I received  $200  in  cash  from  Mr.  Edmonds,  at  Apple- 
ton,  in  the  fore  part  of  August. 

The  Chairman.  August  13,  was  it  not? 

Mr.  Haslam.  Somewhere  along  in  there. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  receive  the  next  sum  from  him  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  I would  not  be  able  to  give  the  dates.  I think  I 
received  it  in  two  different  checks,  in  sums  of  $200  each. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  first  was  in  currency  and  the  last  two  in 
checks  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  Yes;  as  my  memory  serves  me  at  the  present  time. 
The  third  check  that  I received,  for  $26,  was  some  time  in  September. 

Senator  Pomerene.  When  you  say  “the  third  check’ ’ 

Mr.  Haslam.  That  is  the  third  check. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  got  one  sum  in  cash  and  two  checks  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  Two  checks  of  $200,  and  then  $26  in  a check  after 
the  primary. 

The  Chairman.  You  mean  two  checks  aggregating  $200,  do  you  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  $200  each. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  $200  each;  $400  altogether. 

The  Chairman.  So  you  received  $626  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  $626. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  did  you  receive  that  money? 

Mr.  Haslam.  To  take  charge  of  his  interests  in  Brown  County  as 
his  manager. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  do  with  the  money  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  I spent  $426  for  expenses  incurred  in  carrying  on  the 
work  there  in  Brown  County;  $200  I kept  for  myself. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  For  your  services? 

Mr.  Haslam.  For  my  services. 

The  Chairman.  How  did  you  spend  the  $400  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  I hired  billposters,  men  to  get  me  lists  of  voters  in 
precincts,  and  men  with  teams  in  certain  localities  to  bring  voters 
to  the  polls,  distribute  campaign  buttons  and  cards  and  literature. 


964 


WILLIAM  C.  HASLAM. 


The  Chairman.  Just  a moment  at  this  point.  Mr.  Hulbert  will 
remain  in  attendance.  He  will  be  wanted  as  a witness  on  Tuesday 
after  Mr.  Stone  has  testified.  I neglected  to  say  that. 

Proceed  with  the  statement  as  to  how  you  expended  this  money. 

Mr.  Haslam.  For  railroad  fare  and  for  eatables  for  myself,  and 
expense  incurred  in  that  way — postage  stamps,  stenographers,  sta- 
tionery, telephones,  and  telegrams. 

The  Chairman.  You  rendered  a statement  of  a portion  of  this 
money  before  the  committee  when  you  were  examined,  did  you  not? 

Mr.  Haslam.  I gave  the  statement  from  memory  as  nearly  as  I 
could  call  it  to  mind  at  the  time. 

The  Chairman.  We  have  here  Exhibit  453,  page  3937,  of  items 
which  you  claim  to  have  expended.  This  would  seem  to  be  made 
out  by  you. 

Mr.  Haslam.  Yes,  sir;  I made  it  out  from  memory. 

The  Chairman.  From  memory  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Are  the  items  enumerated  in  that  statement 
correct  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  They  are. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  any  other  items  to  add  to  those  in  the 
statement  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  Not  one. 

The  Chairman.  This  accounts  for  a little  over  $100  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  kept  how  much  for  your  own  salary  or 
expenses  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  $200.  No;  I kept  that  as  my  salary,  and  I used  the 
other. 

The  Chairman.  For  your  salary  ? Then  you  charged  your  expenses 
in  addition  to  that;  did  you? 

Mr.  Haslam.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  got  $626  in  all? 

Mr.  Haslam.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  have  accounted  for  about  $426,  have 
you  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  Yes,  sir;  I think  so. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  you  expended  that  in  the  manner 
enumerated  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  expend  any  of  that  money  for  the  pur- 
chase of  liquor  or  cigars  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  I might  say  in  that  regard  that  I had  this  money  in 
cash,  and  used  it  along.  I might  have  bought  cigars  and  I might 
have  bought  liquor  for  myself. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  you  “might  have  done  so.”  Did  you 
buy  it? 

Mr.  Haslam.  I certainly  must  have,  in  a campaign  of  that  nature. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  did  you  estimate  that  you  expended 
for  cigars  out  of  that  money? 

Mr.  Haslam.  Oh,  perhaps — well,  that  is  a pretty  hard  question. 
I may  have  expended  $10;  I may  have  expended  $25. 

The  Chairman.  Not  to  exceed  $25  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  No,  sir;  no,  sir. 


WILLIAM  C.  HASLAM. 


965 


The  Chairman.  How  much  did  you  expend  for  liquor  or  drinks? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Beer? 

Mr.  Haslam.  Beer  ? Oh,  very,  very  little — very  little. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  not  make  a saloon  campaign  of  it? 

Mr.  Haslam.  My  orders  from  Mr.  Edmonds  were  not  to  make  a 
saloon  canvass,  and  I did  not  do  it. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  pay  any  elector  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin 
any  portion  of  that  money  to  secure  his  support  or  vote  for  Senator 
Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  I did  not.  I might  add  that  I used  an  automobile, 
and  some  days  my  bill  for  the  automobile  would  run  fifteen  or  twenty 
dollars,  and  then  again  it  would  run  $5. 

Senator  Pomerene.  For  whose  automobile? 

Mr.  Haslam.  Mine. 

Senator  Pomerene.  It  was  your  own  automobile  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  No;  one  that  I hired.  The  county  is  very  long, 
and  there  are  no  street  cars,  and  there  is  no  railroad  that  cuts  into 
those  towns;  and  I went  around  to  see  that  the  literature  that  we 
had  given  men  was  posted  and  kept  up — kept  before  the  people. 

The  Chairman.  You  were  on  a vacation  as  a State  game  warden 
at  the  time  you  were  working  for  Senator  Stephenson  were  you  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  Yes,  sir;  I was  off  from  duty.  I did  not  work  for 
the  State,  and  did  not  accept  any 

The  Chairman.  You  owed  no  duty  to  the  State  during  that 
time  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  No,  sir;  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  You  1 p voucher  for  the  month  of  the 


Mr.  Littlefield.  What  is  that  ? That  is  a new  one  to  me. 

The  Chairman.  You  will  find  it  at  page  3975. 

Mr.  Haslam.  I was  a delegate  to  the  “rump  convention. ” They 
called  it  the  “rump  convention”  at  Madison  at  the  time  the  “half- 
breeds”  and  “stalwarts”  split  in  convention,  and  part  went  to 
the  Fuller  Opera  House  and  the  others  were  in  the  gymnasium  of 
the  Wisconsin  State  University. 

The  Chairman.  Did  that  involve  the  expenditure  of  any  money 
on  your  part  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Howmuch? 

Mr.  Haslam.  I entertained  the  delegates  in  meals  and  one  thing 
and  another — cigars,  street-car  fare  up  to  the  hall  and  back. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  did  that  cost  you  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  Oh,  I do  not  know.  It  might  have  cost  me  $20; 
it  might  have  cost  me  $30. 

The  Chairman.  You  kept  no  account  of  it? 

Mr.  Haslam.  No,  sir;  I never  did. 

The  Chairman.  How  many  days  did  you  work  for  Senator  Stephen- 
son during  the  campaign? 

Mr.  Haslam.  Thirty  days;  from  the  1st  day  of  August  until  the 
day  of  the  primary. 

The  Chairman.  I think  it  says  on  page  3936  that  you  worked  31 
days.  I will  check  that  up  and  see. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  may  have  left  out  Sunday. 


“rump  convention.” 


mean  by  that? 


9GG 


WILLIAM  C.  HASLAM. 


Mr.  Haslam.  There  are  not  any  31  clays  in  August,  so  I could 
not  very  likely  work  31  days.  What  I did  was  to  work  from  the 
first  day  up  to  the  day  of  the  primary. 

The  Chairman.  You  had  known  Senator  Stephenson  a long  time, 
had  you  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  Yes,  indeed,  I had. 

The  Chairman.  Had  you  worked  for  him  in  times  gone  by  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  Yes,  indeed. 

The  Chairman.  In  what  way  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  I shined  his  shoes  for  five  years. 

The  Chairman.  I think  you  said  you  had  been  his  bootblack,  did 
you  not  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  have  been  very  much  attached  to  him 
all  your  life,  have  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  Yes,  indeed. 

The  Chairman.  All  your  life  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  All  my  life. 

The  Chairman.  I notice  on  page  3954  a letter  to  Mr.  Stone, 
written  by  you,  in  which  you  say: 

If  it  is  possible,  Mr.  Stone,  I would  like  to  get  a leave  of  absence  for  one  month 
starting  August  1 to  September  1.  I have  not  had  a vacation  since  I went  to  work 

for  the , and  hope  and  trust  that  you  may  be  able  to  see  your  way  clear  to  grant 

this  request,  and  thanking  you  in  advance  for  your  consideration  of  the  same, 

I remain, 

Wm.  C.  Haslam. 

In  response  to  that  letter  you  got  the  vacation  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  Yes,  sir;  I did. 

The  Chairman.  And  entered  on  work  for  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  expend  any  money  during  that  time, 
or  at  any  time,  for  the  purchase  of  any  votes  or  for  the  influencing 
of  any  man  to  work  for  Senator  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Haslam.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  You  talked  for  him? 

Mr.  Haslam.  I talked  for  him,  day  and  night. 

The  Chairman.  You  made  it  known  that  you  were  his  friend, 
and  that  you  were  supporting  him  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  the  limit  of  your  expenditure,  was  it  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  I wish  to  say,  furthermore,  that  in  my  campaign 
in  Brown  County  I ran  across  89  men  that  had  worked  for  Senator 
Stephenson,  both  father  and  son;  and  there  was  not  one  of  the  89 
that  did  not  tell  me,  personally,  that  they  were  going  to  do  all  they 
could  to  elect  Senator  Stephenson.  Never  one  man  had  a word  to 
say,  in  any  way,  shape,  or  form,  through  the  whole  county,  against 
Senator  Stephenson.  I sent  those  names,  each  one  of  them,  to 
the  headquarters  in  Milwaukee.  I had  a stenographer  write  the 
letter,  and  sent  it  in. 

The  Chairman.  This  exhibit  will  be  made  a part  of  the  record, 
and  then  returned  to  the  State  custodian. 

(The  exhibit  referred  to  will  be  found  later  in  the  testimony  of 
Mr.  Haslam.) 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  render  to  any  one  any  account  of 
your  expenditures  ? 


WILLIAM  C.  HASLAM. 


967 


Mr.  Haslam.  No,  sir;  I did  not. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Were  you  asked  to? 

Mr.  Haslam.  No,  sir;  I was  not. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Mr.  Edmonds  had  made  the  arrangement 
with  you  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Personally? 

Mr.  Haslam.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Where  was  it  made? 

Mr.  Haslam.  At  Appleton,  Wis. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  was  said  between  you  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  I was  talking  with  him,  and  told  him  I had  known 
Uncle  Ike  Stephenson  for  a great  many  years;  and  he  wanted  to 
know  if  I would  not  assist  in  doing  what  I could  for  him,  in  bringing 
him  before  the  people;  and  I said  “ Yes;  but  I shall  expect  remuner- 
ation for  it  and  my  expenses.”  He  asked  me  what  it  would  cost 
him,  and  I said  to  him:  “I  will  do  the  very  best  I can.  I will  not 
spend  any  money  foolishly,  and  I will  go  to  work  and  carry  on  the 
campaign  for  the  Senator.”  And  he  said  to  me  “Can  you  state  any 
stipulated  sum?”  I talked  it  over  for  quite  a while  with  him,  as 
to  what  it  might  cost,  taking  the  precincts,  and  the  expense,  and 
knowing  what  it  would  cost  to  go  around  through  that  territory  ; 
I thought  about  $400,  with  $200  for  my  own.  I stipulated  that  as 
mine. 

Senator  Pomerene.  $200  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  he  agreed  to  pay  you  that? 

Mr.  Haslam.  I will  not  say  that  he  agreed  to  pay  it.  He  said, 
“Then,  that  would  be  $600.”  I said,  “Yes;  $600  ought  to  be  able  to 
carry  on  that  campaign  in  a legitimate  and  right  way.” 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  make  any  account  of  your  expendi- 
tures as  they  were  incurred  or  paid  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  No,  sir;  I did  not.  I would  hire  a man,  for  instance, 
to  go  out  in  the  country  and  take  bills  out  and  post  them  up.  I 
would  pay  him,  then  and  there,  for  that. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  report  to  them  the  names  of  the  men 
that  you  had  employed  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  No,  sir  ; I did  not. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  made  no  report  of  any  kind  with  respect 
to  the  expenditures? 

Mr.  Haslam.  No. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  were  never  asked  to  make  any  report? 

Mr.  Haslam.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  were  a deputy  game  warden  at  the  time 
you  made  this  arrangement? 

Mr.  Haslam.  No,  sir;  I was  not.  I went  to  work  and  received 
my  answer  that  I could  have  the  vacation,  and  then  I was,  as  I 
thought,  a free  moral  agent,  to  act;  and  then  I acted. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Your  talk  with  Mr.  Edmonds,  then,  was  after 
you  had  received  the  chief’s  consent  to  take  a vacation  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  that  was  granted,  and  then,  after  the 
primary,  you  resumed  your  duties  ? 


968 


WILLIAM  C.  HASLAM. 


Mr.  Haslam.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  As  deputy  game  warden  wliat  wages  did  you 
receive  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  I received  at  that  time  $2.50  per  day  and  all  expenses. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  you  were  about  30  days  engaged  in  this 
campaign  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  Yes,  sir;  I was. 

Senator  Pomerene.  For  which  you  received  $200  and  your 
expenses  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  is  all. 

The  Chairman.  We  have  here  the  letter  which  I have  read  into  the 
record.  We  have  the  original  letter,  the  copy  of  which  I read.  It  is 
Exhibit  No.  454. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  is  that,  Mr.  Chairman?  The  letter  to 
Stone  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  the  letter  to  Stone.  I do  not  want  it  in  the 
record  twice,  so  that  you  do  not  need  to  read  it  now. 

Is  that  the  letter  that  you  wrote  to  Mr.  Stone  [exhibiting  paper  to 
the  witness]  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  Yes,  sir;  it  is. 

The  Chairman.  Let  the  record  show  that  the  original  letter  was 
produced  and  identified  by  the  witness.  That  will  avoid  the  neces- 
sity for  repeating  the  letter  in  the  record. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  read  into  the  record  the  date  of  it,  too, 
Mr.  Chairman? 

The  Chairman.  I read  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  read  the  date  ? 

Senator  Pomerene.  I think  it  was  read.  I am  not  sure. 

The  Chairman.  The  date  of  it  is  July  28. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Just  have  that  appear;  that  the  date  was  July  28. 

The  Chairman.  The  account  of  expenditures,  heretofore  referred 
to  during  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Haslam,  will  be  incorporated  into  the 
record.  It  is  No.  453. 

(The  paper  just  referred  to  was  marked  “ Exhibit  Haslam  No.  l/> 
and  is  in  words  and  figures  following,  to  wit:) 

Exhibit  Haslam  No.  1,  October  14,  1911. 

This  is  a list  from  memory  of  money  spent  by  me,  William  Haslam,  of  money 
expended  by  me  in  Brown  County  or  any  other  county  for  to  further  the  interest  of 
Isaac  Stephenson  for  United  States  Senator: 

A.  W.  Barber,  Big  Suamico,  $5;  Dr.  Powell,  Oneida,  $5;  Lehigfi  Wheelock,  Oneida, 
$5;  Eli.  Pelligrin,  Howard,  $20;  Bert  Varpneter,  De  Pere,  $5;  William  Klaus,  De 
Pere,  $5;  Morris  Brennan,  Morrison,  $6;  A.  G.  Buckman,  New  Denmark,  $5;  Adam 
Houghlighter,  Preble,  $10;  John  Hoagh,  Wrightstown,  $10;  Jake  Rose,  Greenleaf,  $10; 
Frank  Kolowsik,  Glenmore,  $7.50;  Charlie  Gettleman,  Green  Bay,  $5;  George  Cormiar, 
Howard,  $5;  Peter  Deveroy,  De  Pere,  $5. 

The  balance  of  the  money  was  expended  in  railway  fares,  railroad  berths,  street-car 
fare,  automobiles,  stenographer,  postage,  and  other  miscellaneous  expenses  incurred 
in  a campaign  of  this  nature. 

(Stamped:)  “Exhibit  453,  Edward  H.  Smith,  official  reporter.” 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  any  questions  to  ask  this  witness,  Mr. 
Littlefield  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes. 


WILLIAM  C.  HASLAM. 


969 


Mr.  Haslam,  how  many  of  these  30  days  in  which  you  were  engaged 
in  this  work  were  you  driving  about  the  country  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  Every  day. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  This  territory  that  you  had  in  your  charge  has 
how  many  precincts  ? It  has  37  precincts,  has  it  not,  and  a popula- 
tion of  about  50,000  people  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  approximately  so  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  it  or  not  a sparsely  settled  section  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  It  is;  yes;  certain  quarters  of  it. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  I understand  that  you  had  to  hire  an  auto- 
mobile for  practically  all  of  this  time? 

Mr.  Haslam.  Very  nearly  all  the  time. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  the  hire  for  that  you  paid  out  of  this  sum? 

Mr.  Haslam.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  have  given,  so  far  as  you  can  recollect,  the 
names  of  the  men  to  whom  you  paid  money  for  services  to  be 
rendered  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  particular  services  were  these  men  to  ren- 
der, whose  names  you  have  given  in  this  exhibit  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  Part  of  them  were  to  put  up  posters  around  through 
the  towns  and  distribute  buttons,  and  to  go  out  to  gatherings  of  the 
people  and  post  these  posters  up  on  the  walls,  and  take  care  of  them, 
in  general,  m that  way;  to  see  that  they  were  kept  up;  and  put  up 
pictures  in  windows. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Were  any  of  them  to  render  services  in  connec- 
tion with  the  getting  of  the  vote  out  on  the  primary  election  day  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  Some  of  them  were  to  take  their  teams  and  bring  in 
those  that  were  away  back  to  the  polls. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  whether  or  not  you  endeavored  to  make 
such  arrangements  as  were  reasonably  necessary  in  that  regard  over 
your  whole  37  precincts.  I mean,  now,  referring  to  getting  the  votes 
to  the  polls  on  primary  election  day. 

Mr.  Haslam.  It  was  not  necessary,  except  in  thinly  populated  por- 
tions. That  was  all. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  do  that  in  those  portions  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  Yes,  sir;  in  those  only. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  there  an  active  campaign  being  carried  on 
in  that  vicinity  in  the  interests  of  the  other  candidates  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  Yes,  indeed. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  any  money  expended  by  any  of  the  men 
to  whom  you  paid  money  for  services  to  be  rendered  in  this  campaign, 
to  your  knowledge,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  for  the  purpose  of 
bribing  or  corruptly  influencing  the  vote  of  any  elector  in  that  pri- 
mary election  in  the  interest  of  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Haslam.  No,  sir;  not  to  my  knowledge. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  any  claim  of  that  kind  ever  made  in  that 
vicinity,  to  your  knowledge? 

Mr.  Haslam.  No,  sir;  not  to  my  knowledge. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  all. 

The  Chairman.  You  will  remain  in  attendance  until  after  the  tes- 
timony of  Mr.  Stone  has  been  given,  which  will  be  on  Tuesday. 


970 


GUSTAVE  C.  KOLB. 


TESTIMONY  OF  GUSTAVE  C.  KOLB. 

Gustave  C.  Kolb,  having  been  previously  sworn,  was  examined 
and  testified  as  follows: 

The  Chairman.  Where  do  you  reside. 

Mr.  Kolb.  Hillsboro,  Wis. 

The  Chairman.  What  county? 

Mr.  Kolb.  Vernon. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  take  part  in  the  campaign  for  Senator 
Stephenson  in  1908? 

Mr.  Kolb.  Very  little. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  receive  any  money  during  that  campaign 
from  anyone  to  be  spent  by  you  ? 

Mr.  Kolb.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  How  much? 

Mr.  Kolb.  S50. 

The  Chairman.  From  whom? 

Mr.  Kolb.  From  Mr.  Stone. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Give  his  full  name,  please. 

Mr.  Kolb.  J.  W.  Stone. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  Mr.  Stone  pay  you  this  money? 

Mr.  Kolb.  Oh,  I think  it  was  about  three  or  four  weeks  before  the 
primaries. 

The  Chairman.  You  were  a deputy  game  warden  at  that  time, 
were  you  ? 

Mr.  Kolb.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  working  as  deputy  game  warden  at  that 
time? 

Mr.  Kolb.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Where  did  you  receive  the  money? 

Mr.  Kolb.  I think  in  Madison. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  Mr.  Stone  say  when  he  gave  you  that 
money  as  to  the  purpose  for  which  he  was  giving  it  to  you  ? 

Mr.  Kolb.  To  spend  it  for  the  interests  of  Senator  Stephenson  in 
his  campaign. 

The  Chairman.  He  just  gave  you  general  instructions? 

Mr.  Kolb.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  How  did  you  spend  it  ? 

Mr.  Kolb.  I spent  it  for  cigars  and  treats. 

The  Chairman.  All  of  it  ? 

Mr.  Kolb.  Yes,  sir;  and  in  drug  stores.  Whenever  I would  drop 
into  the  saloons  I would  spend  it. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  in  drug  stores? 

Mr.  Kolb.  In  drug  stores;  yes.  Whenever  I would  go  into  a drug 
store  I would  buy  cigars,  and  whenever  I would  drop  into  a saloon  I 
would  buy  beer,  for  instance. 

The  Chairman.  You  made  a saloon  campaign  of  it? 

Mr.  Kolb.  Not  necessarily. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  leave  out  the  word  “ necessarily”  and  state 
whether  or  not  you  did. 

Mr.  Kolb.  I did  not. 


GUSTAVE  C.  KOLB. 


971 


The  Chairman.  I will  read  your  testimony  given  on  the  former 
examination : 

Q.  Did  you  support  him  two  years  ago  when  he  was  a candidate? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  Handle  any  money  at  that  time? — A.  No,  sir. 

Q.  How  did  Stone  come  to  give  you  the  money? — A.  Well,  he  just  simply  gave  me 
this  money,  and  said  I should  use  it  for  the  interests  of  Mr.  Stephenson.  That  is  the 
way  it  was. 

Did  you  so  testify  ? 

Mr.  Kolb.  I think  so. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  correct , was  it  ? 

Mr.  Kolb.  I think  so. 

The  Chairman  (reading) : 

Q.  What  did  he  tell  you? — A.  To  use  it  to  the  best  of  my  ability. 

Q.  And  left  that  to  you? — A.  And  left  that  to  me. 

Is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Kolb.  I think  so. 

The  Chairman  (reading) : 

Q.  What  did  you  do  with  it? — A.  I spent  it. 

Mr.  Hambrecht.  How  much? 

A.  $50. 

That  was  correct,  was  it  ? 

Mr.  Kolb.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Then  Senator  Morris  said: 

Q.  Spent  all  of  it? — A.  Yes,  sir. 

Q.  How  did  you  spend  it  all? — A.  It  didn’t  take  very  long  to  spend  it.  I spent  it 
with  the  boys  around  the  saloons. 

Is  that  correct  ? 

Mr.  Kolb.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  that  now? 

Mr.  Kolb.  Whenever  I went  to  the  saloons  I bought  drinks  and 
cigars  for  the  boys. 

The  Chairman.  Where  did  you  spend  it;  in  what  place? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  In  what  locality?  That  is  what  you  mean, is  it 
not,  Mr.  Chairman? 

Mr.  Kolb.  In  towns  where  I would  drop  in. 

The  Chairman.  What  towns  were  they  ? 

Mr.  Kolb.  Oh,  they  were  towns — Elroy,  Union,  Camp  Douglas — 
through  that  territory. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  your  business  then  ? 

Mr.  Kolb.  The  saloon  business. 

The  Chairman.  Where  ? 

Mr.  Kolb.  Hillsboro. 

The  Chairman.  How  did  you  come  to  be  traveling  around  ? 

Mr.  Kolb.  I would  be  traveling  around  as  a game  warden. 

The  Chairman.  You  were  traveling  around  as  a game  warden  and 
you  were  in  the  saloon  business  ? 

Mr.  Kolb.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  spend  any  of  this  money  in  your  own 
saloon  ? 

Mr.  Kolb.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  alone  in  the  saloon  business? 

Mr.  Kolb.  I have  bartenders,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  the  proprietor  ? 


972 


GUSTAVE  C.  KOLB. 


Mi*.  Kolb.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  When  you  were  spending  this  money  with  the 
boys,  as  you  have  stated,  did  you  tell  them  that  you  were  favoring  the 
election  of  Senator  Stephenson '? 

Mr.  Kolb.  Oh,  I just  simply  said,  “Have  a drink  on  Mr.  Stephen- 


The  Chairman.  That  is  what  you  would  say — “Have  a drink  on 
Mr.  Stephenson”? 

Mr.  Kolb.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Then  you  would  pay  it  out  of  this  $50? 

Mr.  Kolb.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  always  say  to  them,  “Have  a drink  on 
Mi  1 


The  Chairman.  Did  you  generally  say  that  ? 

Mr.  Kolb.  Oh,  once  in  a while. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  call  that  a saloon  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Kolb.  I do  not. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  spend  any  of  this  money  anywhere  except 
in  the  saloons  in  the  interests  of  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Kolb.  And  in  the  drug  stores  ? 

The  Chairman.  And  in  the  drug  stores  To  buy  cigars  ? 

Mr.  Kolb.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  It  was  all  spent  for  drinks  and  cigars  ? 

Mr.  Kolb.  I think  so. 

The  Chairman.  And  either  in  the  drug  stores  or  the  saloons  ? Is 
that  right  ? 

Mr.  Kolb.  I think  so. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  pay  out  any  of  your  own  money? 
Mr.  Kolb.  I could  not  tell.  I think  I probably  did. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Then  you  kept  no  account  ? 

Mr.  Kolb.  I kept  no  account;  no,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  contribute  toward  any  funds? 

Mr.  Kolb.  For  Mr.  Stephenson  ? 

Senator  Pomerene.  Yes. 

Mr.  Kolb.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  When  you  say  “drinks,”  what  do  you  mean? 
Beer,  whisky,  or  both  ? 

Mr.  Kolb.  By  drinks  I mean  anything  a man  would  take,  whether 
it  was  a temperance  drink,  or  whatever  it  was — beer  or  whisky. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  is  that  ? 

Mr.  Kolb.  Whatever  a man  may  take — pop,  whisky,  or  beer. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  As  a rule,  did  the  people  where  you  were  know 
that  you  were  handling  Mr.  Stephenson’s  money,  or  did  they  not 
know  it  ? 

Mr.  Kolb.  No,  sir;  only  when  I would  call  them  up  and  tell  them 
to  have  a drink  on  Mr.  Stephenson.  They  did  not  know  it  was  Mr. 
Stephenson’s  money. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  all  they  would  know  about  it  ? 

Mr.  Kolb.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  that  your  uniform  custom,  when  you 
treated  anyone? 

Mr.  Kolb.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  would  simply  make  that  statement? 


son 


GUSTAVE  C.  KOLB. 


973 


Mr.  Kolb.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  did  this  occur?  Was  this  while  you  were 
driving  about  the  country  ? 

Mr.  Kolb.  That  would  be  about  the  territory  that  I generally 
worked. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  It  was  in  the  territory  over  which  you  traveled  ? 

Mr.  Kolb.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield  And  as  you  would  strike  one  of  these  saloons  on 
a crossroad  ? 

Mr.  Kolb.  No;  in  a town. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  whoever  you  happened  to  find  there  you 
frequently  treated  to  drinks,  as  you  have  described  ? 

Mr.  Kolb.  I always  did. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  always  did  ? 

Mr.  Kolb.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  mean  in  all  the  campaigns  you  have  carried 
on  ? 

Mr.  Kolb.  Whenever  I was  out. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Campaigning  or  otherwise  ? 

Mr.  Kolb.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I suppose  that  tends  to  contribute  to  the  in- 
creased demand  for  the  articles  sold  ? 

Mr.  Kolb.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  you  mean  to  say  is  that  that  is  your  habit 
and  custom  whenever  you  have  been  out  in  the  saloons  ? 

Mr.  Kolb.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Whether  it  is  in  a campaign  or  otherwise  ? 

Mr.  Kolb.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I suppose  it  is  not  a very  infrequent  custom  up 
in  that  part  of  the  country,  is  it  ? 

Mr.  Kolb.  It  never  was  with  me. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  As  a matter  of  fact,  it  is  the  usual  and  ordinary 
thing  ? 

Mr.  Kolb.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  takes  place  dozens  of  times  a day  and  more, 
too  ? Is  not  that  a fact  ? 

Mr.  Kolb.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  not  that  really,  substantially,  the  method  in 
which  a large  part  of  the  business  of  these  saloons  is  carried  on  ? 

Mr.  Kolb.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  They  would  not  have  much  business  if  it  were 
not  for  that  custom. 

Mr.  Kolb.  It  is  generally  the  visiting  place  in  those  small  towns 
for  the  farmers.  They  are  in  the  habit  of  visiting  in  the  saloons. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Yes.  And  the  matter  of  your  treating  people 
that  you  found  in  a saloon  was  not  at  all  peculiar,  so  far  as  treating 
was  concerned,  because  that  is  practically  going  on  all  the  time  ? 

Mr.  Kolb.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Kolb.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  substantially  all,  or  a large  portion,  of  the 
people  up  in  that  section  of  the  country  drink  beer,  I suppose,  do 
they  not? 

Mr.  Kolb.  Most  of  them. 


974 


GEORGE  W.  DART. 


Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  use  any  part  of  the  money  that  was 
handed  to  you  by  Mr.  Stone  for  the  purpose  of  either  directly  or 
indirectly  bribing  or  corruptly  influencing  any  electors  up  there  to 
vote  in  the  primary  election  for  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Kolb.  No,  sir;  I did  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  did  not  pay  any  money  to  any  other  people  ? 
Mr.  Kolb.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Except  as  you  paid  it  in  the  saloons  for  treats  ? 
Mr.  Kolb.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  in  drug  stores  for  cigars  ? 

Mr.  Kolb.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  will  remain  in  attendance,  Mr.  Kolb,  until 
after  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Stone  is  given. 

Mr.  Kolb.  May  I go  home  to-morrow  morning  and  then  come 
back  again  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  that  will  be  all  right,  if  you  come  back 
Tuesday. 

Mr.  Kolb.  I am  to  come  back  Tuesday  ? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

TESTIMONY  OF  GEORGE  W.  DART. 

Mr.  Dart,  having  been  previously  sworn,  was  examined  and  testified 
as  follows: 

The  Chairman.  State  your  full  name  to  the  reporter. 

Mr.  Dart.  George  W.  Dart. 

The  Chairman.  Where  do  you  reside  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  Montello,  Wis. 

The  Chairman.  How  long  have  you  resided  there  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  I was  born  there.  I have  resided  there  for  50  years. 
The  Chairman.  Did  you  take  part  in  Senator  Stephenson’s  cam- 
paign in  1908,  when  he  was  a candidate  for  the  United  States  Senate  ? 
Mr.  Dart.  Well,  slightly. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  receive  money  from  anyone  to  be  used 
during  that  campaign  in  his  behalf  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  did  you  receive  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  $450. 

The  Chairman.  From  whom  did  you  receive  it  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  I received  the  first  $50  from  J.  W.  Stone. 

The  Chairman.  Who  was  Mr.  Stone  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  Mr.  Stone  was  the  State  game  warden. 

The  Chairman.  You  were  a deputy  game  warden,  were  you  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  I was  a deputy  game  warden ; yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  How  did  Mr.  Stone  come  to  give  you  that  money? 

Mr.  Dart.  He  gave  it  to  me  to  help  Mr.  Stephenson’s  interests 

The  Chairman.  What  did  he  tell  you  when  he  gave  you  the  money  ? 
Mr.  Dart.  I have  forgotten  the  exact  words. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  tell  you  that  it  was  to  be  used  in  Senator 
Stephenson’s  behalf? 

Mr.  Dart.  Yes;  something  to  that  effect. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  what  did  he  tell  you? 

Mr.  Dart.  That  is  as  nearly  as  I could  tell  you  now.  It  is  quite 
a long  while  ago — to  help  Senator  Stephenson  what  I could  with  it. 


GEORGE  W.  DART. 


975 


The  Chairman.  He  told  you  you  were  to  help  Senator  Stephenson 
as  much  as  you  could. 

Mr.  Dart.  With  that  money;  yes. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  do? 

Mr.  Dart.  That  S50  T took  and  used  to  put  a man  out  to  put 
up  lithographs. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  pay  him  $50  for  it? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Give  us  the  name  of  the  man  to  whom  you  paid 
this  money,  if  you  have  it. 

Mr.  Dart.  It  was  my  son. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  his  name  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  George  H.  Dart. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  did  you  pay  him  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  The  first  time  I think  I gave  him — I have  forgotten 
just  how  much  it  was.  I spent  it  all.  I gave  him  a part  of  it,  and 
then  he  took  a trip  around,  and  then  I gave  him  the  balance  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  you  gave  him  the  entire  $50? 

Mr.  Dart.  Yes.  He  hired  a rig  and  went  around  putting  up  lith- 
ographs and  campaign  literature. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  receive  any  further  sum  of  money 
for  supporting  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  I do  not  know  just  the  date  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  get  $400  in  a check  from  Mr.  Edmonds  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  Yes;  I did. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  do  with  the  money  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  I spent  that.  I put  it  out  in  different  ways. 

The  Chairman.  Tell  us  how. 

Mr.  Dart.  Paying  men  to  take  their  teams  and  turn  out  to  fetch 
the  voters  on  the  primary  day. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  spend  the  entire  $400  in  that  way  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  No. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  of  that  $400  did  you  pay  out  to  other 
people  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  How  much  did  I pay  out  for  labor  ? 

The  Chairman.  How  much  aid  you  pay  out  for  any  purpose  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  I spent  the  $400. 

The  Chairman.  You  paid  it  all  out  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  Sure. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  not  keep  any  of  that  for  vourself  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  Oh,  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  To  whom  did  you  pay  it  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  I could  not  tell  you  all  the  names.  The  biggest  pay- 
ment— 

The  Chairman.  It  will  be  necessary  for  you  to  account  for  that 
$400 

Mr.  Littlefield.  He  was  going  on  to  say  “the  biggest  payment,” 
and  something  else,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  I heard  him  say  it.  I am  instructing  him 
as  to  what  I want  him  to  answer. 

Mr.  Dart.  I did  not  keep  any  memorandum  of  it  at  ail.  1 know 
the  biggest  payment  I made  was  a payment  of  $50  to  a man. 

The  Chairman.  To  whom  was  that  paid  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  His  name  is  Frank  Field. 


976 


GEORGE  W.  DART. 


The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose  did  you  give  him  that  $50? 

Mr.  Dart.  To  go  up  through  the  edge  of  Adams  County  and 
through  the  town  of  Douglas. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I wish  you  would  speak  a little  louder.  It  is 
impossible  for  me  to  hear  everything  that  you  say. 

Mr.  Dart.  This  man  had  formerly  lived  over  in  the  edge  of  Adams 
County,  and  he  was  then  running  a creamery  at  Mellenville,  and  was 
well  acquainted  all  through  there;  and  he  was  very  much  in  favor  of 
Senator  Stephenson;  so  that  I called  on  him.  and  met  him  at  Pewau- 
kee,  and  gave  him  the  $50,  and  sent  him  out  through  there  to  do  what 
he  could  with  his  friends. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  he  do  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  I never  got  any  report  from  him;  he  was  a man  that 
would  do  just  what  he  agreed  to  do. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  spend  it  in  saloons  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  There  were  not  very  many  saloons  up  in  that  section. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  spend  any  of  this  money  in  the  saloons  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  He  might  have  spent  a little,  for  all  I know.  I do  not 
know  what  he  spent  it  for. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  admonish  him  not  to  do  so  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  Oh,  no.  I told  him  to  put  it  in  the  best  way  he  could; 
that  he  would  know  where  to  put  it  m and  how. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  expect  him  to  spend  it  in  saloons  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  I did  not  know  but  what  he  might.  That  is  customary 
through  there,  occasionally. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  spend  portions  of  this  money  in  saloons  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  Very  little  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  I read  from  your  testimony,  page  4489: 

Q.  What  did  you  do  with  it? — A.  Spent  it. 

Q.  How? — A.  Every  old  way. 

Q.  What  is  that? — A.  Every  way. 

Q.  Tell  us  some  way  that  you  spent  it? — A.  Oh,  I spent  quite  a lot  of  it  in  saloons. 

Is  that  true  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  Well,  I should  not  go  past  any  of  them,  if  there  was 
anybody  there  I wanted  to  see. 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  statement  true  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  I could  not  say  just  how  much 

The  Chairman.  I am  not  asking  you  how  much.  I am  asking  you 
if  the  statement  which  I have  read  to  you  from  your  former  testimony 
is  true.  Do  you  say,  now,  that  that  statement  is  true  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  Yes,  that  is  true.  I spent  some  in  saloons. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  the  answer,  then.  I proceed  to  read  fur- 
ther from  your  testimony. 

Q.  Do  you  know  how  much? — A.  Spent  quite  a lot  of  it  for  putting  up  literature 
and  all  that.  Every  place  I went  to  I spent  money,  extra. 

You  put  up  some  literature,  did  you? 

Mr.  Dart.  No;  I did  not  put  up  any  literature,  myself. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  pay  others  for  putting  up  literature  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  what  you  meant  in  the  answer,  is  it? 

Mr.  Dart.  I suppose  so. 

The  Chairman  (reading) : 

Q.  Did  you  make  any  payments  to  individuals? — -A.  Oh,  yes,  I gave  them  quite  a 
little  bunch  of  money. 


GEORGE  W.  DART.  977 

Who  were  the  persons  to  whom  you  gave  “quite  a little  bunch  of 
money  V’ 

Mr.  Dart.  Oh,  I do  not  know;  I could  not  mention  half  or  a quar- 
ter of  them. 

The  Chairman.  Your  answers  are  so  indistinct  that  it  is  difficult  to 
hear  them.  I will  ask  the  reporter  to  read  the  answer. 

(The  reporter  read  the  last  answer  of  the  witness.) 

The  Chairman.  Mention  some  of  the  persons  to  whom  you  gave 
money. 

Mr.  Dart.  This  man  Field. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  told  us  about  Field. 

Mr.  Dart.  A man  by  the  name  of  Williamson. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  did  you  give  Williamson? 

Mr.  Dart.  I think  I gave  him  $10. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose? 

Mr.  Dart.  To  go  to  see  people  around  where  he  lived,  in  the  town 
of  Buffalo  and  Pewaukee. 

The  Chairman.  Name  some  other  person. 

Mr.  Dart.  And  Carter. 

The  Chairman.  Who  is  Carter  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  is  Williamson’s  given  name? 

Mr.  Dart.  Leslie  Williamson. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  the  given  names  of  each  of  these  men  when 
you  give  the  names. 

The  Chairman.  Who  was  Carter? 

Mr.  Dart.  Carter  is  a farmer;  Johnny  Carter.  He  lives  in  the 
town  of  Buffalo. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  did  you  give  him  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  Either  $5  or  $10. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose  did  you  give  him  this  money? 
Mr.  Dart.  To  go  to  see  quite  a bunch  of  the  fellows  over  there,  and 
to  take  his  team  and  fetch  them  in  on  the  primary  day. 

The  Chairman.  Name  another  man. 

Mr.  Dart.  Quite  a few  around  Westfield,  around  in  there.  Tag- 
gets  was  one. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  do  you  spell  that  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  I can  not  spell  it.  I think  his  name  is  Herman. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  much  ? What  is  your  best  recollection  ? 
Mr.  Dart.  I think  it  was  $5. 

The  Chairman.  When  you  were  paying  out  these  sums  of  money, 
it  was  out  of  the  larger  sum  ? The  $50  had  all  been  expended,  had  it  ? 
Mr.  Dart.  Yes;  the  $50  was  all  gone. 

The  Chairman.  So  that  these  are  charges  against  the  larger  sum 
that  you  received  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Who  is  the  creamery  man  to  whom  you  gave  $50  ? 
Mr.  Dart.  The  creamery  man  is  Field. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  did  you  give  him  $50  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  He  was  going  to  take  a trip  up  through  Adams  County, 
in  the  edge  of  Adams  County,  around  Big  Springs. 

The  Chairman.  Why  was  he  going  to  take  a trip  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  To  see  some  of  his  friends  up  in  there. 

The  Chairman.  To  see  them  about  what? 

Mr.  Dart.  In  the  interest  of  Mr.  Stephenson 
15235°— VOL  l—u 62 


978 


GEORGE  W.  DART. 


The  Chairman.  What  do  you  mean  by  “in  the  interest  of  Mr. 
Stephenson”  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  He  would  talk  it  over  with  them,  and  get  them  to  come 
out  to  the  primary. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  he  do  with  that  money  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  I suppose  he  spent  it  that  way. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  what  he  did  with  it  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  That  is  what  I laid  out  for  him. 

The  Chairman.  You  were  not  with  him  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  No. 

The  Chairman.  Did  any  of  these  men  to  whom  you  gave  money 
pay  it  out  in  your  presence  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  No;  not  that  I know  of. 

The  Chairman.  When  you  got  this  $400,  where  did  you  put  it  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  I put  it  in  my  pocket. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  carry  it  with  you  until  it  was  paid  out  or 
spent  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  Yes.  I put  it  in  my  pocket,  and  did  not  keep  it  in  my 
pocket.  It  went  until  it  was  gone. 

The  Chairman.  How  long  did  it  take  you  to  get  rid  of  this  $400  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  I think  I must  have  got  the  check  along  about  the  20th 
of  August,  some  time. 

The  Chairman.  You  spent  it  within  48  hours,  did  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  Oh  no;  up  to  the  primary.  It  was  all  gone  at  the 
primary — before  the  primary. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  of  this  $400  did  you  have  on  the  day 
before  the  day  of  the  primaries  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  I think  I had  it  all  in  before  that. 

The  Chairman.  You  had  it  all  in  by  the  25th  of  August,  did  you 
not  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  I could  not  say  exactly. 

The  Chairman.  On  the  25th  of  August  you  had  none  of  this  $400 
remaining,  had  you  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  I had  the  most  of  it  in  in  a few  days,  1 know. 

The  Chairman.  You  had  most  of  it  spent  within  two  days? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  No.  “A  few  days,”  he  said. 

Mr.  Dart.  No.  A few  days;  three  or  four  days. 

The  Chairman.  In  two  days  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  I think  the  heft  of  it,  probably  in  a couple  of  days. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  in  the  record  before  the  legislative 
committee: 

Can  you  give  us  any  idea  how  much  you  paid  out  for  teams? — A.  No,  I couldn’t 
make  an  estimate  on  it,  how  it  was  divided  up. 

Q.  Don’t  know  whether  a hundred  dollars  for  teams,  or  less  or  more? — A.  No;  I 
couldn’t  say  as  to  that.  I know  I arranged  it  for  what  time  I had  as  good  as  I could. 

Q.  Did  you  spend  this  $450? — A.  Every  blasted  bit  of  it;  I think  more. 

Did  you  spend  more  than  the  $450  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  I kind  of  thought  at  the  time  I did. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  spend  some  of  your  own  money  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  I passed  in  a little  of  my  own ; I thought  I did. 

The  Chairman.  You  were  spending  your  own  money  the  last  three 
days  of  the  campaign ; were  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  The  last  three  days? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 


GEORGE  W.  DART. 


979 


Mr.  Dart.  When  I got  through,  1 thought  I had  spent  some  of  my 
own  money. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  not  say  that  you  were  working  on  your 
own  money  in  the  last  three  days? 

Mr.  Dart.  I think  I did,  some. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  make  any  demand  to  be  repaid  that 
money  that  you  spent  during  the  last  three  days  of  the  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  No. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  rendered  no  account  for  any  of  this 
money,  did  you  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  No;  I did  not. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Were  you  requested  to  furnish  an  account  of 
your  expenditures  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  No;  I think  not. 

Senator  Pomerene.  How  did  you  decide  upon  $400  as  being  the 
amount  that  you  were  to  receive  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  I received  a check. 

Senator  Pomerene.  From  Mr.  Edmonds? 

Mr.  Dart.  The  check  was  from  Mr.  Edmonds. 

The  Chairman.  Before  you  received  the  check,  what  was  said 
about  the  amount  that  would  be  required  for  your  purposes? 

Mr.  Dart.  I did  not  set  any  amount.  There  was  a party  came  up 
there  and  talked  it  over,  and  wanted  me  to  do  something.  I told  him 
1 was  doing  all  I could  for  Mr.  Stephenson.  He  thought  that  I might 
help  out  a little  at  some  jdaces  where  I would  be  going. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  were  a game  warden  at  that  time,  were 
you  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  Yes;  I was  a game  warden  at  that  time. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  you  did  that  while  you  were  performing 
your  duties  as  game  warden  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  How  much  of  this  money  did  you  give  out  to 
other  people  for  services  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  I never  divided  it  up.  I never  kept  any  track  enough 
of  it.  I know  I spent  the  whole  thing. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Let  us  approximate  it,  if  we  can.  Did  you 
spend  half  of  it  for  these  workers  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  I think  more. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  spend  three-fourths  of  it? 

Mr.  Dart.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  the  $100  you  expended  in  the  way  of 
cigars  and  treating,  etc.  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  Yes,  something  like  that.  Every  place  I went  into 
where  there  was  a chance,  I,  of  course 

Senator  Pomerene.  Can  you  give  the  name  of  anyone  else,  other 
than  those  you  have  given  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  Oh,  I could  think  of  quite  a few,  I think,  if  I — — 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  did  you  employ  these  people  to  do? 
What  did  you  say  to  them  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  He  says  he  can  think  of  quite  a few,  Senator. 
If  there  is  no  objection  I wish  you  would  put  them  right  in  there. 

Senator  Pomerene.  No;  I should  be  glad  to  have  the  names. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  said  he  could  think  of  quite  a few.  State 
them.  Give  the  names. 


980 


GEORGE  W.  DART. 


Mr.  Dart.  In  the  town  of  Newton,  people  by  the  name  of  Day — 
I paid  them. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Give  the  full  name  and  the  residence,  if  you 
can,  and  the  amount  that  was  given  them. 

Mr.  Dart.  You  see,  that  is  what  bothers  me — just  the  amount. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Give  it  as  nearly  as  you  can. 

Mr.  Dart.  But  those  people  in  there — I think  I paid  them  from  $3 
to  $5  apiece;  some  of  them  $3  and  some  of  them  $5. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Give  the  names  of  all  that  you  remember. 

Mr.  Dart.  There  were  two  of  the  Days;  just  which  one  I do  not 
know. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Two  Days  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  I paid  two  of  the  Days;  one  was  August  Day,  and  the 
other  one  was — I forget  his  name. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  did  you  pay  them  for? 

Mr.  Dart.  To  take  their  team  and  fetch  in  a bunch  at  the  primary: 
fetch  them  in  to  the  polls. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Was  that  any  particular  ‘ ‘bunch, ” or  was  it 
the  voters  generally  in  the  precinct? 

Mr.  Dart.  They  were  at  the  corner  of  that  township.  Out  in  the 
country  districts,  you  know,  they  are  in  bunches — the  neighborhood. 
They  were 

Senator  Pomerene.  Give  us  the  names  of  somebody  else. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  were  going  to  say  “they  were”  what? 

Mr.  Dart.  They  were  all  for  Stephenson;  but  the  trouble  was  we 
were  afraid  they  would  not  come  out,  you  know.  They  would  not  unless 
somebody  took  their  team  and  fetched  them  in. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  that  is  what  you  employed  these  two  men 
for  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  I thought  that  was  the  only  thing  to  do. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Go  right  along  and  give  the  Senator  the  names 
of  all  you  can  now  remember.  That  is  what  you  want,  is  it  not, 
Senator  ? 

Senator  Pomerene.  Yes. 

Mr.  Dart.  In  Harris ville  there  were  four  or  five  fellows  there.  I 
can  not  give  the  names. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Give  the  names  of  any  of  them. 

Mr.  Dart.  Albert  Frank. 

Senator  Pomerene.  How  much  did  you  pay  him? 

Mr.  Dart.  I think  I paid  for  a box  of  cigars  and  gave  him  either 
$3  or  $5. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Anyone  else  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  There  was  a miller  there. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Before  going  to  that,  tell  me  for  what  you 
employed  Frank. 

Mr.  Dart.  Frank  was  going  to  send  out  word  to  his  brothers  to 
come,  be  sure  to  have  them  come  in  to  the  primary. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  paid  him  $3  or  $5  for  that? 

Mr.  Dart.  I paid  him  about  $2,  I think. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  paid  him  $2  for  that? 

Mr.  Dart.  Yes;  and  I bought  a box  of  cigars  to  leave  there  so  that 
lie  could  give  the  boys  a cigar  when  they  came  in. 

Senator  Pomerene.  In  addition  to  that,  if  I understand  you  cor- 
rectly, you  paid  him  $3  or  $5;  and  now  you  say  $2. 


GEORGE  W.  DART. 


981 

Mr.  Dart.  I paid  him  for  the  box  of  cigars,  probably  S3,  and  paid 
him  $2  to  take  a rig  and  send  out  after  his  brothers,  to  come  in  on  the 
the  primary  day. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  spoke  of  a man  by  the  name  of  Miller. 
Mr.  Dart.  No;  he  was  a miller;  I do  not  know  his  name. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  He  was  a miller  by  occupation  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  He  ran  a gristmill. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Whom  else  did  you  employ  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  A man  that  runs  a sawmill  there.  His  name  is  Lee,  I 
think — oh,  no;  Smith. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  is  his  first  name  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  Theodore  Smith. 

Senator  Pomerene.  How  much  did  you  pay  him  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  I think  $5. 

Senator  Pomerene.  For  what  was  that? 

Mr.  Dart.  That  was  to  do  what  he  could  on  primary  day. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  is,  to  get  in  voters  and  talk  up  Stephen- 
son sentiment  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  Talk  it  over;  yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Anybody  else  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  There  is  one  saloon  keeper  there.  His  name  is  Otto 
Giese.  I think  I paid  for  a box  of  cigars  there. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  much  did  you  pay  him  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  Three  dollars,  or  something  of  that  kind.  That  is  what 
they  usually  charged — about  $3. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Anybody  else  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  Over  in  Crystal  Lake — I can  not  remember  their  names, 
but  I paid  two  or  three  different  men  there. 

Senator  Pomerene.  How  much  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  Three  dollars  and  five  dollars,  each  one  of  them. 
Senator  Pomerene.  The  rate  was  from  $3  to  $5  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  Using  their  teams,  you  know,  and  bringing  voters  in. 
That  is  what  I paid  the  most  of  them. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Can  you  give  any  of  their  names  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  Let’s  see.  I can  not  think  of  that  old  fellow’s  name.  He 
has  been  chairman  of  that  town  for  years. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Anyone  else? 

Mr.  Dart.  Over  to  Neshkoro. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Whom  did  you  employ  there? 

Mr.  Dart.  A liveryman. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  was  his  name? 

Mr.  Dart.  His  name  was  Scovey. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  is  his  given  name  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  I think  the  name  is  Andrew.  There  are  two  brothers  of 
them  in  the  livery  business. 

Senator  Pomerene.  How  much  did  you  give  them  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  I think  I gave  these  fellows  $10. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  employ  anyone  else  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  I went  from  there  over  to  Red  Granite,  and  saw  a lot  of 
them  up  in  Waushara  County — quite  a bunch.  There  are  a lot  of 

quarries  up  in  there,  and  I stopped  at  all  the  quarries,  and 

Senator  Pomerene.  Whom  did  you  employ  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  I do  not  know  their  names,  all  of  them. 


982 


GEORGE  W.  DART. 


Senator  Pomerene.  How  many  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  Probably  three  or  four  at  each  quarry. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  did  you  pay  them  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  Three  dollars  to  five  dollars — $3  or  $5 ; I do  not  know 
which. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  contribute  any  particular  sum  to  a 
Stephenson  fund  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  A Stephenson  fund  ? 

Senator  Pomerene.  Yes. 

Mr.  Dart.  No. 

Senator  Pomerene.  At  no  time  ? Did  you  aid  in  the  raising  of  any 
funds  for  the  Stephenson  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  For  the  Stephenson  campaign? 

vSenator  Pomerene.  Yes. 

Mr.  Dart.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  aided  in  disposing  of  them  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  I spent  what  I got. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I think  that  is  all. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Mr.  Dart,  have  you  given  to  the  Senator  the 
names  of  all  of  the  men  that  you  now  remember  to  whom  you  gave 
sums  of  money  for  these  purposes  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  Oh,  I could  think  of  more  than  that. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Go  right  ahead  and  give  us  the  names  of  all  that 
you  can  now  remember. 

Mr.  Dart.  There  were  a few  down  in  the  town  of  Megan.  There 
was  John  Wagner;  T gave  him  $5;  and  a fellow  by  the  name  of  Bill 
Ming,  and  Louis  Zellmer. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  much,  if  you  remember  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  Those  fellows — either  from  $2  to  $5. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Go  right  along. 

Mr.  Dart.  There  were  certainly  more  than  that,  but  I can  not 
think  of  them.  There  is  one  man  out  in  the  township  of  Montello 
whose  name  is  Callahan;  I gave  him  $5. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  remember  Scovey  brothers  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  I gave  that — Andrew  Scovey. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Do  you  remember  any  others  now  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  No;  not  now. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  State  whether  the  men  that  you  employed  in  that 
way  were  or  were  not  friends  of  Senator  Stephenson. 

Mr.  Dart.  You  bet  they  were,  or  else  they  would  not  have  got 
anything. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  spoke  of  some  quarries  at  Red  Granite. 
What  quarries  are  those — granite  quarries  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  Yes;  red  granite,  they  call  it.  They  crush  stone  and 
make  paving  mostly.  There  are  a lot  of  workmen  through  there. 
There  are  several  different  quarries, 

Mr.  Littlefield.  They  crush  up  stone  for  macadamizing  roads  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  Yes;  they  are  shipping  it  everywhere,  and  making 
paving.  Most  of  the  foremen  who  were  running  those  quarries— I 
knew  all  those  fellows.  1 went  in  to  see  them,  you  know. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  When  you  were  on  this  trip,  were  you  using  a 
carriage  or  an  automobile  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  No;  I had  a team. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  have  a team  of  }mur  own  ? 


GEORGE  W.  DART. 


983 


Mr.  Dart.  Yes;  I had  my  own  team;  that  I charged  up  to  the 
State;  and  when  I drove  any  nights,  I paid  that  out  of  Stephenson 
money. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  During  any  part  of  this  time  were  you  discharg- 
ing any  of  your  duties  as  game  warden  also  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  All  the  time;  every  day. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  were  you  doing  as  game  warden  during 
this  time  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  I forget  just  what  the  complaints  were;  but  I was  out 
on  some  complaints,  protecting  the  game. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I am  not  at  all  familiar  with  the  method  of 
business.  You  speak  of  complaints.  What  are  those — complaints 
of  violation  of  the  game  laws  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  when  complaints  are  made,  is  it  the  duty 
of  the  deptuty  game  warden  to  visit  the  locality  and  investigate  the 
complaint  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  Yes;  that  is  what  we  always  tried  to  do. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  that  one  of  the  principal  duties  of  the  game 
wardens  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  Yes;  and  to  visit  other  places  where  you  know  of  any 
violations. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  yourself  are  on  the  lookout  for  violations, 
and  then  you  take  cognizance  of  complaints  that  are  made  to  you  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  that  right  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  do  I understand  that  during  the  daytime 
you  say  you  were  engaged  in  your  work  as  a game  warden  at  this 
time  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  Yes.  When  I put  that  $400  in  1 was  out  on  a trip; 
I went  around,  I think,  three  or  four  days. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  have  given  us,  you  say,  all  the  details  you 
can  give  in  relation  to  the  names  of  the  men  and  the  amounts  paid — 
all  that  you  can  now  remember  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  Yes.  I do  not  think  I gave  them  all  to  you,  but  I can 
not  remember  any  more. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Are  you  confident  that  you  disbursed  the 
whole  $400  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  Oh,  yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  For  those  purposes? 

Mr.  Dart.  Oh,  yes;  I spent  the  money.  I put  it  all  in. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I will  ask  you  whether  or  not,  in  disbursing  this 
sum  of  money  under  the  circumstances  which  you  have  described, 
you  used  any  part  of  it,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  for  the  purpose 
of  bribing  or  curruptly  influencing  any  of  the  electors  to  vote  on  the 
primary  election  day  for  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  Oh,  no;  no. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I will  ask  you  whether  or  not,  so  far  as  you 
know,  any  of  the  sums  that  were  thus  disbursed  by  you  were  used 
by  the  people  to  whom  you  disbursed  the  money,  either  directly  or 
indirectly,  for  the  purpose  of  bribing  or  corruptly  influencing  electors 
to  vote  for  Senator  Stephenson  in  the  primary  election  ? 

Mr.  Dart.  No. 


984 


H.  A.  BOWMAN. 


Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is  all. 

The  Chairman.  The  witness  will  be  here  on  Tuesday.  You  are 
excused  until  Tuesday. 

TESTIMONY  OF  H.  A.  BOWMAN. 

H.  A.  Bowman,  having  been  previously  sworn,  was  examined  and 
testified  as  follows: 

The  Chairman.  Where  do  you  reside  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  Genesee,  Wis. 

The  Chairman.  Where  did  you  reside  during  the  year  1908? 

Mr.  Bowman.  Genesee,  Wis. 

The  Chairman.  What  position,  if  any,  did  you  hold  during  that 
time  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  Deputy  game  warden. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  support  Senator  Stephenson  for  the 
nomination  at  the  direct  primary  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  I did. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  commence  to  support  him? 

Mr.  Bowman.  As  soon  as  he  announced  his  candidacy,  I think. 

The  Chairman.  Did  }rou  receive  any  money  from  Senator  Stephen- 
son’s campaign  managers  during  the  time  that  you  were  supporting 
him  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  I received  $150  from  the  headquarters  in  Milwaukee 
and  $1,250  from  J.  W.  Stone. 

The  Chairman.  You  received  $150  about  the  middle  of  August  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  I think  it  was  all  received  about  that  time;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  do  with  the  $150  that  you  received 
from  Mr.  Edmonds  out  of  the  Stephenson  campaign  fund  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  I think  that  was  given  to  Robert  Clark. 

The  Chairman.  All  of  it  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  I think  so;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Who  was  Robert  Clark. 

Mr.  Bowman.  I am  not  sure  whether  he  was  a game  warden  at 
that  time,  or  whether  he  quit  shortly  before  that. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Please  give  us  the  address  of  Robert  Clark. 

Mr.  Bowman.  Palmyra  at  that  time;  but  I think  he  is  now  in  Fort 
Atkinson. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  that  in  Wisconsin? 

Mr.  Bowman.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose  did  you  give  it  to  Clark? 

Mr.  Bowman.  To  use  in  the  interest  of  Senator  Stephenson’s 
primary  campaign. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  instructed  by  Edmonds  or  anyone  to 
give  it  to  Clark  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  No;  I do  not  think  I was  really  instructed  by 
Edmonds. 

The  Chairman.  Why  did  you  turn  it  over  to  Clark  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  I had  a talk  with  Mr.  Edmonds  about  Jefferson 
County.  He  asked  me  if  I knew  any  good  worker  in  Jefferson 
County,  and  I think  I remember  mentioning  the  name  of  Mr.  Clark. 

The  Chairman.  Then  he  really  gave  you  the  money  to  be  paid  to 
Mr.  Clark,  did  he  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  That  is  the  way  I took  it;  yes,  sir. 


H.  A.  BOWMAN. 


985 


The  Chairman.  So  that  you  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  expending 
of  that  money  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  Nothing  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  You  received  from  Mr.  Stone  $1,250.  That  was 
about  the  same  time,  was  it  not  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  do  with  the  $1,250  received  from 
Mr.  Stone,  or  any  part  of  it  ? Account  for  it. 

Mr.  Bowman.  $125  was  paid  to  E.  W.  Tuttle. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose? 

Mr.  Bowman.  In  the  interest  of  Mr.  Stephenson’s  primary  cam- 
paign. 

The  Chairman.  Where? 

Mr.  Bowman.  Mr.  Tuttle  resides  at  Oconomowoc. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  give  him  any  instructions  as  to  how  the 
money  was  to  be  used  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  No;  I gave  him  no  instructions.  I had  a general 
talk  with  him  in  which  I suggested — as  a suggestion  on  my  part — that 
it  be  used  in  keeping  up  the  Stephenson  literature,  making  lists  of  the 
voters  that  were  Stephenson  supporters,  and  seeing  that  the  people 
were  at  the  polls  on  primary  day — that  the  voters  on  these  lists  got 
out. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  whether  he  spent  any  of  it  for 
drinks  or  cigars  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  I do  not. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  instruct  him  not  to  make  a saloon  cam- 
paign with  it  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  I do  not  think  anything  was  said  about  it. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  hear  that  he  had  made  a saloon 
campaign  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  No,  sir;  I never  did. 

The  Chairman.  What  kind  of  a man  is  he?  Is  he  a man  who 
would  make  a saloon  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  I would  not  think  so. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  his  business? 

Mr.  Bowman.  He  was  a game  warden. 

The  Chairman.  He  was  a deputy  game  warden,  also? 

Mr.  Bowman.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  further  sums  did  you  pay  out  of  that  $1,250  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  Three  hundred  dollars  to  Edwin  Bissonette. 

The  Chairman.  Where  does  he  live? 

Mr.  Bowman.  Milwaukee. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  his  business? 

Mr.  Bowman.  He  is  with  the  General  Fire  Extinguisher  Co. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose  did  you  pay  him  that  money  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  The  same  as  Mr.  Tuttle;  to  use  in  the  interest  of  Mr. 
Stephenson’s  primary  campaign. 

The  Chairman.  In  what  way? 

Mr.  Bowman.  I had  the  same  talk  with  him  that  I had  with  Mr. 
Tuttle. 

The  Chairman.  Just  repeat  the  talk  that  you  had  with  this  party. 

Mr.  Bowman.  That  he  should  use  his  best  judgment  in  using  it 
for  Mr.  Stephenson’s  primary  campaign — seeing  that  the  literature 


986 


H.  A.  BOWMAN. 


was  kept  up,  and  making  a list  of  voters  that  were  favorable  to 
Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  authorize  him  to  pay  it  out  to  other 
people  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Was  this  sum  paid  to  Mr.  Clark  for  his  own  use, 
or  was  it  to  be  paid  out  to  other  people  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  Nothing  was  said  about  that. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  whether  he  did  pay  any  of  it  out? 

Mr.  Bowman.  I do  not. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  ever  make  a statement  to  you  about  it? 

Mr.  Bowman.  He  did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Now,  come  to  the  last  man,  Mr.  Bissonette.  Was 
he  to  pay  out  any  part  of  the  money  that  you  gave  him  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  Not  that  I know  of;  no,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  for  his  own  services? 

Mr.  Bowman.  Yes,  sir.  He  was  to  use  it  as  he  saw  fit. 

The  Chairman.  He  might  keep  it  all  for  his  own  use? 

Mr.  Bowman.  There  was  nothing  said  by  me  as  to  how  he  should 
spend  it  in  paying  it  out  to  others. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  have  any  talk  with  him  as  to  what 
he  had  done  with  that  money? 

Mr.  Bowman.  No,  sir.  I do  not  know  what  he  did  with  it. 

The  Chairman.  He  never  rendered  an  account? 

Mr.  Bowman.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  given  the  addresses  of  Tuttle  and 
Bissonette  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  Tuttle  is  in  Oconomowoc,  and  Bissonette  is  in 
Milwaukee. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I should  like  to  have  him  state  where  Mr. 
Bissonette  was  expected  to  use  this  sum — that  is,  the  locality,  if  he 
knows. 

Mr.  Bowman.  I do  not  think  anything  was  said  by  me  about  that. 

The  Chairman.  Proceed  and  give  the  name  of  any  other  person 
to  whom  you  paid  any  part  of  it. 

Mr.  Bowman.  C.  W.  Johnson. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  did  you  pay  him? 

Mr.  Bowman.  Fifty  dollars. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Give  his  address,  Mr.  Bowman. 

Mr.  Bowman.  Oshkosh. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose? 

Mr.  Bowman.  To  use  it  in  the  interest  of  Senator  Stephenson’s 
primary  campaign. 

The  Chairman.  Was  he  to  pay  it  out,  or  to  keep  it  for  his  own 
services  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  I do  not  think  I had  any  talk  with  Mr.  Johnson  as 
to  whether  he  should  keep  it  or 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  what  he  did  with  it? 

Mr.  Bowman.  I do  not. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  ever  render  any  account  of  it  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  He  did  not. 

The  Chairman.  Or  did  he  ever  tell  you  what  he  had  done  with  it  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  ask  him  ? 


H.  A.  BOWMAN. 


987 


Mr.  Bowman.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  name  some  one  else  to  whom  you  paid  a 
part  of  that  $1,250  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  C.  E.  Hitch oq. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  did  you  pay  hm  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  Four  hundred  and  fifty  dollars. 

The  Chairman.  Where  does  he  live? 

Mr.  Bowman.  At  Marinette. 

The  Chairman.  What  does  he  do  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  He  keeps  a hotel. 

The  Chairman.  W^hat  hotel  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  I do  not  know  what  the  name  of  the  hotel  is. 

The  Chairman.  Marinette  is  the  home  of  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  have  an  account  from  him  as  to  the 
manner  in  which  he  expended  that  money  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  T did  not. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know  how  he  expended  it? 

Mr.  Bowman.  I do  not. 

The  Chairman.  W hat  instructions  did  you  give  him  when  you  gave 
him  the  money  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  I did  not  give  him  any  instructions.  I had  the  same 
talk  with  him  that  I did  with  the  rest  of  the  fellows. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  giving  this  money  out  pursuant  to 
instructions  that  you  had  received  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  No,  sir.  I received  no  instructions,  with  the  excep- 
tion that  I should  use  it  in  the  interest  of  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  at  liberty  to  give  it  to  any  person  that 
you  migh  t see  fit  to  give  it  to  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  name  some  other  person  to  whom  you 
gave  any  part  of  this  money  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  John  Jones. 

The  Chairman.  How  much? 

Mr.  Bowman.  Twenty  dollars. 

The  Chairman.  Where  does  he  live  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  Genesee. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose  did  you  give  him  the  money? 

Mr.  Bowman.  For  putting  up  lithographs  of  Senator  Stephenson 
and  distributing  literature. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  name  any  other  person  to  whom  you  gave 
any  of  the  money  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  I do  not  recall  any  just  now. 

The  Chairman.  What  balance  would  that  leave  ? I have  not 
made  the  addition. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  makes  $945. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  It  would  leave  about  $805,  roughly,  as  I get  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Yes. 

Mr.  Bowman.  I will  state  that 

The  Chairman.  What  did  you  do  with  the  $305  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  He  was  just  going  to  say  something,  Mr.  Chair- 
man. He  said,  “ I will  state  

The  Chairman.  Wait  until  I ask  him  the  question.  What  did  you 
do  with  the  $305  ? 


988 


H.  A.  BOWMAN. 


Mr.  Bowman.  There  was  another  $100  paid  to  Robert  Clark. 
He  got  $250. 

The  Chairman.  That  made  $250  to  him  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  did  you  give  him  that  $100? 

Mr.  Bowman.  To  use  in  the  interest  of  Senator  Stephenson,  and  in 
the  same  way  that  I gave  him  the  $150. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  have  any  account  from  him  of  that 
money — the  way  in  which  he  had  expended  it  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  No;  I did  not. 

The  Chairman.  To  whom  else  did  you  pay  any  of  the  money? 

Mr.  Bowman.  I do  not  remember  of  paying  any  money  to  anyone 
else. 

The  Chairman.  That  leaves  $205.  Did  you  keep  that  $205  for 
your  own  work  or  services  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  No,  sir.  I spent  some  money. 

The  Chairman.  How  did  you  spend  that  money  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  In  traveling,  railroad  fare,  livery  rigs,  meals,  and 
cigars. 

The  Chairman.  What  were  you  doing  when  you  were  spending 
that  money  ? In  what  business  or  occupation  were  you  engaged  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  Deputy  game  warden. 

The  Chairman.  I understand  that;  but  what  were  you  doing? 
Were  you  traveling  around,  or  staying  at  some  one  place  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  No;  traveling  around. 

The  Chairman.  You  were  traveling  around  where? 

Mr.  Bowman.  I do  not  remember  just  the  places  I went  to  now. 

The  Chairman.  Account  for  that  $205  which  you  say  you  spent. 
Let  us  see  how  nearly  you  can  account  for  it.  Give  the  items. 

Mr.  Bowman.  Railroad  fare  and  meals  and  cigars. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  do  you  estimate  you  spent  for  railroad 
fares  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  Possibly  $25  or  $30;  that  would  be  a guess. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  spend  some  of  it  for  hotel  bills  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  Meals  of  people  that  would  be  with  me,  that  I would 
pay  for;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  do  you  estimate  you  spent  for  hotel 
bills? 

Mr.  Bowman.  Probably  $20  or  $25. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  enumerate  any  other  items?  Were  there 
items  for  drinks,  cigars,  treats  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  would  you  estimate  those  items  to  amount 
to  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  Possibly  $50. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  account  for  any  other  portion  of  the  $205  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  Livery  hire. 

The  Chairman.  Livery  hire  would  amount  to  about  how  much  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  I do  not  know;  maybe  $30  or  $40. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  expend  any  portion  of  this  money  that 
you  received,  either  from  Mr.  Edmonds  or  Mr.  Stone,  for  the  purpose 
of  purchasing  or  corrupting  any  elector  in  the  State  of  Wisconsin  so 
as  to  procure  his  vote  for  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  I did  not. 


H.  A.  BOWMAN. 


989 


The  Chairman.  You  say,  as  you  did  before,  that  the  money  unac- 
counted for  was  used  by  you  in  making  the  campaign  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Bowman,  the  subcommittee  will  desire  to 
examine  you  further  in  regard  to  a meeting  at  Mr.  Stone’s  house; 
but  until  after  Mr.  Stone  has  testified  it  is  not  desirable  to  call  you. 
You  will  remain  in  attendance  to  be  called.  Mr.  Stone  is  to  be 
called  on  Tuesday;  and  after  that  you  may  be  required  as  a witness. 
You  will  remain  in  attendance. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Mr.  Bowman,  why  was  it  that  you  gave  this 
sum  of  $450  to  Mr.  Hitchon  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  I had  a talk  with  Mr.  Hitchon,  and  I thought  he  was 
in  a position  to  do  some  good  work. 

Senator  Pomerene.  He  was  a brother  of  one  of  the  game  wardens  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  Mr.  Hitchon  lived  in  Senator  Stephen- 
son’s own  home  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  knew  J.  A.  Van  Cleve,  did  you  not — the 
president  of  the  bank  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  I knew  him  by  sight. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  were  in  touch  with  Mr.  Edmonds  during 
this  campaign,  were  you  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  I met  Mr.  Edmonds  possibly  three  times. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Senator  Stephenson  was  in  his  home  county  a 
goodly  part  of  the  time;  was  he  not  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  I do  not  know. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  Mr.  Van  Cleve  was  there  nearly  all  of  the 
time  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  I do  not  know. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  knew  that  he  had  charge  of  the  cam- 
paign in  that  county;  did  you  not? 

Mr.  Bowman.  I did  not. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  did  not  know  anything  about  that  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  went  into  Senator  Stephenson’s  own 
home  county  and  placed  $450  there  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  I did. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  was  that  for  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  I had  a talk  with  Mr.  Hitchon;  I thought  he  was  in 
a position  to  do  Mr.  Stephenson  some  good  in  the  northern  part  of 
Marinette  County,  and  De  Forest,  and  Florence. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  was  his  business  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  Mr.  Hitchon’s  ? 

Senator  Pomerene.  Yes. 

Mr.  Bowman.  The  hotel  business. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  the  saloon  business  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  How  was  he  to  use  this  $400  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  To  see  that  the  Stephenson  literature  was  kept  up, 
and  to  get  people  to  make  lists  of  Stephenson  supporters,  and  for  men 
at  the  polls  on  primary  day. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  it  not  occur  to  you  that  Mr.  Stephenson 
and  his  home  friends  could  look  after  their  own  county  ? 


990 


H.  A.  BOWMAN. 


Mr.  Bowman.  No;  I did  not  think  anything  about  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  receive  the  sum  of  $1,250  at  one 
time  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  I did  not. 

Senator  Pomerene.  In  how  many  different  payments  did  you 
receive  it  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  I think  I received  it  in  three  payments.  I am  not 
positive  whether  it  was  two  or  three. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Give  the  amounts  and  the  dates. 

Mr.  Bowman.  I can  not  give  the  dates.  I received  $500  in  the 
first  payment,  and  the  second  payment  I think  was  $500. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Where  did  you  get  that  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  I think  it  was  paid  to  me  in  the  city  of  Madison. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Who  paid  it  to  you  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  A.  W.  Stone. 

Senator  Pomerene.  In  his  office? 

Mr.  Bowman.  I do  not  remember  where  he  paid  it  to  me,  whether 
in  his  office  or  some  place  else. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  testified  before  in  this  case,  did  you  not  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  Yes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Let  me  read  you  a portion  of  your  former 
testimony : 

Q.  When  did  you  again  see  Mr.  Stone? — A.  Why,  a few  days  after  that,  I don’t 
know  just  how  long. 

Q.  Where  did  you  meet  him  then? — A.  In  the  city  of  Madison. 

Q.  Where? — A.  Why,  in  the  office,  I guess;  I don’t  know  where. 

Q.  Then  he  gave  you  $750? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Where  did  he  pay  you  that  $750? — A.  I don’t  remember  where  it  was,  I could 
not  say. 

Q.  How  was  that  paid  to  you,  in  currency  or  check? — A.  In  currency. 

Is  that  true? 

Mr.  Bowman.  Yes.  I do  not  remember  whether  it  was  $750,  or 
whether  he  paid  me  $500,  and  paid  me  the  balance  later. 

Senator  Pomerene.  All  of  this  money  was  paid  to  you  in  currency  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  It  was. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  he  ask  you  to  render  any  account  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  I would  like  to  change  that  about  the  last  payment. 
I think  he  sent  me  a check. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  is,  the  $750? 

Mr.  Bowman.  No  ; I think  it  was  paid  me  in  two  payments. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  not  testify  before  that  you  received 
this  $750  just  as  I have  read  your  testimony? 

Mr.  Bowman.  I do  not  remember. 

Senator  Pomerene.  If  you  did  so  testify,  was  it  true  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  I do  not  know  whether  he  paid  me  in  two  payments 
or  in  one. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  evidently  testified  within  three  or  four 
months  after  the  expenditures  were  made.  Is  there  any  reason 
why  your  memory  was  not  clear  at  that  time? 

Mr.  Bowman.  No;  I think  not. 

Senator  Pomerene.  How  do  you  account  for  testifying  that  you 
received  this  amount  of  $7%50  in  one  payment  in  his  office  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  It  seems  to  me  now  that  it  was  paid  to  me  in  two 
payments.  I am  not  positive. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  makes  you  now  think  that? 


H.  A.  BOWMAN. 


991 


Mr.  Bowman.  Because  I think  I got  a check  from  Mr.  Stone.  I 
think  the  last  payment  was  in  a check.  I know  he  paid  me  some 
money  in  Madison. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Was  that  his  own  check? 

Mr.  Bowman.  I think  so. 

Senator  Pomerene.  On  what  bank  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  I do  not  know. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Where  did  you  get  it  cashed  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  I do  not  remember  that. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  received  $1,250  from  Mr.  Stone,  and  he 
did  not  ask  you  to  give  any  account  of  it.  That  is  correct,  is  it  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  That  is  correct. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  you  gave  no  account  of  it  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  To  him  or  to  anybody  else? 

Mr.  Bowman.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  paid  $450  to  one  man,  $125  to  another,. 
$300  to  another,  $100  to  another,  $50  to  another,  and  $20  to  another, 
and  you  received  no  accounts  for  any  of  these  sums  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  I did  not. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  you  never  asked  for  them? 

Mr.  Bowman.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  During  the  time  that  you  were  campaigning, 
you  were  on  duty  as  game  warden,  and  receiving  a compensation  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  I was;  yes,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  A compensation  of  $2.50  a day  and  your 
expenses  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  $3.50. 

Senator  Pomerene.  And  expenses.  During  that  campaign,  what 
did  your  expenses  amount  to  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  I do  not  remember. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  What  do  you  have  in  mind,  Senator — his  ex- 
pense account  as  a game  warden  ? 

Senator  Pomerene.  Yes.  Perhaps  I did  not  make  myself  clear. 
I want  you  to  understand  it  clearly.  What  was  your  expense  account 
as  game  warden  during  that  time  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  I do  not  remember  about  the  expense  account. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  keep  a separate  expense  account  for 
the  expenses  incurred  for  Senator  Stephenson? 

Mr.  Bowman.  No,  sir. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  expenses  did  you  charge  up  to  the  State  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  My  actual  expenses  that  I thought  should  be  charged 
up  to  the  State  ? 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  were  they? 

Mr.  Bowman.  Mileage  and  hotel  bills. 

Senator  Pomerene.  You  did  not  charge  any  mileage  to  the 
Stephenson  account? 

Mr.  Bowman.  No;  I did  not. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Nor  any  of  the  meals  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  I did  not. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  have  any  livery  hire  at  any  time? 

Mr.  Bowman.  I did. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  charge  that  up  to  the  Stephenson 
account  ? 


992 


H.  A.  BOWMAN. 


Mr.  Bowman.  I did  not. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Did  you  have  any  automobiles? 

Mr.  Bowman.  I do  not  think  I did. 

Senator  Pomerene.  I think  that  is  all. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  long  a time  were  you  at  work  in  this  cam- 
paign ? That  is,  over  what  length  of  time  did  your  activities  extend  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  Two  or  three  weeks — the  latter  part  of  August. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  If  I understood  you  correctly,  where  you  em- 
ployed a livery  in  connection  with  the  services  that  you  were  rendering 
as  a game  warden,  you  would  charge  that  as  part  of  your  expenses  as 
game  warden  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  In  the  case  of  the  livery  that  was  engaged  by  you 
in  order  to  go  about  and  do  this  work,  to  what  fund  did  you  charge  it, 
or  out  of  what  did  you  disburse  the  charge  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  I disbursed  it  out  of  Stephenson  money  that  I had. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Can  you  give  the  committee  any  idea  of  the 
nature  of  the  services  that  you  were  performing  as  game  warden 
during  this  period  ? Is  your  recollection  distinct  enough  so  that  you 
can  state  what  you  were  doing  as  game  warden  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  I was  looking  after  violations  of  the  fish  and  game 
laws  and  attending  to  complaints  wdien  I received  them. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Is  there  any  rule  or  understanding  by  virtue  of 
which  the  game  wardens  work  a specific  number  of  hours  a day  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  No,  sir;  none  that  I know  of. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  That  is,  they  do  not  have  any  limit  as  to  hours  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  None  that  I know  of. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  When  you  were  in  these  various  localities  in 
connection  with  services  you  were  rendering  as  game  warden,  do  I 
understand  that  you  were  looking  out  for  matters  connected  with 
this  campaign,  so  far  as  you  did  look  out  for  them  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  ever  have  any  conversation  with  Mr. 
Hitchon,  after  placing  the  money  in  his  hands,  as  to  the  use  that  he 
made  of  it  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  I do  not  think  I ever  did. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  In  what  locality  was  Mr.  Hitchon  to  expend  his 
$450  ? State  whether  it  was  in  the  city  of  Marinette  or  in  this  terri- 
tory where  he,  as  I understand  it,  formerly  lived. 

Mr.  Bowman.  The  northern  part  of  Marinette  County  and  in  Flor- 
ence and  Forest  Counties,  according  to  the  talk  I had  with  him. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  it  your  understanding  or  expectation  that 
he  would  spend  any  of  this  money  in  the  city  of  Marinette  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  I do  not  know.  I did  not  say  anything  to  him  about 
that.  I do  not  know. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  There  was  no  talk  about  his  spending  any  money 
there  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  There  was  not. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  You  expected  him  to  spend  the  money  in  the 
sections  that  you  have  described  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  I did. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  How  far  were  they  from  the  city  of  Marinette  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  Fifty  or  seventy-five  miles. 


ARTHUR  NELSON  WILCOX. 


993 


Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  Mr.  Hitchon  formerly  a resident  out  there, 
or  was  he  acquainted  out  there  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  He  was  very  well  acquainted  there. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  any  of  this  money  expended  by  you,  either 
directly  or  indirectly,  for  the  purpose  of  bribing  or  corrupting  any 
electors  in  the  primary  election  in  the  interest  of  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  any  money  expended,  so  far  as  you  know, 
by  either  of  these  gentlemen  to  whom  you  gave  money,  either  directly 
or  indirectly,  for  the  purpose  of  bribing  or  corruptly  influencing  any 
of  the  electors  in  that  primary  election  in  the  interest  of  Senator 
Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I find  in  my  notes  here  (if  the  committee  will 
excuse  me  for  calling  attention  to  it  specifically)  an  entry  of  “General, 
August  31,  $20/’  purporting  to  have  been  disbursed  to  }tou.  Do  you 
have  any  recollection  of  that  item  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  No;  I never  received  any  such  amount. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  The  only  sum  that  you  received  from  Mr. 
Edmonds  is  the  $150  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  And  the  balance  of  the  funds  you  distributed 
you  received  from  Mr.  Stone  ? 

Mr.  Bowman.  That  is  correct. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  excused  for  the  present.  As  has  been 
already  stated,  you  will  remain  in  attendance. 

TESTIMONY  OF  AETHER  NELSON  WILCOX. 

Arthur  Nelson  Wilcox,  having  been  heretofore  duly  sworn, 
was  examined  and  testified  as  follows: 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Wilcox,  were  you  one  of  the  election  inspectors 
of  the  third  precinct  of  the  third  ward  in  this  city  at  the  election  in 
1908? 

Mr.  Wilcox.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Of  what  were  you  an  inspector  ? 

Mr.  Wilcox.  When? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Wilcox.  In  the  campaigns  before  that.  I do  not  remember 
just  what  they  were. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  an  inspector  of  any  kind  in  connection 
with  the  election,  primary  or  direct,  in  1908? 

Mr.  Wilcox.  I do  not  believe  I was. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  not  know  whether  you  were  or  not  ? 

Mr.  Wilcox.  In  fact,  I was  not  an  inspector  of  election. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  charged  here  that  you  were  an  inspector. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Where  does  the  chairman  find  that  ? 

The  Chairman.  On  page  2243  in  the  report  of  the  investigating 
committee.  You  swear  that  you  were  not  an  inspector,  as  stated,  of 
the  third  precinct  of  the  third  ward  in  the  city  of  Milwaukee,  or  in 
any  place  during  that  election  ? 

Mr.  Wilcox.  I am  quite  sure  I was  not  an  inspector  at  that  time. 
I had  been  before  and  was  also  chairman  of  the  ward;  but  I am  not 
15235°— vol  1—11 63 


994 


ARTHUR  NELSON  WILCOX. 


positive  whether  I was  an  inspector  at  that  time.  I am  quite  sure 
that  I was  not. 

The  Chairman.  You  had  been  at  a previous  election  ? 

Mr.  Wilcox.  Yes;  I had  been  inspector  up  there  for  eight  or  ten 
years. 

The  Chairman.  How  were  you  selected  as  inspector  ? 

Mr.  Wilcox.  Through  the  ward  chairman. 

The  Chairman.  Who  did  act  as  inspector  in  your  ward  at  that 
time  ? 

Mr.  Wilcox.  I think  John  Lavin,  Charley  Winters,  and  Pat 
Shanley  were  inspectors  in  that  precinct  at  that  time. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  receive  $100  from  the  Stephenson  cam- 
paign fund,  during  the  Stephenson  campaign,  or  at  all  ? 

Mr.  Wilcox.  No;  I received  $50. 

The  Chairman.  From  whom  ? 

Mr.  Wilcox.  From  Mr.  Knell. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Knell  was  the  manager  of  the  campaign  in 
this  city  for  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Wilcox.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  It  is  specifically  charged  here  that  Arthur  Wilcox 
of  the  third  precinct  of  the  third  ward  was  paid  $100  in  the  Stephen- 
son campaign. 

Mr.  Wilcox.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  the  Arthur  Wilcox  referred  to;  are  you? 

Mr.  Wilcox.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  say  you  were  paid  $50  by  W.  R.  Knell  ? 

Mr.  Wilcox.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  For  what  purpose  were  you  paid  $50  ? 

Mr.  Wilcox.  I was  asked  to  furnish  the  names  of  six  men,  two  for 
each  precinct  in  the  ward.  There  are  three  precincts  in  the  ward; 
and  I paid  them  $5  for  that  day,  for  primary  day,  to  hand  out  cards 
and  do  what  they  could  for  the  election  of  Senator  Stephenson. 

The  Chairman.  Then  you  did  disburse  $50  in  behalf  of  the  Stephen- 
son campaign  at  that  primary  election  ? 

Mr.  Wilcox.  I did,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  were  not  an  officer  or  in  any  position 
connected  with  that  primary  election  ? 

Mr.  Wilcox.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Does  the  office  of  election  inspector  expire  with 
the  day  of  the  election,  or  does  it  continue  until  the  next  election  ? 

Mr.  Wilcox.  You  are  generally  appointed  for  two  years. 

The  Chairman:  When  were  you  appointed  ? 

Mr.  Wilcox.  I can  not  say  really  when  I was  appointed,  but  I had 
lost  the  chairmanship  before  that. 

The  Chairman.  The  inspectorship  ? You  were  appointed  inspector 
for  two  years. 

Mr.  Wilcox.  I was  not  inspector  after  I lost  the  chairmanship. 

The  Chairman.  Why  ? 

Mr.  Wilcox.  There  was  another  man  who  got  the  chairmanship 
of  the  ward,  and  naturally  he  appointed  somebody  else. 

The  Chairman.  Is  that  a political  appointment,  or  is  it  one  under 
the  laws  of  the  State  ? 

Mr.  Wilcox.  It  is  under  the  laws  of  the  State. 


ARTHUR  NELSON  WILCOX. 


995 


The  Chairman.  If  you  were  appointed  an  inspector  for  two  years, 
do  you  mean  to  say  that  a change  in  the  political  chairmanship  of  the 
ward  would  affect  your  appointment  ? 

Mr.  Wilcox.  Yes;  the  chairmanship  changes  every  two  years  also. 

The  Chairman.  Is  the  chairmanship  an  appointment  under  the 
statutes  of  the  State,  or  is  it  a political  appointment  ? 

Mr.  Wilcox.  It  is  an  appointment  under  the  statutes  of  the  State, 
I believe. 

The  Chairman.  Who  makes  the  appointment  ? 

Mr.  Wilcox.  The  precinct  committeemen. 

The  Chairman.  They  appoint  the  chairman  of  the  ward  ? 

Mr.  Wilcox.  The  precinct  committeemen  are  elected  by  the  voters 
of  the  ward,  and  they  in  turn  elect  a chairman  of  the  ward.  The 
chairman  of  the  ward  then  appoints  inspectors,  and  they  are  con- 
firmed by  the  mayor  and  the  council  of  the  city. 

The  Chairman.  You  were  such  inspector  unless  your  loss  of  the 
position  of  chairman  affected  your  position  as  inspector?  Is  that 
true  ? 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Oh,  I think  the  chairman  is  mistaken  about 
that. 

The  Chairman.  I am  asking  the  witness,  and  he  can  answer. 

Mr.  Wilcox.  I do  not  believe  I quite  understand  you,  Senator; 
but  I received  the  appointment  of  inspector  and  clerk  of  election  at 
different  times  for  the  last  eight  or  ten  years,  and  then  for  one  time 
I was  elected  ward  chairman,  and  still  held  the  position  of  inspector. 

The  Chairman.  Could  you  hold  both  positions  under  the  law  ? 

Mr.  Wilcox.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  What  do  you  receive  as  evidence  of  your  appoint- 
ment as  inspector  ? 

Mr.  Wilcox.  You  receive  a notice  from  the  city  clerk. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  examined  the  records  of  the  city  clerk’s 
office  to  ascertain  whether  or  not  you  were  inspector  during  the 
period  immediately  preceding  the  direct  primary  election  on  the  first 
of  September,  1908? 

Mr.  Wilcox.  I have  not;  but  I do  not  think  it  would  be  right  to  act 
for  anybody  and  at  the  same  time  be  an  inspector  of  election. 

The  Chairman.  That  will  be  conceded.  Had  you  not  better 
inspect  the  records  and  see  whether  or  not  you  were  ? 

Mr.  Wilcox.  Probably  I better  be  sure;  but  I am  quite  sure  I was 
not  inspector  of  election  at  that  time. 

The  Chairman.  Will  you  inspect  those  records  and  ascertain 
whether  or  not  you  were  inspector  of  election,  and  if  you  were  not, 
who  was  ? 

Mr.  Wilcox.  I can  do  that;  certainly. 

The  Chairman.  Also,  when  your  term  of  office  ceased,  and  who 
succeeded  you. 

Mr.  Wilcox.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  excuse  you  from  the  stand  at  this  time, 
in  order  that  you  may  be  able  to  ascertain  those  facts  definitely. 
You  may  return  here  on  Monday. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I should  like  to  ask  him  a few  questions  before 
he  goes. 

Senator  Pomerene.  Have  you  the  notice  that  you  received  from 
the  clerk  ? 


996 


ARTHUR  NELSON  WILCOX. 


Mr.  Wilcox.  Oh,  no. 

Senator  Pomerene.  What  do  you  call  it — a commission  ? 

Mr.  Wilcox.  It  is  just  a notice  that  you  have  been  appointed  and 
have  been  accepted  by  the  mayor  and  the  council.  They  vote  on 
that  and  approve  of  it. 

Senator  Pomerene.  That  is  all. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Did  you  spend  any  of  the  money  that  was  placed 
in  your  hands  on  that  day,  or  any  part  of  this  sum  placed  in  your 
hands,  for  the  purpose,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  of  bribing  or 
corruptly  influencing  any  electors  in  that  precinct  on  primary  day 
in  the  interest  of  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Wilcox.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  Was  any  of  that  money  used,  so  far  as  you  know, 
by  the  men  to  whom  you  paid  it,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  for  the 
purpose  of  bribing  or  corruptly  influencing  any  electors  on  that  pri- 
mary election  day  in  the  interest  of  Senator  Stephenson  ? 

Mr.  Wilcox.  Certainly  not. 

The  Chairman.  You  will  be  called  again  after  you  have  ascer- 
tained these  facts. 

Mr.  Littlefield.  I suppose  he  may  bring  that  record  in,  and  when 
the  committee  see  the  record  you  may  not  want  to  examine  him 
at  all. 

The  Chairman.  Examine  the  record,  so  that  you  will  be  prepared 
to  make  a responsible  statement  here  under  oath  as  to  the  facts. 

Mr.  Wilcox.  On  Monday? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Wilcox.  Very  well. 

The  Chairman.  The  committee  has  just  been  advised  of  the  death 
to-day  of  Mr.  Justice  Harlan,  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States.  As  a mark  of  respect  to  the  distinguished  life  and  services 
of  the  late  justice,  the  committee  will  stand  adjourned  until  Monday 
morning  at  10  o’clock. 

(Whereupon,  at  4 o’clock  and  10  minutes  p.  m.,  the  subcommittee 
adjourned  until  Monday,  October  16,  1911,  at  10  o’clock  a.  m.) 


DIGEST-INDEX. 


LIST  OF  WITNESSES, 

[Including  affidavits  filed.] 


Page. 

Alexander,  Walter,  lumber  manufacturer,  Wausau,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1286 

Ames,  Allen  Russel,  Madison,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1181 

Atwood,  Davis,  one  of  the  editors  of  the  Janesville  Gazette,  Janesville,  Wis., 


Bancroft,  Levi  H.,  elected  attorney  general  in  1910,  Richland  Center,  Wis., 


Barber,  Whitman  A.,  farmer,  Sheboygan  County,  Wis.,  affidavit  of 1996 

Bell,  Merton  J.,  lumber  business,  Minneapolis,  Minn.,  testimony  of 1864 

Beyer,  George,  president  of  the  Oconto  National  Bank,  Oconto,  Wis.,  testi- 


Bissonette,  Edwin  S.,  contractor,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  affidavit  of 1996 

Black,  W.  E.,  member  of  the  law  firm  of  Cary,  Upham  & Black,  Milwaukee, 


Blaine,  John  J.,  State  senator  from  sixteenth  district  of  Wisconsin,  testimony 

of - 592 

Bowman,  H.  A.,  deputy  game  warden  in  1908,  Genesee,  Wis.,  testimony  of. . . 984 

Boyle,  Louis  C.,  station  agent  of  Chicago,  Milwaukee  & St.  Paul  Railroad  Co., 


Brady,  Charles  E.,  lawyer,  Manitowoc,  Wis.,  testimony  of . 1278 

Bratz,  William  C.,  insurance  agent  and  mayor  of  We3t  Bend,  Wis.,  affidavit  of.  2127 
Brown,  Harry  J.,  son-in-law  of  Senator  Stephenson  and  cashier  of  Stephenson 

National  Bank  of  Marinette,  Wis.,  testimony  of 438 

Calkins,  L.  A.,  practicing  lawyer,  Green  Bay,  Wis.,  affidavit  of.... 1998 

Clark,  Robert  B.,  traveling  salesman,  Fort  Atkinson,  Wis.,  affidavit  of 1999 

Clary,  T.  L.,  railroad  conductor,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1883 

Cook,  Wirt  EL,  lumber  and  timber  business,  Duluth,  Minn.,  testimony  of 1353 

Cowie,  Robert  S.,  Whitehall,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1097 

Cox,  Lemuel  B.,  farmer,  Onalaska,  Wis.,  affidavit  of 2000 

Curran,  John  D.,  hotel  keeper,  Stevens  Point,  Wis.,  affidavit  of 2000 

Dart,  George  W.,  Montello,  Wis.,  testimony  of 974 

Davies,  D.  EL,  State  treasury  agent,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of..... 1403 

Dee,  George  E.,  editor  and  proprietor  of  the  Chippewa  Herald,  Chippewa 

Falls,  Wis. , testimony  of 1218 

Dolan,  P.  F.,  real  estate  business,  Shawano,  Wis.,  testimony  of... 918 

Domachowski,  Joseph  A.,  member  of  Legislature  of  Wisconsin  in  1909,  testi- 
mony of 1546 

Dormady,  Patrick,  sheriff  of  Ashland  County,  Ashland,  Wis.,  affidavit  of 2001 

Dresser,  Lester  S.,  Minneapolis,  Minn.,  formerly  of  St.  Croix  Falls,  Polk 

County,  Wis.,  testimony  of 997 

Eastman,  O.  A.,  Platteville,  Wis.,  affidavit  of 2029 

Edmonds,  E.  A.,  print  and  wrapping  paper  manufacturer,  Appleton,  Wis., 


Eppling,  F.  J.,  insurance  business,  Sheboygan,  Wis.,  testimony  of 903 

Essmann,  William  L.,  superintendent  of  public  property,  testimony  of. . 696,  740,  806 

Everett,  J.  W.,  newspaper  business,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1585 

Farr,  F.  R.,  attorney  at  law,  Eau  Claire,  Wis.,  affidavit  of 2002 

Farrell,  John  T.,  directory  publisher,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1441 

Fenelon,  James,  former  member  of  the  assembly,  Ripon,  Fond  du  Lac  County, 

Wis.,  affidavit  of 2091 

Fenelon,  William,  affidavit  of 1929 

Flint,  R.  J.,  United  States  marshal  for  the  western  district  of  Wisconsin,  Meno- 
monie,  Wis.,  affidavit  of 2030 

I 


XI 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page. 

Frank,  J.  Henry,  practicing  physician  and  surgeon,  Neillsville,  Wis.,  affidavit 

of 2003 

French,  Charles  S.,  attorney,  Lake  Geneva,  Wis.,  testimony  of 871 

Gehbe,  Frank,  dentist,  Manitowoc,  Wis.,  affidavit  of 2125 

Gordon,  George  H.,  United  States  attorney  for  western  district  of  Wisconsin, 

La  Crosse,  Wis.,  testimony  of 741 

Haley,  Daniel,  lumber  business,  Duluth,  Minn.,  testimony  of 1554 

Hambright,  Charles  M.2  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1063 

Hamilton,  Archibald,  inspector  at  the  primary  election  of  1908,  Milwaukee, 

Wis. , testimony  of — . 1923 

Hanson,  Joseph  T.,  pension  attorney  and  circuit  court  commissioner,  Mauston, 

Wis.,  affidavit  of 2004 

Harper,  James  H.,  fire  insurance  business,  Duluth,  Minn.,  affidavit  of 2126 

Haslam,  William  C.,  Chicago,  111.,  deputy  game  warden  at  Appleton,  Wis., 

during  1908,  testimony  of . 963 

Heyer,  A.  O.,  publisher,  Sheboygan,  Wis.,  testimony  of 890 

Hines,  Edward,  lumber  business,  Evanston,  111.,  testimony  of 1567,2084 

Homibrook,  Henry  C.,  superintendent  of  N.  Ludington  Co.,  Marinette,  Wis., 

testimony  of 1857 

Hoyt,  M.  A.,  editor  of  the  Milwaukee  Daily  News,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testi- 
mony of 1590 

Hulbert,  A.  I.,  deputy  game  warden,  Barron  County,  Wis.,  testimony  of 953 

Husting,  Paul  O.,  member  of  Wisconsin  Senate,  testimony  of 1903, 1933 

Hyzer,  E.  M.,  attorney  of  record  before  joint  investigating  committee  of  Legis- 
lature of  Wisconsin,  testimony  of 1018 

James,  David,  State  senator  of  Wisconsin  in  1909,  Richland  Center,  Wis., 

testimony  of 1755 

James,  Norman  L.,  lumbering  and  agriculture  business,  Richland  Center, 

Wis.,  testimony  of 884 

Johnson,  Neils,  deputy  game  warden  during  summer  of  1908,  testimony  of 909 

Kates,  C.  W.,  superintendent  of  Escanaba  & Lake  Superior  Railroad,  Wells, 

Mich.,  testimony  of 1861 

Keller,  Ulysses  C.,  Baraboo,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1058 

Kelly,  John  T.,  member  of  the  bar,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of 2036 

Kelpinski,  Leo.  S.,  inspector  of  election  in  1908,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of.  1899 

Keyes,  Jerry  F.,  railway  conductor,  Madison,  Wis.,  affidavit  of 2005 

Kingsley,  G.  L.,  manager  of  a branch  of  the  John  Glenn  Brewing  Co.,  Albert 

Lea,  Minn.,  testimony  of 571 

Knell,  William  R.,  manager  of  Stephenson  primary  campaign  in  Milwaukee 

County  in  1908,  testimony  of 1757, 1962 

Kolb,  Gustave  C.,  Hillsboro,  Wis.,  testimony  of 970 

Lambeck,  Arthur  H.,  connected  with  Stephenson  headquarters  in  1908,  testi- 
mony of 1822,1876 

Leuch,  Peter  F.,  member  of  the  Legislature  of  Wisconsin  in  1909,  Milwaukee, 

Wis.,  testimony  of 1417 

Lewis,  Hugh,  messenger  in  House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C.; 

resides  Madison,  Wis.,  testimony  of 912 

Littlefield,  E.  C.,  counsel  for  Senator  Stephenson,  statement  of 6 

Lyons,  E.  H.,  member  of  Illinois  State  Senate,  Fond  du  Lac,  Wis.,  testimony  of.  1387 

MacLean,  R.  E.,  lumberman,  Wells,  Mich.,  testimony  of 1848 

McGill,  Leroy  E.,  lawyer,  Ladysmith,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1274 

McGillivray,  James  J.,  mayor  of  Black  River  Falls,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1249 

McMahon,  Edward  M.,  general  agent  for  the  Northwestern  Mutual  Life  Insur- 
ance Co.,  Madison,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1023, 1795 

Marsh,  Spencer  M.,  chairman  of  both  State  senate  investigating  committee  and 
joint  investigating  committee  at  time  of  investigation  of  election  of  Senator 

Stephenson,  testimony  of 1101 

Meloy,  F.  C.,  dentist,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1884 

Meyer,  Richard,  jr. , banker,  Lancaster,  Wis.,  affidavit  of 2005 

Miner,  Grant  L.,  Richland  Center,  Wis.,  testimony  of . 1283 

Morgan,  Earl  J.,  son-in-law  of  Senator  Stephenson,  Oshkosh,  Wis.,  testimony  of.  1734 
Morgan,  H.  H.,  assistant  United  States  attorney  for  the  western  district  of  Wis- 
consin, Madison,  Wis.,  testimony  of 925 

Morley,  Calvin  E.,  ex-assistant  sergeant  at  arms,  House  of  Representatives, 

Washington,  D.  C.,  resides  Viroqua,  Wis.,  affidavit  of 2006 

Morris,  Thomas,  lieutenant  governor  of  Wisconsin,  testimony  of 1129 

Morse,  Roy  L.,  attorney,  Fond  du  Lac,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1204,1215 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Ill 


Page. 

Murphy,  Lawrence,  broker,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1965 

O’Connor,  D.  J.,  practicing  physician,  Appleton,  Wis.,  testimony  of 817 

Orton,  Robert  E.,  banking  business,  Darlington,  Wis.,  affidavit  of 2008 

Overbeck,  Henry,  real-estate  business,  Sturgeon  Bay,  Wis.,  testimony  of...  830,2091 

Patrick,  L.  S.,  testimony  of 1294 

Pearson,  C.  L.,  State  senator  of  Wisconsin  in  1909,  farmer,  testimony  of 1582 

Perrin,  Solon  L.,  attorney  at  law,  Superior,  Wis.,  testimony  of 652,  698 

Pestalozzi,  H.  R.,  jeweler,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1887 

Peterson,  H.  L.,  Sturgeon  Bay,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1292 

Peterson,  Lewis  W.,  hardware  dealer,  Dorchester,  Wis.,  affidavit  of 2009,  2023 

Pflughoeft,  Werner,  farmer,  Medford,  Wis.,  affidavit  of 2010 

Piper,  Herbert  J.,  practicing  attorney,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  affidavit  of 2010 

Pollock,  Edward,  editor  and  proprietor  of  the  Teller,  Lancaster,  Wis.,  testimony 

of 1070 

Powell,  W.  W.,  newspaper  man,  Kalamazoo,  Mich.,  testimony  of 1583 

Puelicher,  J.  H.,  cashier  of  Marshall  & Ilsley  Bank,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testi- 
mony of 128 

Purtell,  Thomas  M.,  State  fire  marshal,  Madison,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1201 

Ramsey,  Thomas  F.,  deceased,  testimony  of,  given  before  joint  investigating 

committee  of  the  Legislature  of  Wisconsin 2113 

Reed,  Roy  E.,  attorney,  Ripon,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1926 

Reese,  John  M.,  president  of  the  Dodgeville  Chronicle,  weekly  newspaper, 
and  president  of  the  First  National  Bank  of  Dodgeville,  Dodgeville,  Wis., 

affidavit  of 2011 

Regan,  M.  J.,  real  estate,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1674, 1695 

Remold,  Fred  W.,  insurance  agent,  Kenosha,  Wis.,  affidavit  of 2012 

Reynolds,  Thomas,  member  of  Wisconsin  Assembly  from  Door  County,  1908 

and  1909,  testimony  of 1235, 1258 

Reynolds,  Thomas  F.,  banker,  Oconto  Falls.,  Wis.,  affidavit  of 2013 

Ring,  Merritt  C.,  Neillsville,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1258 

Riordan,  D.  E.,  Eagle  River,  Wis.,  testimony  of 774 

Rogers,  Edward  J.,  express  agent  of  American  Express  Co.,  Dodgeville,  Wis., 

affidavit  of 2014 

Rosenheim,  Adolph,  saloon  keeper,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1885 

Rowe,  Ralph  H.,  produce  dealer,  Waupaca,  Wis.,  affidavit  of 2017 

Russell,  C.  H.,  Berlin,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1192 

Russell,  Charles  C.,  attorney,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1833, 1863 

Sacket,  Rodney,  an  executive  clerk  of  the  United  States  Senate,  Berlin, 

Wis.,  testimony  of 152,  374,  440, 1804,  2063 

Salmon,  C.  B.,  president  and  treasurer  of  Beloit  Water,  Gas  & Electric  Co., 

Beloit,  Wis.,  affidavit  of 2015 

Sanderson,  Thomas  H.,  attorney  at  law,  assistant  sergeant  at  arms  of  senate  of 

Wisconsin  in  1909,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1639 

Sattler,  D.  W.,  president  of  the  Western  Casket  Co.  and  the  Western  Casket  and 

Undertaking  Co.,  Chicago,  111.,  testimony  of 2089 

Sells,  Max,  district  attorney  for  Florence  County,  Wis.,  in  1908,  testimony  of..  1021 
Shields,  R.  J.,  treasurer  of  the  Harper-Shields  Agency,  insurance,  real  estate, 

etc.,  Superior,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1390, 1712, 1872 

Smith,  Addison  T.,  statement  of 1215 

Smith,  Herbert  H.,  real  estate  and  insurance  business,  Hartford,  Wis.,  affidavit 

of 2015 

Sommer,  W.  J.,  shoe  business,  Superior,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1710 

Souther,  Frank  T.,  inspector  on  street  work,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of . . . 1653 

Stephenson,  Senator  Isaac,  testimony  of 23,  909,  2103 

Stevens,  L.  H.,  banker,  Lancaster,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1295 

Stone,  John  W.,  Minneapolis,  Minn.,  testimony  of 1313 

Stover,  James  H.,  attorney  at  law,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1593 

Stringham,  Miss  Mary  F.,  secretary  to  Senator  Stephenson,  Marinette,  Wis., 

testimony  of 1812 

Sturtevant,  John  L.,  Wausau,  Wis.,  affidavit  of 2016 

Thayer,  L.  W.,  owner  of  real  estate,  Ripon,  Wis.,  testimony  of 934, 1752 

Tilton,  Lester,  Chicago,  testimony  of 1090 

Towne,  Silas  R.,  member  of  legislature  of  Wisconsin  in  1909,  Lavalle,  Wis., 

testimony  of 1407, 1470, 1734 

Turrish,  Henry,  lumber  business,  Duluth,  Minn.,  affidavit  of 2031 

Tuttle,  Emery  W.,  mason  and  bricklayer,  Oconomowoc,  Wis.,  affidavit  of 2016 


\v 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page. 

Upham,  H.  H.  J.,  attorney  at  law,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1972 

Van  Cleve,  John  A.,  in  real  estate  and  banking  business,  Marinette,  Wis.,  tes- 
timony of 136,  568 

Van  Houten,  J.  W.  B.,  testimony  of 1212 

Walsh,  James  F.,  land  and  timber,  Duluth,  Minn.,  testimony  of 1561 

Watrous,  Paul  J.,  secretary  of  the  industrial  commission  at  Madison,  also  in 

newspaper  business,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1595 

Wayland,  Chellis  C.,  real  estate,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of 725, 1492 

Wellensgard,  Christian  C.,  runs  a pickle  factory  and  interested  in  farms,  Berlin, 

Wis.,  testimony  of 835 

Wells,  Jabez  H.,  hotel  keeper,  Portage  County,  Wis.,  affidavit  of 2018 

Wheeler,  William  G.,  attorney,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of 893 

White,  Richard  J.,  traveling  salesman,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1324, 1339 

Wilcox,  Arthur  Nelson,  gas  fitter,  election  inspector  in  1908,  Milwaukee,  Wis., 

testimony  of 993, 1894 

Winsor,  William  F.,  president  of  State  Bank  of  Mauston,  Mauston,  Wis.,  affi- 
davit of 2019 

Wood,  Harry  W.,  private  detective,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1602, 1877 

Wyseman,  Arthur  J.,  practicing  lawyer,  Manitowoc,  Wis.,  affidavit  of 2019 

Zimmerman,  Fred  R.,  member  of  legislature  of  Wisconsin  in  1909,  testimony 
of 1504,1516 


INDEX 


A. 

Page. 

Advertising,  newspaper,  or  purchase  of  editorial  influence,  as  to  statute  on  the 

subject  of 356,  357 

Affidavits,  filing  of;  order  made  by  the  committee 1514, 

1515, 1516, 1690, 1691, 1692, 1693, 1694, 1932, 1933, 1963, 
1994,  2020,  2021,  2022,  2023, 2029,  2083,  2084,  2091,  2125 

Alexander,  Walter,  lumber  manufacturer,  Wausau,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1286 

Age,  62 1290 

Campaign  managers,  did  not  furnish  them  a statement;  had  no  connection 

with  them 1290 

Counties  covered  by  me,  Marathon  and  Lincoln,  number  of  precincts  in..  1291 
Memorandum  book  I have  with  me  contains  items  that  are  made  up  in 

accounts  produced;  was  kept  by  cashier  in  my  office 1291 

Money,  none  spent  by  me  or  as  far  as  I know  by  men  to  whom  I intrusted 

it  for  purpose  of  bribing  or  corruptly  influencing  electors 1291 

Republican  national  convention  in  1908,  was  only  Taft  delegate  to,  from 

Wisconsin *. . . . 1 292 

Statement  of  cash  items  drawn  and  expended  by  me 1287, 1289, 1290 

Statement  of  expenses  of  Stephenson  primary  election  campaign  in  Lin- 
coln and  Marathon  counties;  items  explained 1287, 1288, 1289 

Stephenson,  did  not  render  him  an  itemized  statement  of  expenditures; 

just  gave  him  the  total  amount 1290 

Stephenson,  have  been  acquainted  with  him  over  25  years 1290 

Stephenson,  I spent  my  own  money  during  primary  and  later  he  gave  me 

a check  for  $588.30  to  reimburse  me 1286, 1287 

Stephenson  primary  campaign,  participated  in 1286 

Ames,  Allen  Russel,  Madison,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1181 

Account,  did  not  render  one  of  my  expenditures;  was  not  asked  to 1190 

Account  of  expenditures,  itemized,  aggregating  between  $300  and  $400 

given 1184,1185,1186 

Campaign,  day  I had  agreement  with  Edmonds,  I took  a bundle  of  nomin- 
ation papers,  a quantity  of  campaign  buttons,  literature,  lithographs, 
and  everything  used  incidental  to  a campaign  and  got  home  and  went 
to  my  desk  and  wrote  letters  and  telephoned  and  got  everybody  busy 
that  I could  with  respect  to  nomination  papers;  distributed  and  got 
lithographs  posted;  circulated  buttons  and  got  advertisements  into  city 

and  village  papers;  talked  Stephenson’s  cause  everywhere 1189, 1190 

Campaign  of  1908,  I was  not  a candidate;  did  not  take  part  in  candidacy 

of  anyone  for  legislature 1189 

County  superintendent  of  schools  for  four  years 1189 

Dane  County,  had  charge  of  campaign  for  Stephenson  there  in  1908;  size 

of;  have  taken  an  active  part  in  every  campaign  there  for  40  years 1181, 

1182, 1189 

Edmonds,  I told  him  I must  keep  within  the  law;  that  I would  do  nothing 
but  straightforward  work;  that  I could  not  go  in  saloons;  he  said,  “We 
just  want  you  to  do  a straightforward  campaign  for  the  Senator  out  in 

Dane  County  ” 1190 

Edmonds,  made  contract  with  him;  he  was  to  pay  me  $500  for  my  services 
and  I was  to  pay  all  my  own  expenses,  railroad  fare,  livery  and  automo- 
bile hire,  and  hotel  out  of  that;  conversation  when  hired 1183, 1188, 1189 

Hilsenhoff,  Hans,  Madison,  received  a check  of  $50,  August  14,  to  indorse 
over  to  him;  that  is  the  check  that  represented  the  difference  between 
the  amount  1 accounted  for  and  the  amount  I received 1182, 1187, 1188 


v 


VI 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Ames,  Allen  Russel,  Madison,  Wis.,  testimony  of — Continued.  Page. 

Madison,  rebident  of,  for  22  years 1181 

Money,  received  about  $900  altogether  in  primary  campaign  from  Edmonds 
and  Sacket;  unable  to  say  how  much  from  either  one;  amount  and  date 
of  different  payments  to  me;  how  disbursed;  disbursements  largely  by 


Morgan,  H.  H.,  assistant  district  attorney,  on  August  11  was  going  up  in 
northwestern  part  of  county,  30  miles  from  capital;  I handed  him  $50  to 

pay  some  workers  up  there 1185 

Nomination  papers,  began  circulating  them  when  I received  $200,  July  15. . 1182 

Receipts,  comprised  in  Exhibit  Ames  1,  tabulated 1186, 1187 

Receipts,  Edmonds  said  to  take  them,  and  I went  to  the  trouble  to  make  out 
receipts  and  mail  them  as  I mailed  the  money  or  the  check,  and  asked 
people  to  sign  and  return  them;  I do  not  think  one-third  of  them  did.  1186, 1190 
Stephenson,  supported  him  following  the  announcement  of  his  candidacy. . 1188 

Sum  of  $200  received  July  15  was  part  of  my  compensation 1183 

Workers,  $350  received  August  8 was  to  pay  them;  basis  of  arrangement  with 
Edmonds  was  to  pay  $5  a precinct;  could  not  get  men  in  Madison  to  work 
at  polls  for  $5;  had  to  pay  some  of  them  $10;  it  averaged,  I think,  $8  over 
the  county;  men  not  only  worked  at  polls,  but  circulated  nomination 
papers,  gathered  names,  and  posted  lithographs;  some  men  not  paid  until 


Atwood,  Davis,  one  of  the  editors  of  the  Janesville  Gazette,  Janesville,  Wis., 


work,  and  travel  in  and  throughout  the  county  of  Janesville;  several  trips 

made  by  automobile 1995 

Age,  37  years 1995 

Band  of  music,  engaged  at  time  of  visit  of  Stephenson  to  Janesville;  ex- 
penses of,  $20 1995 

Campaigns,  experience  in  previous;  states  campaign  carried  on  for  Stephen- 
son in  Rock  County  one  of  the  cleanest  ever  conducted  there 1995 

Cards  and  campaign  literature,  distributed  at  the  polls  on  primary  day; 

men  employed 1995 

Conveyances  engaged  for  use  at  the  polls  in  and  about  Janesville 1995 

Expenses,  legitimate,  in  connection  with  work  done  in  primary  campaign, 
assured  by  headquarters  at  Milwaukee  would  be  paid;  received  $150;  no 

part  of  for  services 1995 

Janesville,  Rock  County,  Wis.,  residence  for  past  10  years 1995 

Janesville  Gazette,  supporter  of  Stephenson  prior  to  work  done  for  in  the 

primary  campaign 1995 

Madison  investigation,  not  called  as  witness  at 1995 

Money  not  disbursed  for  the  purpose  of  corruptly  or  unlawfully  influencing 

or  bribing  any  person 1995 

Poll  workers,  none  employed  unless  at  the  time  of  employment  they  were 
supporters  of  Stephenson;  distributed  between  $40  and  $50  for  work  done 

by  precinct  workers;  names  of  some  given 1995 

Primary  campaign,  in  the  early  part  of  August,  1908,  requested  to  do  what 

work  in,  he  could;  activity  covered  period  of  30  days 1995 

Saloon  campaign,  special  instructions  given  by  headquarters  at  Milwaukee 
that  in  no  event  should  it  be  conducted;  instructions  complied  with,  so 

far  as  he  knows 1995 

Statement  of  expenses,  never  called  upon  to  furnish  itemized.. 1995 

Stephenson,  supporter  of,  prior  to  doing  any  work  for  in  the  primary  cam- 
paign  1995 

Stephenson,  vote  of,  in  Rock  County;  had  a majority  over  all  other  candi- 
dates  1995 

Telephone  service,  large  expense  for 1995 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


VII 


B. 


Page. 


Bancroft,  Levi  H.,  elected  attorney  general  in  1910,  Richland  Center,  Wis., 
testimony  of . 701 

Account  of  expenditures  made  in  behalf  of  Stephenson,  I did  not  keep  one; 

did  not  render  one  to  Puelicher,  Edmonds,  or  Stephenson 708,  719 

Candidate  at  direct  primaries  in  1908  for  nomination  for  assembly  from 
Richland  County;  presume  I had  announced  candidacy  during  month  of 
June,  1908,  or  prior  thereto,  but  I can  not  tell  you  exactly  as  to  that 

time 701,702 

Custom,  long  prevalent,  for  candidates  to  be  represented  by  teams  and 

transportation  in  effort  to  get  voters  to  polls 723 

Democrats  absent  when  Stephenson  was  elected  by  legislature;  I never  had 
any  talk  with  anyone  who  pretended  to  have  talked  to  any  of  the  three 
on  the  subject;  I think  I referred  to  the  matter  in  a joking  way  with 
Ramsey  or  Towne  two  or  three  months  afterwards  and  they  were  some- 
what indignant,  and  it  was  turned  off  into  a joke 719 

Edmonds,  I did  not  see  him  when  I came  to  Milwaukee  in  response  to 
request;  I was  telephoned  two  or  three  times,  and  I finally  stated  I would 
come  on  Saturday;  I came  to  Milwaukee  and  went  to  Stephenson  head- 
quarters expecting  to  meet  him  and  was  informed  by  somebody  that  he 
had  been  called  to  Appleton,  and  that  I was  requested  to  go  see  Puelicher 

at  Marshall  & Ilsley  Bank,  and  I did  so 704 

Francesco,  George,  traveling  salesman  or  expert  in  farm  machinery;  paid 
him  from  $40  to  $50  in  cash;  I paid  him  on  several  different  occasions; 
his  business  was  traveling  around  putting  out  literature  and  seeing  peo- 
ple, and  I paid  the  livery  bills  and  paid  him  for  his  services;  he  put  out 

several  buggy  loads  of  Stephenson  lithographs  and  placards 710,  711 

Joint  session,  I was  present  when  Stephenson  was  elected;  did  not  know 
that  three  Democrats  were  absent  at  the  time;  heard  somebody  talk 
about  it  afterwards;  did  not  attract  my  attention  at  time  as  that  was  a 
frequent  occurrence;  I do  not  know  of  any  circumstance  that  would 

enable  committee  to  find  out  why  they  were  absent 718 

Legislature,  I have  been  there  two  terms;  once  immediately  preceding 
this  term;  when  elected,  I have  no  recollection  of  sending  any  telegram 

announcing  my  election 712,  713 

Literature,  I received  several  thousand  lithographs  and  placards;  buggy 
load  after  buggy  load  went  out,  and  they  were  instructed  to  nail  them  up 
in  every  available  place;  on  all  railroads,  crossroads,  cheese  factories, 
creameries,  etc.,  in  the  county;  every  dollar  except  that  given  Mehaffey 
went  for  livery  bills  and  expenses  for  these  men  who  went  out,  and  their 

per  diem  for  posting  up  that  literature 710,  722,  723 

Liverymen  to  whom  I paid  bills  for  men  I sent  out  named  Daniel  Berger, 

Philip  Smith,  and  Wade  Hampton;  I can  not  recollect  the  amount,  but 
I presume  their  books  would  show  it;  it  would  account  for  the  balance  of 

the  $250  or  more 722 

McMahon,  my  statement  before  joint  committee  that  he  was  an  entire 
stranger  and  called  at  my  office  in  Richland  Center  saying  he  had  been 
requested  to  call  on  me  with  regard  to  campaign  and  amount  of  money 
necessary  is  correct;  think  he  called  on  me  a week  or  10  days  before  July 
31;  my  statement  that  he  returned  to  Milwaukee  the  same  day  and  soon 
after  I was  telephoned  to  by  Edmonds  and  requested  to  come  to  Mil- 
waukee is  correct;  told  him  there  were  other  candidates,  and  I was  a can- 
didate myself  and  I could  not  antagonize  their  forces 703,  704,  721 

Maxwell,  Thomas.  Richland  Center,  employed  in  office  of  Republican 
Observer;  I paid  him  on  several  different  occasions  because  he  was  sent 
in  various  directions;  sent  him  to  a home-coming  in  village  of  Cazenovia; 
paid  him  at  least  $40,  and  think  there  were  some  other  sums  paid  him; 
sent  out  to  nail  up  pictures;  recommended  by  G.  L.  Minor;  paid  him 

some  time  in  August  after  my  nomination  papers  were  filed 710,  711,  712 

Mehaffy,  George,  Richland  Center,  I paid  him  $100;  I did  not  ask  him  to 
render  an  account;  I never  knew  what  he  did  with  the  money;  he  was  a 
personal  friend  of  mine  and  knew  a great  deal  more  about  how  to  do 

Folitical  work  than  I did;  knew  how  to  approach  people  and  so  on,  so  that 
just,  gave  it  to  him  with  the  general  statement  that  I wanted  him  to  do 
what  he  could  for  Stephenson;  he  was  not  the  kind  of  a man  who  would 

accept  a dollar  for  his  service;  was  wealthy  and  of  high  character 709, 

710,  717,  718,  723 


VIII 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page. 

Bancroft,  Levi  H.,  elected  attorney  general  in  1910,  Richland  Center,  Wis., 
testimony  of — Continued. 

Memorandum,  I did  not  make  any  of  expenditures  at  the  time 708 

Men  employed,  sent  for  them  to  come  to  me ; some  of  them  came  to  my  office; 
there  were  not  to  exceed  from  6 to  10  that  1 made  arrangements  with;  I 
do  not  know  whether  these  men  supported  my  nominations;  I did  not 
examine  my  nomination  papers  to  see  if  their  names  were  on  them;  I did 
not  tell  them  Stephenson  was  furnishing  the  money;  I was  acquainted 

with  all  of  them 709,  711,  712,  713 

Minor,  G.  L.,  recommended  Tom  Maxwell  to  me;  presume  he  knew  I was  a 

candidate  for  the  legislature 711,  712 

Money : 

For  Stephenson  campaign  all  laid  in  a separate  compartment  in  my  safe, 
and  that  specific  money  was  paid  out  in  paying  these  bills;  was  all  dis- 
bursed in  month  of  August;  all  paid  out  in  my  office,  in  city  of  Rich- 
land Center,  to  best  of  my  recollection;  did  not  carry  any  of  amount 

on  my  person,  except  to  carry  it  to  Richland  Center 708,  709,  716 

How  disbursed,  my  testimony  before  joint  legislative  committee  correct 
as  follows:  Most  of  it  paid  in  larger  amounts  to  people  who  were  in- 
structed to  see  certain  men  in  the  towns  or  find  men  who  would  do 
the  work,  who  would  agree  to  look  after  Stephenson’s  interests,  and 
assist  in  getting  voters  to  polls,  and  I personally  know  of  one  or  two 
instances  where  men  were  got  who  were  opposed  to  me,  but  were 
Stephenson  men;  I personally  disbursed  some  of  it  in  the  same  way; 
every  dollar  of  $250  disbursed  by  me  and  more  in  bills  I had  to  pay 

afterwards 707 

My  testimony  concerning  its  use  before  joint  legislative  committee,  cor- 
rect as  follows:  I can  conscientiously  say  I was  very  scrupulous  in 
the  use  of  that  money;  I did  not  deposit  a dollar  of  it  to  my  personal 
account  in  either  bank;  my  personal  campaign  expenses  were  paid  by 
check,  and  this  committee  are  privileged  to  have  my  checks  and 

bank  books  of  both  banks  during  that  period 722 

None  of  Stephenson  campaign  fund  in  my  hands  used  for  purpose  of 

bribing  or  corruptly  influencing  voters 723 

Paid  out  of  my  own  pocket  in  addition  to  $250;  most  that  I disbursed 
was  per  diem  and  livery  hire  in  posting  Stephenson  literature,  and  in 
connection  with  it  I said:  “Now,  get  all  the  boys  you  can  out  to  the 
polls  on  primary  day”;  some  of  them  came  around  to  me  after  the 
primary  and  felt  that  I ought  to  pay  them  for  their  services,  and  there 
was  one  or  two  livery  bills  after  the  $250  was  gone;  I asked  no  ques- 
tions, but  paid  the  bills 708 

Spent  in  excess  of  that  received  from  Stephenson,  I do  not  think  I spent 
to  exceed  $25;  where  it  appears  in  my  testimony  before  joint  legisla- 
tive committee  that  I spent  $100  in  excess,  I was  mistaken;  I spent 

more  than  $100,  but  I did  not  spend  it  in  the  primary 708 

Names  of  men  to  whom  I paid  money  not  given  to  joint  legislative  commit- 
tee, for  a personal  reason  which  was  that  I did  not  propose  to  answer  any 
of  Senator  Husting’s  or  Senator  Marsh’s  questions  unless  I took  a notion  to; 
the  men  never  did  object  to  my  giving  their  names;  only  reason  I refused 
to  answer  was  the  question  of  feeling  between  the  members  of  the  com- 
mittee and  me 715,  716 

Nomination  papers,  I did  not  circulate  them  in  my  own  behalf;  I did  not 
canvass  my  constituency  for  nomination  prior  to  filing  of  papers;  I can  not 
give  date  I signed  them,  very  likely  the  same  day  they  were  filed;  circu- 
lated by  friends  in  various  townships  of  county;  I could  not  give  you  the 
name  of  any  one  person  now,  but  I could  furnish  you  the  papers  with 

their  names  attached 701,  702 

Offices  held,  prior  to  1910,  district  attorney,  county  judge,  and  member  of 

assembly  from  Richland  County,  1908-9 701 

Primaries,  I carried  the  county  by  between  three  and  four  hundred;  A.  L. 

Hatch  was  other  candidate  for  Republican  nomination 714 

Privileged  witness,  I do  not  recall  saying  that  I was  one;  but  undoubtedly 
I did,  because  it  appears  in  my  testimony  before  joint  legislative  com- 
mittee; but  I had  nothing  in  mind,  because  I not  only  was  not  priv- 
ileged, but  I went  there  and  requested  the  privilege  of  testifying 719 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


IX 


Page. 

Bancroft,  Levi  H.,  elected  attorney  general  in  1910,  Richland  Center,  Wis.,  tes- 
timony of — Continued. 

Puelicher,  conversation  with  him  as  given  in  my  testimony  before  joint 
legislative  committee,  as  follows,  substantially  correct:  I said  my  method 
would  be  to  put  a little  money  in  each  town  and  get  some  active  indi- 
vidual; I explained  to  him  ours  was  a dairy  county,  that  Cook  was 
friendly  with  dairy  people,  and  that  there  was  every  indication  he  would 
carry  it;  said  to  him  my  idea  would  be  to  get  a man  in  each  precinct  to 
be  at  factories  to  talk  for  Stephenson,  find  out  who  his  friends  were,  and 

have  an  agreement  with  them  to  take  voters  to  polls 704,  705 

Puelicher,  conversation  with,  in  report  of  my  testimony  before  joint  legis- 
lative committee,  as  follows,  is  correct:  My  experience  was  that  men 
did  not  want  to  do  work  without  compensation;  he  estimated  then  that 
$250  would  cover  my  proposition  of  putting  $10  in  a precinct,  and  asked 
me  to  take  charge  of  it;  I expressed  reluctance,  because  when  I manage 
anything  I like  to  take  an  active,  open  interest,  and  in  this  case  I could 
not;  he  expressly  stated  he  wanted  it  understood  that  not  one  dollar  of 

this  was  for  my  personal  campaign 706 

Puelicher,  I do  not  think  I made  the  statement  to  him,  as  in  report  of  my 
testimony  before  joint  legislative  committee,  that  at  least  $10  should  be 
spent  in  each  precinct;  I told  him  that  I thought  $10  would  be  all  suffi- 
cient for  each  precinct;  I do  not  say  that  I did  not  make  that  statement 
when  I testified,  but  that  I do  not  think  I made  it  to  Puelicher;  that 

was  a sort  of  slip  of  the  tongue  there 705,  706 

Puelicher,  John  H.,  cashier  of  Marshall  & Ilsley  Bank;  I received  $250 
from  him;  he  stated  it  was  on  behalf  of  Stephenson;  I think  I received 
it  July  31;  I was  asked  by  telephone  to  come  here,  and  I came  down 
and  went  over  to  the  bank  in  response  to  the  message;  I went  to  Stephen- 
son’s headquarters  in  Milwaukee  and  was  sent  over  to  see  him;  we  went 
out  to  lunch  together  for  perhaps  two  hours  and  talked  over  campaign 

generally 703, 704, 707 

Report  as  to  what  was  done  with  the  money  and  to  whom  it  was  paid,  I 
never  made  one  to  Puelicher  or  anyone  else  in  charge  of  Stephenson 

campaign,  because  I was  never  asked  to 716 

Statute,  requiring  filing  of  itemized  statement  of  expense  account,  I knew 
it  required  Stephenson  to  give  the  date,  the  person  to  whom,  and  the 
purpose  for  what  all  sums  above  $5  were  expended;  I understood  this 
statute  required  not  an  account  of  what  I did  with  his  money,  but  what 
he  did  with  it;  there  has  been  no  adjudication  on  the  subject  in  this 
State;  my  personal  opinion  is  that  it  has  not  been  evaded  by  me,  and  that 
there  is  nothing  in  the  law  that  says  his  agents  shall  file  an  account;  it 

says  that  he  shall  do  it 720,  721 

Stephenson,  Senator: 

As  a member  of  legislature  I voted  for  him  on  every  ballot,  both  in  1907 

and  1909 717 

Been  his  friend  for  10  or  15  years;  I had  supported  him  before  in  1907; 

I think  I was  responsible  for  his  election  and  supported  him  after- 
wards   721 

Did  not  meet  him  any  time  prior  to  August  1,  1908,  and  discuss  with 
him  his  nomination;  I did  not  receive  any  money  from  him  prior  to 
September  1,  1908,  to  be  used  by  me  in  forwarding  his  nomination..  702 
How  elected  by  legislature;  there  were  very  few  ballots  taken  when 
there  were  not  some  absentees;  there  were  a number  of  ballots  taken 
when  if  all  of  Stephenson’s  friends — that  is,  who  were  voting  for 
him  consistently — were  present  he  would  have  been  elected;  finally 
there  came  a day  when  there  were  some  absentees  and  there  were 
enough  Stephenson  men  present  so  that  he  had  a majority  and  was 
elected;  afterwards  there  was  talk  that  certain  three  Democrats 

were  absent;  that  is  all  rumor 718 

Present  January  26  when  he  received  a majority  of  the  votes  of  the 
assembly  for  office  of  United  States  Senator;  journal  shows  that  on 
same  day  he  received  a majority  of  votes  in  the  State  Senate;  result 
would  have  been  same  on  joint  ballot  if  parties  who  instigated  this 
investigation  had  not  gone  to  certain  members  and  induced  them 
to  vote  against  him  on  first  day  of  joint  ballot 724 


X 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Pag©. 

Bancroft,  Levi  H.,  elected  attorney  general  in  1910,  Richland  Center,  Wis.,  tes- 
timony of — Continued 

Stephenson  money,  not  a cent  used  in  my  own  campaign;  I took  it  very 
reluctantly,  simply  because  I was  a supporter  of  Stephenson  and  a 

friend  and  did  not  like  to  refuse 723 

Speaker  of  the  house,  I was  elected  as  a member  of  the  legislature  after 
the  usual  contest;  there  were  some  half  dozen  candidates  up  to  night 
of  the  Republican  caucus,  and  at  that  time  I think  they  all  withdrew  with 
exception  of  George  Scott;  I was  elected  in  the  caucus  as  the  Republican 
candidate  to  be  voted  for  in  open  session  and  I was  elected;  continued 
to  be  speaker  throughout  the  proceedings  as  a result  of  which  Stephen- 
son was  elected  to  United  States  Senate 716,  717 

Sum  of  $250  sufficient,  why  I thought  so  as  explained  in  testimony  before 
joint  legislative  committee;  my  experience  has  been  that  you  can  get 
a man  to  do  conscientious  work  for  a moderate  compensation  and  that 
the  payment  of  any  more  than  that  will  give  you  poorer  work  than  if 

you  give  him  what  his  services  are  worth 714 

Testimony  before  joint  legislative  committee  that  I was  approached  by 

managers  of  other  candidates  is  true 714 

Vote  at  primary,  with  all  of  the  money  that  was  spent  by  the  four  candi- 
dates for  United  States  Senator  and  the  various  candidates  for  State, 
legislative,  and  county  offices,  we  have  never  had  out  50  per  cent  of  the 

vote  and  seldom  40  per  cent 723 

Wood,  L.  C.,  placarded  the  city  of  Richland  Center  and  villages  of 
Lone  Rock,  Gotham,  and  Twin  Bluffs;  I probablv  paid  him  $10  or  $15, 

maybe  $20 * 712,713 

Barber,  Whitman  A.,  farmer,  Sheboygan  County,  Wis.,  affidavit  of 1996 

Age,  57  years 1996 

Campaign  committee,  received  from,  in  all  $300;  expenditure  of  $171.50 
actually  expended,  detailed;  balance,  $128.50,  retained  to  cover  per- 
sonal expenses  and  to  compensate  him  for  his  services 1996 

Men  employed  to  assist  in  the  campaign  at  the  polling  places,  and  other- 
wise, were  Stephenson  supporters  at  the  time  of  their  employment 1996 

Money  not  disbursed  for  the  purpose  of  corruptly  or  unlawfully  influencing 

or  bribing  any  person 1996 

Primary  campaign,  at  all  times  a supporter  of  Stephenson  in;  devoted 
about  three  weeks’  time  traveling  about  Sheboygan  County  posting,  or 
causing  to  be  posted,  literature,  lithographs,  and  campaign  material, 
interviewing  many  friends,  and  advocating  election  of  Stephenson  by 

interviews,  persuasion,  and  argument 1996 

Sheboygan,  county  of,  resided  in  during  all  his  life 1996 

Bell,  Merton  J.,  lumber  business,  Minneapolis,  Minn.,  testimony  of 1864 

Absence  of  members,  Shields  said  it  was  an  easy  matter  to  keep  certain 
members  out  while  the  vote  was  being  taken;  said  “Lots  of  fellows  had 

their  hand  out,”  or  something  of  that  kind 1865,1866 

Brule,  moved  from,  to  Minneapolis  about  two  years  ago 1866, 1867 

Crownhart,  Charles,  talked  with  him  and  wrote  him  a letter  about  my  con- 
versation with  Shields;  do  not  remember  time  of  conversation  with,  but 

it  was  on  a train  between  Minneapolis  and  St.  Paul 1869, 1870, 1871 

Paulson,  L.  C.,  my  partner,  first  mentioned  my  conversation  with  Shields 

to  him 1868,1869 

Shields,  do  not  know  whether  any  one  heard  my  conversation  with,  in 

West  Baden 1868 

Shields  never  stated  he  was  an  enemy  of  mine;  we  have  been  friendly; 
have  been  on  opposite  sides  in  politics;  had  political  controversy  with,  m 

primary  election  of  1906 1870, 1871, 1872 

Shields,  Robert  J.,  have  known  12  or  15  years;  saw  him  in  West  Baden, 

Ind.,  in  February  or  March,  1910;  talked  with  him  there  on  the  subject 

of  the  election  of  Senator  Stephenson 1864, 1865 

Shields  told  me  he  was  in  Madison  to  help  to  elect  Mr.  Stephenson;  that 
he  got  a special  train  to  bring  some  member  of  the  legislature  to  Madison; 


said  it  was  an  easy  matter  to  keep  certain  members  out  while  the  vote 
was  being  taken;  said  he  “helped  get  Uncle  Ike  get  elected”- 


: fixed 

it  up,”  “pulled  it  off,”  or  “got  it  through”;  said  “Lots  of  fellows  had 

their  hand  out,  ” or  something  like  that 1865, 1866 

West  Baden,  Ind.,  had  conversation  with  Shields  there  relative  to  the 
election  of  Senator  Stephenson ; went  there  for  treatment. . 1865, 1866, 1867, 1868 
Wilkinson,  arrived  in  West  Baden  a few  days  after  I did 1867, 1868 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


XI 


Page. 

Beyer,  George,  president  of  the  Oconto  National  Bank,  Oconto,  Wis.,  testi- 
mony of 880,  909 

Account,  did  not  render  one  to  anybody;  was  not  asked  to;  have  always 

been  prepared  to  furnish  one 882 

Borich,  paid  him  $5 881 

Classon,  Chris,  paid  him  $5 881 

Cook,  W.  P.,  got  $300  from  me;  he  arranged  with  Edmonds,  but  Edmonds 
sent  money  to  me;  he  got  a rig  and  made  a canvass  throughout  counties, 

but  how  he  used  money  I can  not  say 881,  882,  883,  909 

Hanson,  paid  him  $10  August  29;  suppose  he  used  it  to  get  people  to  polls 

to  vote 880,  881 

Harris,  paid  him  $5  to  get  people  to  polls 881 

Jones,  paid  him  $20  to  get  people  to  polls;  I think  he  had  a couple  of  teams; 
came  back  and  wanted  $12.40  more,  and  I paid  him,  and  he  had  a livery 

bill  that  came  to  $1.50,  and  I paid  that 881 

Money  not  paid  out  for  purpose  of  bribing  or  corrupting  electors 883 

Money  received  from  Edmonds  in  all  $400;  paid  out  $405.90 880, 

881,  882,  883,  884,  909 

O’Kelleher,  paid  him  $20  to  get  people  to  polls 881 

Richard,  A.,  paid  him  $10  to  get  people  to  polls 881 

Schulze,  C.,  paid  him  $5  for  his  day’s  work;  he  got  all  the  friends  he  had  to 

the  polls  to  vote  for  Stephenson 881 

Shallor,  got  $5 881 

Statements  based  on  memoranda  made  upon  an  envelope  in  which  one  of 
checks  came  to  me,  bearing  postmark  of  August  29, 1908 ; memoranda  made 

at  time  of  disbursements 883 

Stephenson,  I supported  him  in  primary  campaign  of  1908 880 

Teneson,  Louis,  paid  him  $5;  he  came  back  and  said  he  had  a friend  that  he 

wanted  to  help  him,  and  I gave  him  $2  to  pay  for  his  day’s  work 881 

Bissonette,  Edwin  S.,  contractor,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  affidavit  of 1996 

Age,  37  years 1996 

Bowman,  Harry,  of  Genesee,  received  $300  from,  for  personal  expenses  and 
services;  understood  was  furnished  by  Stephenson  campaign  head- 
quarters, distributed  by  him;  claims  $150  for  compensation  for  services; 
balance  expended  in  paying  personal  expenses,  for  travel,  hotel  bills, 

entertainment,  cigars,  telephone,  and  correspondence 1997 

Campaign  work  done  in  the  city  of  Milwaukee,  Cudahy,  South  Milwaukee, 
Watertown,  and  Oconomowoc  during  primary  contest  for  Senator;  wide 
acquaintance  in  places  mentioned;  met  great  many  people  and  friends  and 

advocated  Stephenson’s  election 1996, 1997 

Milwaukee,  resided  in  for  past  8 years 1996 

Money  not  disbursed  for  the  purpose  of  corruptly  or  unlawfully  influencing 

or  bribing  any  person ' 1997 

Statement  of  expenditures,  never  called  upon  to  furnish  itemized;  never 

occurred  to  him  to  keep  an  accurate  account 1997 

Stephenson,  supporter  of,  prior  to  engagement. 1997 

Black,  W.  E.,  letters  turned  over  to  the  committee  by 2098,  2099,  2100 

Black,  W.  E.,  member  of  law  firm  of  Cary,  Upham  &‘ Black,  Milwaukee,  Wis., 

and  counsel  for  Senator  Stephenson,  statement  of 1254, 1788 

Box;  gave  instructions  to  have  it  taken  back  to  Wells  from  Marinette  after 
joint  committee  had  finished,  when  McMahon  was  again  called  to  stand 
and  testified  in  relation  to  it  before  Senate  committee  on  May  6 (1909) . 1791, 1793 

Box  had  been  opened  at  Marinette 1791 

Box,  I was  not  asked  for  any  information  on  subject  by  Wisconsin  senate 

committee. 1793 

Box,  instructions  that  nothing  in  should  be  destroyed  or  tampered  with.  1255, 1791 
Box  of  papers,  first  knew  of  2d  or  3d  of  March,  1909;  at  that  time  it  was  at 

Marinette 1255,1789,1792 

Box  or  contents,  not  called  for  by  legislative  committee 1255 

Box  remained  at  Wells,  Mich.,  until  shortly  after  April  2,  1909,  when 
McMahon  testified  in  regard  to  it  having  Ibeen  prepared  for  shipment 
to  Marinette;  thereupon  I ordered  the  stuff  brought  back  to  Marinette, 

so  that  I would  be  in  a position,  if  called  upon,  to  produce  it 1791, 1793 

Edmonds,  have  not  talked  with  him  with  respect  to  whereabouts  of  papers; 
so  far  as  I know  had  no  knowledge  of  existance  of  papers  when  he  was 
on  stand 1256,1257 


XII 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page. 

Black,  W.  E.,  member  of  law  firm  of  Cary,  Upham  & Black,  Milwaukee,  Wis., 
and  counsel  for  Senator  Stephenson,  statement  of — Continued. 

Files,  my  information  and  belief  is  that  no  papers  have  been  taken  from, 

since  they  left  the  Stephenson  headquarters  here  in  Milwaukee 1794 

Lambeck,  only  know  he  shipped  box  to  Marinette  through  McMahon’s 

testimony;  presume  it  was  sent  to  Stephenson 1256 

MacLean,  R.  E.,  manager  of  I.  Stephenson  Co.,  at  Wells,  had  Russell 
meet  him  at  Menominee,  4th  of  March,  1909,  and  convey  my  instruc- 
tion to  him;  I am  informed  he  went  over  (to  Marinette)  and  got  the  cor- 
respondence and  took  it  to  Wells;  he  took  it  from  the  files  that  had 
been  taken  out  of  the  box  and  were  in  Miss  Stringham’s  office  at  Mari- 
nette  1255, 1256, 1790, 1792 

McMahon,  knew  that  he  testified  correspondence  had  been  gone  over  and 
selected  from  before  shipped;  understood  it  was  separation  of  Edmonds’s 

personal  matters 1794,1795 

Papers,  object  in  sending  them  to  Michigan,  not  because  I feared  there 
would  be  anything  damaging  to  Stephenson’s  case,  but  that  a lot  of  cor- 
respondence from  all  over  State,  written  by  various  people  (although  I 
did  not  know  exactly  what  it  was),  might  contain  things  that  would 
cause  trouble;  did  not  think  this  correspondence  should  be  produced 
before  Senate  committee,  to  be  made  use  of  in  harassing  these  various 

people 1256, 1792, 1793, 1794 

Russell,  C.  C.,  sent  him  to  Wells,  Mich.,  second  day  after  present  investi- 
gation with  instructions  to  get  all  of  that  stuff  and  get  it  down  here. . 1255, 1789 
Russell,  went  to  Wells  9th  of  March  (1909);  made  an  examination  of  cor- 
respondence, which  was  then  at  Wells,  having  been  taken  up  there  on 

the  4th  or  5th  (by  McLean) . . . . 1792, 1794 

Russell,  when  I discovered  from  cursory  examination  that  correspondence 
was  mixed  up,  I gave  him  instructions  to  get  the  stenographers  and 
have  it  arranged  alphabetically  and  put  back  in  files  in  order,  which  he 

did;  instructed  him  to  remove  nothing 1790 

Sacket,  knew  within  a day  or  two  that  papers  were  over  at  my  office,  but 
not  before  he  was  on  the  stand;  so  far  as  1 know,  had  no  knowledge  of 

existence  of  papers  when  he  was  on  stand 1256, 1257, 1794 

Stephenson,  first  connection  with  in  relation  to  campaign,  was  after  it  had 
closed  and  a day  or  two  before  investigation  began  at  Madison;  had  no 
connection  with  his  headquarters  in  campa;gn;  members  of  my  firm 

have  been  attorneys  for,  for  years 1788, 1789 

Stephenson,  was  in  Washington  at  time  I had  box  sent  from  Marinette  to 

Wells,  Mich.,  and  I did  not  confer  with  him  at  all 1255 

Stringham,  Miss,  Stephenson’s  secretary,  told  me  about  papers  in  box  at 

Marinette - - 1789, 1792 

Trunk  contains  correspondence,  poll  lists,  and  mailing  cards,  in  fact,  all 

that  was  contained  m box  to  which  McMahon  testified 1254, 1255 

Trunk,  when  it  came  to  our  office,  was  first  time  I saw  it;  reached  our  office 
October  10  (1911)  by  express  directly  from  Wells;  it  was  locked  and  the 
key  was  given  to  me;  unlocked  it  in  presence  of  Russell;  did  not  make 
anything  more  than  cursory  examination  of  papers  at  time;  remained  in 

our  office  until  produced  here 1255, 1256, 1789, 1790, 1792 

Wisconsin  senate  committee,  represented  Stephenson  in  a legal  capacity 

before 1794 

Blaine,  John  J.,  State  senator  from  sixteenth  district  of  Wisconsin,  testi- 
mony of 592 

Alyward,  John  A.,  told  me  about  things  charged  in  eleventh  specific  charge; 
lives  at  Madison;  got  information  for  statement  in  that  charge  in  his 
office  the  night  he  telephoned  Tilton  and  then,  also,  subsequently  when 
he  showed  me  the  letter  in  answer  to  that  telephone  message;  I was 
hunting  for  information  on  which  to  make  these  charges  and  I went  to 
him  to  inquire  about  a suggestion  he  had  made  in  some  speech,  and  this 
letter  and  telephone  were  result  of  call;  that  is  only  information  I have 

that  an  offer  of  $500  was  made  to  Tilton 627,  628 

Austin,  H.  E.,  is  Democrat,  residing  in  township  of  Hickory  Grove;  is  a 
cheese  dealer;  he  told  me  that  Stevens  had  seen  him  and  wanted  to  get 
his  support  for  Stephenson;  Stevens  did  not  tell  him  Stephenson  offered 

him  money  or  anything  of  value 621,  622 

Bribery  statute,  doubt  if  it  should  be  qualified  by  use  of  words  “corrupt 
payment”;  it  must  be  construed 640,641 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


XIII 


Page. 

Blaine,  John  J.,  State  senator  from  sixteenth  district  of  Wisconsin,  testimony 
of — Continued. 

Bribery  statute,  I construe  it  to  mean  that  the  mere  payment  of  money  to 
an  elector  by  a candidate  for  the  legislature  as  a consideration  for  some 
act  to  be  done  in  relation  to  the  primary  election,  whether  paid  in  good 
faith  or  corruptly,  should  be  a violation  of  the  statute;  I think  it  forbids 
employment  of  campaign  manager  or  anyone  appointed  to  conduct  cam- 
paign having  an  unlimited  amount  of  money  at  his  command 639,  640 

Bribery  statute,  passed  in  1897 ; one  providing  for  filing  of  expense  account 

not  passed  until  1905 641,  642 

Campbell,  Henry  C.,  made  statement  on  which  I based  sixth  specific 
charge  against  Stephenson  in  city  of  Milwaukee,  January  24,  1909;  was 
one  of  the  editors  of  the  Evening  Journal;  met  him  by  an  appointment 
made  through  William  Powell,  reporter  on  Journal,  at  Plankinton  Hotel; 
made  statements  to  me  of  things  that  had  been  brought  to  him  as  a news- 
paper man,  not  on  his  own  information;  I think  he  stated  source  of  his 
information,  but  I do  not  remember  it;  is  a Republican;  not  in  favor  of 

Stephenson . . 608,  609,  610,  611,  630 

Candidate,  in  my  opinion,  might  make  payments  to  an  elector  of  a sum 
not  beyond  what  he  ordinarily  earns  in  his  business  or  calling;  the  doing 
of  actual  work  might  be  permissible;  but  when  a sum  in  excess  of  that 

is  paid,  then  it  partakes  of  the  nature  of  bribery 640 

Charge  as  to  $250,000  in  first  specific  charge  against  Stephenson  based  upon 
information  from  Edmonds  that  he  had  charge  of  $106,000,  or  thereabouts, 
and  from  deductions  made  by  me  from  editorials  and  statements  in  the 

Free  Press 599 

Charge  that  I made,  that  Stephenson  and  his  agents  offered  money  to 
editors  other  than  Pollock,  I can  not  give  a single  instance  in  which  that 
would  be  true;  I had  no  personal  knowledge  and  no  specific  information 

on  which  to  base  the  charge  when  I made  it 624,  625 

Charge  that  three  Democrats  were  paid  to  absent  themselves  from  last 
joint  legislative  convention,  I did  not  make  any  investigation  of  it;  I 
think  the  senatorial  committee  did,  and  am  not  certain  but  that  the 
joint  committee  did;  investigation  was  public  and  whatever  they  did  is 

printed  in  record 638 

Charges,  I drew  them  up  in  my  room  in  the  city  of  Madison  after  my  return 

from  Milwaukee 647 

Charges  made  by  me  at  preceding  session  of  legislature,  not  taken  up  at 
last  session  of  legislature;  we  considered  only  the  resolution  of  Senator 
Husting,  together  with  report  of  senate  committee;  specific  charges  not 
taken  into  consideration  in  drafting  my  resolution  that  eventually  went 

to  United  States  Senate 633 

Claim  that  Democratic  members  of  legislature  absented  themselves  at  time 
Stephenson  was  elected;  I recognize  that  that  was  the  fact;  I do  not  know 
anything  about  it  only  from  what  was  reported  around  the  legislature. . . 637 

Conference  of  Republican  members,  taking  up  legislative  program,  held 
night  prior  to  time  I asked  that  my  substitute  resolution  referring  charges 
to  United  States  Senate  be  returned  to  judiciary  committee;  I explained 
it  would  be  best  to  return  resolution  before  it  interfered  with  any  legis- 
lative program;  was  last  conference  in  regard  to  charges 636,  637 

Conference  with  regard  to  pressing  charges  against  Stephenson  had  with 
Senator  Husting,  Senator  Morris  and  myself,  Senator  Sanborn,  and 
Senator  Klezka;  Senator  Klezka  is  a member  of  committee  that  reported 
resolution;  should  add  Senator  Linley,  a member  of  judiciary  committee.  636 
Conferences  in  regard  to  pressing  charges  against  Stephenson  have  been 
generally  with  Senators  Morris  and  Husting,  because  of  their  familiarity 
with  proceedings;  they  are  about  the  only  ones  who  have  conferred  upon 

this  subject 636 

Democrat,  as  a matter  of  personal  knowledge  I do  not  know  of  any  Demo- 
crat to  whom  Stephenson  either  personally  or  through  his  agents  paid 

money 620 

Democrats,  absent  when  Stephenson  was  elected  were:  Assemblymen 
Towne,  Farrel,  and  Ramsey;  absent  from  last  joint  convention;  it  was 
reported  that  they  had  walked  out  with  intention  of  making  a sufficient 
number  absent  to  give  Stephenson  the  election;  I know  there  was  a 
rumor  they  had  been  paid  to  do  it;  I have  no  personal  knowledge  of  it. . 637, 638 


XIV 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page. 

Blaine,  John  J.,  State  senator  from  sixteenth  district  of  Wisconsin,  testimony 

of — Continued. 

Eastman,  I have  known  him  greater  part  of  my  life;  I think  he  is  a man 
of  character  and  standing  in  his  community;  I could  not  say  he  has  a good 
reputation  for  truth  and  veracity;  I do  not  know  that  he  denied  the 
testimonv  I gave  before  joint  committee;  I did  not  read  his  testimony. . 645,  646 
Eastman,  0.  A.,  met  me  in  Madison  and  asked  me  not  to  use  my  influence 
for  an  investigation,  because  there  was  a meeting  at  Platteville,  where 
he  was  present  with  some  Cook  supporters,  and  that  they  had  changed  to 
Stephenson  and  that  he  got  money  for  changing;  said  he  got  money 

from  the  Stephenson  people;  did  not  say  which  one 618,  619 

Editor  of  Appleton  Crescent,  did  not  talk  with  him  about  editorial  state- 
ment as  contained  in  sixth  specific  charge;  never  saw  him;  did  not 
write  him,  as  I neither  had  the  time  or  money  to  make  an  extended 
investigation;  did  not  telephone  him;  had  no  reason  to  believe  that  he 

was  not  a reliable  man 615 

Editorial,  produced  to  sustain  ninth  specific  charge,  because  Bishop  is  a 
Democrat  and  he  wrote  the  article;  I do  not  remember  that  it  was  written 

prior  to  time  I filed  charges 621 

Edmonds,  gave  me  information  that  he  had  charge  of  $106,000  or  thereabouts 
to  disburse  in  campaign  for  Stephenson,  as  his  manager;  his  statement 
that  he  had  charge  of  this  fund  was  basis  for  first  specific  charge  against 
Stephenson;  he  gave  me  no  facts  about  expenditure  of  money;  I based 

charge  upon  payment  of  money  to  him  for  him  to  disburse 598,  600 

Eighth  specific  charge  against  Stephenson,  that  is  only  a general  charge 
and  intended  to  give  the  committee,  if  appointed,  an  opportunity  to 
make  a thorough,  wide  examination;  no  information  directly;  am  not 
prepared  to  give  any  statement  of  facts  within  my  knowledge  upon  which 

I made  charge - - . 620 

Election  of  Stephenson,  I was  present  in  the  joint  assembly;  I do  not 

remember  for  whom  I voted  on  the  last  ballot 637 

Eleventh  specific  charge,  based  upon  public  speeches  made  by  John  A. 

Ay  1 ward,  Democratic  candidate  for  governor,  and  upon  a letter  from 

Tilton  to  Aylward - 626 

Fifteenth  specific  charge  against  Stephenson,  I examined  the  secretary  of 
state’s  files,  or  had  the  proper  clerk  examine  them,  and  found  no  expense 
account;  I do  not  controvert  that  the  date  indorsed  upon  the  expense 

items  is  correct 630,  631 

Fifth  specific  charge  against  Stephenson,  based  upon  statement  of  Henry 

C.  Campbell,  of  Milwaukee 608 

Filed  a return  as  a candidate  in  1898;  showed  that  I spent  just  a few  dollars; 

think  it  was  for  postage;  I had  no  opposition  in  the  primaries 645 

First  specific  charge  against  Stephenson,  I made  it;  based  it  upon  infor- 
mation gained  from  E.  A.  Edmonds  and  upon  speeches  made  by  John  A. 
Aylward,  Democratic  candidate  for  governor;  considered  things  charged 
therein  to  be  a violation  of  section  4542b  of  statute,  as  Stephenson  paid 

money  to  an  elector,  Edmonds 593,  594,  595,  596,  597,  598,  601,  602 

First  two  specific  charges,  do  not  characterize  expenditure  of  money  as 
having  been  corrupt  or  unlawful,  except  by  way  of  reference  to  the  sec- 
tion of  the  statute;  why  so  drafted 638,  639 

Fourteenth  specific  charge  against  Stephenson,  I have  no  personal  knowl- 
edge of  the  facts  set  forth  in;  recollect  Henry  C.  Campbell  told  me  the 

things  stated  therein 630 

Fourth  specific  charge  against  Stephenson,  I have  no  knowledge  of  the 
facts  therein  only  as  conveyed  to  me  by  James  A.  Stone  in  his  letter  in 
evidence;  I have  no  personal  information  on  which  I based  charge. . . 606,  608 
Free  Press,  it  was  generally  understood  that  Stephenson  owned  the  great 
majority  of  its  stock;  my  knowledge  as  to  Stephenson’s  ownership  in, 
when  I filed  specific  charge  No.  1,  was  gained  only  from  libel  suits  against 

Free  Press,  which  developed  who  were  the  stockholders 599 

Governor  was  never  directed  to  send  resolution  to  United  States  Senate; 
the  secretary  of  state  was  directed  to  send  certain  documents  to  United 
States  Senate  and  the  resolution  that  I drafted  specified  these  documents.  634 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


XV 


Page. 

Blaine,  John  J.,  State  senator  from  sixteenth  district  of  Wisconsin,  testimony 

of — Continued. 

Hambright,  I did  not  have  a statement  from  him  upon  which  I based  fifth 
specific  charge;  I did  not  know  him;  do  not  now;  have  learned  nothing 
about  him;  have  no  knowledge  as  to  money  being  paid  by  Stephenson  or 
his  agents,  directly  or  indirectly,  to  him;  I have  no  opinion  of  what 
amount  “large  sums  of  money  ” designated  in  charge  as  paid  him  would 

be 612,613 

Hatton,  I supported  him  for  the  Senate  in  primary  campaign;  was  a Repub- 
lican   - - - 611 

Husting  resolution,  was  one  providing  for  investigation  without  naming 

specific  charges;  was  defeated 631 

Investigation,  I started  machinery  of  it  in  motion  absolutely  on  my  own 
volition;  without  any  more  specific  instances  than  I have  disclosed; 
in  so  doing  absolutely  not  used  by  any  man  or  organization  for  purpose  of 

making  attack  on  Stephenson 635 

Journal,  opposed  to  Stephenson;  I had  not  been  cooperating  with,  in 

opposition  to  Stephenson;  classified  as  nonpartisan 610,  647 

Law,  I have  been  practicing  since  Sept.  1,  1896,  in  the  city  of  Boscobel. . . 635 

Legislature  that  elected  Stephenson  early  in  March  adjourned  about 
June  17;  no  attempt  made  in  that  legislature  to  refer  charges  to  United 

States  Senate 638 

Letter  from  Lester  Tilton  to  John  A.  Alyward  read  from  record  of  testimony 

before  joint  legislative  committee 626,  627 

Members  of  legislature  instrumental  in  pressing  charges  against  Stephenson; 
Senator  Morris,  La  Crosse;  Senator  Marsh,  Neillsville;  Senator  Husting, 
Maysville;  and,  I think,  Speaker  C.  A.  Ingram,  Durand,  of  the  assembly; 

names  are  of  those  who  have  been  active 635,  636 

Milwaukee,  I had  come  to  the  city  to  investigate  before  making  the  formal 

charges  in  full - - 609 

Morse,  Roy,  I have  no  personal  knowledge  of  his  receiving  money  as 
charged  in  sixth  specific  charge;  I do  not  know  that  testimony,  undisputed 
so  far,  shows  that  he  was  paid  $450  out  of  campaign  funds,  and  that  that  is 

all  he  received,  and  that  the  expenditure  has  been  accounted  for 613,  615 

My  object  in  preparing  a substitute  resolution  when  the  matter  was  already 
before  legislature,  Stephenson  had  been  elected  by  the  legislature  and  it 
had  gone  beyond  the  jurisdiction  of  the  legislature;  we  could  not  revoke 

his  election 634,635 

Ninth  specific  charge  against  Stephenson,  that  is  a general  charge,  I had  in 
mind  rumors  in  reference  to  two  Democrats  at  that  time;  had  no  personal 
knowledge  of  facts  on  which  I based  charge;  got  information  on  which 
charges  were  based  from  an  editorial  by  Mr.  Bishop  in  the  Bloomington 
Record,  a Democratic  paper,  published  at  Bloomington,  Wis.;  rests  also 

on  statement  of  Mr.  Stevens 620,  621,  623 

Nominated  at  direct  primary  election  in  September,  1908 593 

Office,  did  not  hold  any,  in  1908;  elected  to,  in  November,  1908  592,  593 

Part  I took  in  securing  a reference  .of  investigation  to  the  United  States 
Senate  by  the  present  Legislature  of  Wisconsin,  Husting  resolution  sub- 
mitted to  judiciary  committee  of  State  senate,  of  which  I was  chairman; 

I took  matter  up  with  Senator  Husting  as  to  some  parts  I suggested 
should  be  changed,  which  was  agreeable  to  him;  I merely  redrafted  the 
substance  of  the  resolution  and  put  in  resolves  for  the  submission  to  the 

United  States  Senate  of  this  whole  question 632,  633 

Pollock,  Edward,  editor  of  Lancaster  Teller,  mentioned  in  editorial  claim- 
ing that  Democrats  were  purchased  by  Stephenson,  upon  which  ninth 

specific  charge  was  based,  is  a Republican 621 

Pollock,  Edward,  told  me  that  some  one  offered  him  money;  I do  not  know 

what  the  sums  were;  he  did  not  tell  me  who  offered  it  to  him 623,  624 

Reason  for  my  filing  specific  charges  against  Stephenson,  the  legislature 
having  defeated  the  Husting  resolution  to  make  the  investigation  without 
specific  charges,  and  it  being  stated  by  members  of  the  committee  they 
would  not  make  any  inquiry  or  vote  for  an  investigation  without  specific 
charges,  I therefore  concluded  to  file  the  specific  charges,  with  the  idea 
it  would  bring  about  an  investigation;  I thought  it  was  my  duty  toward 

public  to  see  that  matter  was  investigated 611,  644,  649 

Republican,  I am  now  and  was  one  then 611 

15235°— 11 ii 


XVI 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page. 

Blaine,  John  J.,  State  senator  from  sixteenth  district  of  Wisconsin,  testimony 

of — Continued. 

Resolution  as  corrected,  which  became  subject  of  inquiry,  was  drafted  by 
myself,  and  I presented  it  to  the  committee  late  in  the  session  of  1911;  it 
was  brought  out  upon  floor  of  senate  and  was  put  over  from  time  to  time 
at  my  request  and  finally  sent  back  to  our  committee;  no  investigation 
in  State  legislature  based  upon  it;  merely  related  to  reference  of  matter 
to  United  States  Senate;  I do  not  think  resolution  purports  to  refer  spe- 
cific charges 634 

Resolution  introduced  by  Senator  Husting  and  substitute  amendment 
thereto  introduced  by  the  judiciary  committee  of  the  State  senate,  with 

letter  of  transmittal  from  Blaine 649,  650,  651 

Reynolds,  Thomas,  assemblyman  from  Door  County,  told  me  that  he  had 
received  pay,  but  that  he  did  not  consider  that  it  was  a violation  of  any 
law;  said  he  received  money  to  work  for  Stephenson  from  Stephenson 

personally 628,629 

Second  specific  charge  against  Stephenson,  based  upon  violation  of  section 
45426  of  statute;  Edmonds  having  stated  he  had  $106,000  to  be  disbursed 
through  him,  I could  only  conclude  it  was  to  be  disbursed  to  individuals, 
and  if  any  amount  of  it  were  paid  to  an  individual  to  do  something  in  the 
primary  election  and  paid  as  a valuable  thing,  it  violated  statute;  charge 
based  upon  my  interpretation  of  law  rather  than  knowledge  as  to  char- 
acter of  disbursements 602 

Senator,  my  position  was  not  to  support  anyone  in  the  legislature  until  the 
investigation  was  closed;  I cast  my  vote  on  the  several  days  for  various 

men — all  Republicans 611,  612 

Seventh  specific  charge  against  Stephenson;  made  on  information  from  Ste- 
vens and  Eastman;  I have  no  personal  knowledge  that  either  of  them 

used  the  money  for  any  purpose 616,  619 

Sixteenth  specific  charge  against  Stephenson 631 

Sixth  specific  charge,  I have  not  examined  the  testimony  to  ascertain  if 
only  $450  has  been  paid;  I take  the  chairman’s  statement  for  that;  and 
that  information  can  be  corrected,  as  $450  instead  of  $1,000 — a pretty 

close  guess 616 

Sixth  specific  charge  against  Stephenson,  my  best  recollection  is  that  that 
was  contained  in  an  editorial  published  in  the  Appleton  Crescent,  Apple- 
ton,  Wis.;  I do  not  seem  to  have  the  editorial  and  do  not  believe  it  was 
produced  before  the  other  committee;  I did  not  have  time  to  ascertain 
upon  what  editorial  was  based;  I am  quite  positive  editorial  stated  $1,000 

as  sum  paid  to  Morse;  did  not  make  charge  under  oath 613,  616 

Specific  charges  against  Stephenson,  I have  no  personal  knowledge  and  did 
not  have  when  I filed  them,  that  the  primary  nomination  or  election  of 
Stephenson  was  obtained  by  the  use  of  large  sums  of  money  corruptly  and 
illegally  used;  I have  no  other  charges  to  make  based  upon  facts  within 
my  personal  knowledge;  no  other  charges  than  mine  were  filed  or  made 

basis  of  examination  into  validity  of  Stephenson’s  election 631,  632 

Specific  charges,  based  upon  a public  belief  of  the  general  charges  taken 
as  a whole,  that  the  election  was  obtained  by  the  methods  set  forth  in 

the  charges 642 

Specific  charges,  I made  them  irrespective  of  whether  I had  sufficient  evi- 
dence to  sustain  them;  wholly  with  object  of  having  an  investigation...  644 
Statute,  in  regard  to  bribery  in  connection  with  caucus,  section  45426; 
statute  providing  for  punishment  of  same,  4542a;  extending  provision  of 

this  act  to  primary  elections 600,  601,  602 

Statute,  section  45436,  in  connection  with  testimony  as  to  twelfth  specific 

charge 629 

Statute,  with  regard  to  bribery,  section  4478,  4478a,  and  4479 604,  605 

Statutes,  mentioned  in  charges,  I can  not  state  positively  whether  there 

has  been  any  judicial  construction  of  them  by  the  local  courts 644 

Stephenson,  as  member  of  State  senate  in  session  commencing  in  January, 

1909,  I participated  in  investigation  affecting  his  election;  I presented 

a substitute  resolution  and  filed  specific  charges 593 

Stephenson,  I do  not  know  personally  whether  or  not  it  is  true  he  or  his 
agents  paid  to  an  elector  of  the  State  of  a different  political  opinion  any 

money 623 

Stephenson,  I have  no  personal  knowledge  of  any  facts  touching  his  nomi- 
nation or  election  which  would  challenge  the  validity  of  either  of  them.  635, 

643,  644 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Blaine,  John  J.,  State  senator  from  sixteenth  district  of  Wisconsin,  testimony 
of — Continued. 

Stephenson,  I was  opposed  to  him  both  in  the  primary  and  subsequently. 
Stevens,  I have  known  him  since  early  in  the  nineties;  I think,  generally 
speaking,  he  is  a man  of  character  and  standing  in  his  community;  I 
will  not  say  he  has  a good  reputation  for  truth  and  veracity;  I do  not 
know  how  much  of  the  testimony  I gave  before  the  joint  committee  he 

denied;  I did  not  read  his  testimony 

Stevens,  L.  H.,  said  that  he  was  going  to  be  paid  more  than  $5  a day  and  ex- 
penses for  working  for  Stephenson  and  “picking”  off  Hatton  and  McGov- 
ern men;  would  get  men  to  work  for  Stephenson  instead  of  Hatton  and 
McGovern;  he  said  he  would  pay  them  for  their  services;  I do  not  know 
what  services  he  meant;  I do  not  know  whether  he  did  pay  money  to 

other  persons 617,618 

Stevens  mentioned  Austin  when  he  was  talking  to  me;  said  he  had  been  try- 
ing to  get  him  to  work  for  Stephenson;  said  he  was  hiring  all  the  people 
he  could;  I do  not  know  whether  he  tried  to  hire  Austin;  he  said  he 
wanted  to  know  of  me  about  Austin;  I told  him  he  was  a Democrat;  he 

said  he  knew  it  and  he  could  not  get  him 622 

Stone,  James  A.,  his  letter  to  me  as  printed  in  record  of  joint  legislative 
committee;  original  letter  was  delivered  to  legislative  committee;  I 
read  a copy  of  it  to  committee;  there  were  eliminations  in  copy  as  I read 
it,  which  referred  to  a subsequent  campaign  of  a public  man  in  this  State 

and  I considered  had  no  relation  to  investigation 607,  608 

Stone  letter,  recollect  I handed  it  to  the  chairman  in  Madison;  it  had  the 
date  upon  it  then;  I have  not  seen  it  since;  I do  not  know  whether  I 
handed  it  to  Mr.  Marsh,  chairman  of  the  committee,  or  to  the  committee; 
so  far  as  I know  it  must  be  in  possession  of  committee;  I do  not  know 
how  he  came  to  write  me  the  letter;  never  talked  with  him  about  charges 

before  he  wrote  it 647,  648 

Tenth  specific  charge  against  Stephenson  was  the  result  of  having  read  an 
editorial  in  the  Lancaster  Teller  and  talked  to  Mr.  Pollock,  the  editor; 
motive  for  making  charge,  holding  the  position  of  State  senator,  I thought 
it  my  duty;  I did  not  expect  to  sustain  it  from  my  own  knowledge;  I 

could  not;  I had  a strong  belief  on  which  to  sustain  it 623,  624,  625,  642,  643 

Term  commenced  in  January,  1909,  and  expires  in  January,  1913 592 

Third  specific  charge  against  Stephenson  follows  and  was  based  on  same 
information  I had  in  reference  to  charges  1 and  2;  it  was  to  be  inclusive; 
based  upon  section  4478  of  statute  which  defines  bribery  differently  from 
sections  covered  in  first  two  charges,  and  I put  that  in  as  a conclusion, 
so  that  that  section  would  be  covered;  section  4478  uses  the  word  “cor- 
ruptly” and  that  is  why  I used  it  in  this  charge;  have  no  knowledge  of 
any  specific  acts  upon  which  to  base  the  charge  of  bribing  and  corrupting.  603, 

604,  605,  606 

Thirteenth  specific  charge,  based  upon  information  received  from  Henry 
C.  Campbell,  of  Milwaukee;  I did  not  investigate  the  facts  to  ascertain 
whether  they  were  with  foundation;  I have  no  personal  knowledge  that 
E.  M.  Heyser  or  Max  Sells  did  the  things  charged  in;  Campbell  did  not 
claim  to  know  the  facts;  recollect  he  said  W.  D.  Connor,  of  Marshfield, 
had  given  him  the  information;  I do  not  know  whether  Connor  knows  the 

facts 629,630,643 

Tilton,  Lester,  I do  not  know  that  any  sum  was  paid  to  him  as  charged;  I 
saw  a letter  from  him  to  Alyward;  I only  knew  him  by  reputation  as 
someone  living  in  Neillsville  at  that  time;  I did  not  know  him;  I did  not 

have  a conference  with  him 626,  627 

Twelfth  specific  charge  against  Stephenson,  mean  by  it  that  he  had  paid 

» money  to  candidates  for  the  assembly  and  senate  as  candidates 

Written  documents,  declined  to  furnish  them  to  committee,  by  reason  of 
fact  they  were  at  home  in  my  office  safe;  I have  given  committee  every- 
thing that  was  in  office  safe;  comprised  of  a letter  from  Stone  and  data 
where  I took  down  the  statements  of  parties,  and  I guess  the  Teller  edi- 
torial  

Blaine,  John  J.,  letter  to,  dated  January  22,  1909,  in  regard  to  investigation  of 

Stephenson 

Blaine,  John  J.,  statement  made  by,  before  this  committee  in  regard  to  Eastman 
conversation,  not  made  by,  before  the  joint  investigating  committee.  2027,  2028, 2029 


628 

648 

1480 


XVII 

Page. 

610 

646 


XVIII 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page. 

Bowman,  H.  A.,  deputy  game  warden  in  1908,  Genesee,  Wis.,  testimony  of 984 

Account^  Stone  did  not  ask  me  to  make  one  of  $1,250;  I gave  no  account  of 
it  to  him  or  anybody  else;  I received  none  for  sums  I paid  out;  I did  not 

ask  men  for  them 991 

Bissonette,  Edwin,  with  General  Fire  Extinguisher  Co.,  Milwaukee,  paid 
him  $300;  told  him  he  should  use  it  in  his  best  judgment  for  Stephenson 
primary  campaign — seeing  that  literature  was  kept  up,  and  making  a list 
of  voters  that  were  favorable  to  him;  he  was  to  use  it  as  he  saw  fit;  I do 
not  know  what  he  did  with  it;  he  did  not  render  an  account;  nothing 

said  by  me  about  where  he  should  use  it 985,  986 

Campaign,  my  activities  extended  over  two  or  three  weeks,  latter  part  of 

August 992 

Clark,  Robert,  I am  not  sure  whether  he  was  a game  warden  at  that  time,  or 
whether  he  quit  shortly  before  that;  lived  at  Palmyra;  I gave  him  $150 
to  use  in  interest  of  Stephenson ; Edmonds  asked  me  if  I knew  any  good 
worker  in  Jefferson  County,  and  I think  I remember  mentioning  the  name 
of  Clark;  I do  not  know  whether  he  paid  any  of  it  out;  he  did  not  make  a 

statement  to  me;  paid  him  another  $100 984,  985,  986,  988 

Edmonds  received  $150  from  him  about  middle  of  August;  I think  that  was 

given  to  Robert  Clark 984 

Expenses,  as  game  warden,  did  not  keep  account  of  it  separate  from  ex- 
penses incurred  for  Stephenson ; charged  mileage  and  hotel  bills  to  State 
and  not  to  Stephenson;  livery  hire  in  connection  with  services  as  game 
warden  charged  to  State  in  connection  with  campaign  work  disbursed  out 

of  Stephenson  money 991,  992 

Game  warden  was  on  duty  as  one  and  receiving  compensation  at  the  time  I 
was  campaigning;  received  $3.50  a day  and  expenses;  do  not  remember 
what  my  expense  account  as  game  warden  was  at  that  time;  duties  as. . 991,  992 
“General,  August  31,  $20,’ ’ I have  no  recollection  of  that  item;  I never  re- 
ceived any  such  amount 993 

Hitchon,  C.  E.,  in  hotel  and  saloon  business,  Marinette,  home  of  Stephen- 
son; I paid  him  $450;  I did  not  have  an  account  from  him;  do  not  know 
how  he  expended  it;  I had  a talk  with  him  and  thought  he  was  in  a posi- 
tion to  do  some  good  work  in  northern  part  of  Marinette  County;  he  was 
to  see  that  literature  was  kept  up,  get  people  to  make  lists  of  Stephenson 

supporters,  and  get  men  at  polls  primary  day 987,  989,  992 

Johnson,  C.  W.,  Oskosh,  paid  him  $50  to  use  in  interest  of  Stephenson’s 
primary  campaign;  I do  not  know  what  he  did  with  it;  he  did  not  render 

an  account 986 

Jones,  John,  Genesee,  paid  him  $20  for  putting  up  lithographs  of  Stephen- 
son and  distributing  literature 987 

Money,  did  not  spend  any  portion  of  it  for  purpose  of  purchasing  or  corrupt- 
ing any  elector;  so  far  as  I know,  none  spent  that  way  by  men  to  whom  I 

gave  money 988,  993 

Money,  I received  no  instructions  as  to  use,  with  the  exception  that  I should 
use  it  in  interest  of  Stephenson;  I was  at  liberty  to  give  it  to  any  person 

that  I might  see  fit 987 

Stephenson,  commenced  to  support  him  as  soon  as  he  announced  his  candi- 
dacy  984 

Stone,  J.  W.,  I received  $1,250  from  him  about  the  middle  of  August;  in 
three  payments;  I received  $500  in  first  payment;  and  the  second  pay- 
ment, I think,  was  $500;  I do  not  remember  whether  it  was  $750,  or 
whether  he  paid  me  $500  and  the  balance  later;  I think  the  last  payment 

was  a check;  I know  he  paid  me  some  money  in  Madison 984,990,991 

Sum  of  $205,  spent  in  traveling,  railroad  fare,  livery  rigs,  meals,  and  cigars; 
spent  possibly  $25  or  $30  for  railroad  fare;  spent  probably  $20  or  $25  for 
hotel  bills;  spent  possibly  $50  for  drinks,  cigars,  and  treats;  spent,  may  * 

be,  $30  or  $40  for  livery  hire 988 

Tuttle,  E.  W.,  Oconomowoc,  I paid  him  $125;  had  a general  talk  with  him 
in  which  I suggested  that  it  be  used  in  keeping  up  Stephenson  literature, 
making  lists  of  voters  who  were  his  supporters,  and  seeing  that  the  voters 
on  these  lists  got  to  polls  primary  day ; I do  not  know  whether  he  spent 
any  of  it  for  drinks  or  cigars;  I would  not  think  he  was  a man  who  would 

make  a saloon  campaign;  he  was  a game  warden 985 

Van  Cleve,  J.  A.,  I knew  him  by  sight;  did  not  know  he  had  charge  of  the 
campaign  in  Stephenson’s  home  county;  did  not  occur  to  me  Stephen- 
son and  his  friends  could  look  after  that  county 989, 990 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


XIX 


Page. 

Boyle,  Louis  C.,  station  agent  of  Chicago,  Milwaukee  & St.  Paul  Railroad  Co., 

Viroqua,  Wis.,  affidavit  of 1997 

Age,  55  years 1997 

Campaign  fund,  received  from,  sum  of  $125.80,  part  of  the  $500  sent  to  Morley 
for  use  in  Vernon  County;  disbursed  same,  $20  for  personal  expenses  in 
travel,  and  $105.80  in  securing  precinct  workers  and  distributing  litho- 
graphs, etc.,  in  and  about  the  county;  precinct  workers  paid  by  check, 
which  were  destroyed  by  fire;  names  of  few  precinct  workers  given; 


Campaign  in  Vernon  County  carried  on  for  less  expense  than  any  previous 

campaign  within  his  knowledge 1998 

Campaign  work  done  for  Stephenson  in  primary  contest  in  Viroqua  and 
county  of  Vernon,  in  company  with  Calvin  E.  Morley,  working  with 
him  and  separately,  at  the  request  of  Edmonds  and  Morley;  no  particu- 
lar instructions  given;  used  own  judgment 1997 

Madison  investigation,  not  called  as  witness  at. ... .* 1998 

Money  not  disbursed  for  the  purpose  of  corruptly  or  unlawfully  influenc- 
ing or  bribing  any  person 1998 

Statement  of  expenses  and  disbursements,  never  called  upon  for  itemized . . 1998 

Stephenson,  supporter  of,  before  he  did  any  work  for,  and  not  on  account 

of  any  employment 1997 

Vernon  County,  33  precincts  in 1998 

Viroqua,  resided  in  about  32  years  past 1997 

Brady,  Charles  E.,  lawyer,  Manitowoc,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1278 

Affidavit,  filed  with  legislative  investigating  committee: 

Account  of  expenditures,  as  nearly  as  affiant  can  recollect  the  facts, 

grouped  in  round  numbers 1282 

Assembly  candidates,  Ledvina  and  Wehrein,  talked  to  by  affiant  on 
subject  of  senatorial  contest,  stated  they  would  support  nominee 

of  primary 1283 

Balkansky,  David,  paid  $10  or  $15  for  work  and  expenses  of  trip  through 

county 1282 

Chairman  of  Republican  county  committee,  not  at  time  of  becoming 

interested  in  Stephenson  primary  campaign;  later  elected 1280 

Compensation,  affiant  did  not  ask  or  receive  any  of  any  kind  for  services 

primary  campaign 1282 

Crocker,  Arthur,  Manitowoc,  paid  $15,  as  affiant  remembers,  for  two 

days’  woik  and  livery  hire  and  expenses  for  trip  through  county 1282 

Daily  News  Publishing  Co.,  paid  $20  for  advertising  space 1281 

Draft  for  $500  cashed  by  affiant;  used  in  campaign  for  postage  to  dis- 
tribute liteiature;  for  1,000  personal  letters  sent  to  Republican 
voters  in  county;  for  copies  of  poll  lists  sent  to  Milwaukee;  for  lists 
of  influential  workers;  for  telegraph  and  telephone  expenses;  for 
advertising;  and  to  various  workers;  personal  expenses  of  affiant 
not  paid  out  of  sum;  no  part  spent  in  interest  of  assembly  candi- 
dates............  1281,1282 

Edmonds,  invitations  received  by  affiant  in  early  part  of  August  to 
visit  at  Milwaukee  headquarters  and  consult  in  regard  to  campaign 
in  Manitowoc  County;  went  to  Milwaukee  and  met  him;  affiant 
informed  him  he  was  doing  work  for  Stephenson  and  stated  he  would 
not  accept  compensation  and  did  not  wish  to  handle  money  and  had 
tacit  agreement  with  that  Dr.  Gehbe  should  assume  control  of  man- 
agement of  campaign  in  said  county 1280 

Edmonds,  some  time  after  conversation  with  in  Milwaukee,  affiant 
received  a letter  from  Stephenson  headquarters  containing  a draft  or 
check  for  $500,  with  request  that  money  be  used  according  to  his 


Edmonds,  when  offered  itemized  account  kept  during  campaign,  said 
he  would  much  prefer  not  to  take  it  so  long  as  he  had  not  received 
such  statements  from  all  other  persons  similarly  situated;  R.  J. 

White  of  Milwaukee  present  during  conversation 1282 

Gehbe,  Dr.  F.  H.,  draft  of  $200  received  from  headquarters  indorsed 
over  to;  affiant  never  received  any  part  of  and  has  no  knowledge  of 
what  use  was  made  of<feame 1282 


XX 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page. 

Brady,  Charles  E.,  lawyer,  Manitowoc,  Wis.,  testimony  of — Continued. 

Affidavit,  filed  with  legislative  investigating  committee — Continued. 

List  of  workers  not  kept  by  affiant;  never  kept  in  previous  campaigns 

conducted  by  him 1282 

Manitowoc,  city  of,  $100  was  expended  in  and  in  payment  of  time  and 

expenses  of  two  or  three  men  sent  out  on  trips 1282 

Money,  so  far  as  affiant  knows  not  spent  for  any  illegal  purpose 1282 

Ohde,  William  F.,  paid  $40  for  advertising  space  on  score  cards  used 

during  Manitowoc  County  fair 1281 

Stephenson,  was  supporter  of  from  time  he  announced  his  candidacy.  1280 
Stephenson  campaign  in  Manitowoc  County,  received  two  bank  drafts 

for,  one  of  $500  and  one  of  $200 1280 

Two  Rivers,  $75  spent  there  for  expenses  and  time  of  men  who  worked 

in  interest  of  Stephenson  and  for  their  work  election  day 1282 

Workers,  none  paid  more  than  $15;  all  known  to  be  Stephenson  sup- 
porters at  time  hired 1282 

Hoffman,  Edward,  Manitowoc,  paid  him  $15  for  interviewing  people  prior 

to  election  day  and  for  poll  work  primary  day 1279 

Memorandum,  kept  detailed  one  during  campaign;  presented  it  to  Ed- 
monds in  Milwaukee  after  the  campaign  and  he  stated  in  substance  that 
he  had  not  required  accounts  from  others;  so  after  I got  home  I destroyed 
the  memoranda,  together  with  whatever  matter  I had  relative  to  the 

campaign 1278 

Plumb,  R.  G.,  Manitowoc,  paid  him  $15  for  his  time  in  interviewing  peo- 
ple previous  to  election  day  and  for  poll  work  election  day 1279 

Stephenson  campaign  in  1908,  took  part  in;  paid  all  money  received  out  to 

others;  did  not  keep  a cent 1278 

Wisconsin,  resided  in,  all  my  life 1278 

Bratz,  William  C.,  insurance  agent  and  mayor  of  West  Bend,  Wis.,  affidavit  of.  2127 

Advertising  and  other  expenses,  disbursed  about  $108.96  for 2128 

Age,  63  years 2127 

Campaign  committee,  received  $308.96  from 2128 

Campaign  work  done  in  primary  contest,  putting  in  about  one  month’s 
time,  at  request  of  campaign  managers  at  Milwaukee;  told  should  receive 
a reasonable  compensation  for  time  and  would  be  reimbursed  for  legiti- 
mate expenses  necessarily  incurred  and  made  in  advancing  Stephen- 
son’s interest;  traveled  about  precincts  of  Washington  County;  visited 
great  many  people  and  presented  the  merits  of  the  Senator’s  campaign. . 2127 

Compensation,  retained  about  $200  as,  for  time  actually  devoted  to  the 

campaign 2128 

Disbursements  made  by  way  of  special  advertising  in  newspapers,  and  cir- 
culating and  posting  up  or  causing  to  be  posted  lithographs  and  other 
campaign  material,  considerable  expense  for  livery  and  other  convey- 
ances; at  some  expense  for  entertainment,  cigars,  etc 2127 

Madison  investigation,  not  called  as  a witness  at 2128 

Money  not  disbursed  for  the  purpose  of  corruptly  or  unlawfully  influencing 

or  bribing  any  person 2128 

Poll  workers,  employed  a number  of;  no  one  employed  who  was  not  at  the 
time  a supporter  of  the  Senator;  unable  to  remember  the  names  of;  recalls 

two 2127,2128 

Statement  of  expenses,  never  called  upon  to  render  an  itemized;  did  not 
keep  strict  account  of  disbursements;  never  accustomed  to  keep  account 

in  previous  campaigns 2128 

Stephenson,  supporter  of,  before  any  work  was  done  for 2127 

Washington  County  contains  22  precincts 2127 

Washington  County,  resided  in,  for  more  than  past  50  years 2127 

Bribery,  corruption,  and  illegal  voting,  provisions  of  statutes  with  regard 

to 329,  601,  604, 605,  629,  677 

Brown,  Harry  J.,  son-in-law  of  Senator  Stephenson,  and  cashier  of  Stephenson 

National  Bank  of  Marinette,  Wis.,  testimony  of 438 

Campaign  disbursements,  only  connection  I had  with,  either  as  individual 

or  official  was  in  payment  to  J.  A.  Van  Cleve 439 

Money,  never  disbursed  any  in  Stephenson  campaign  other  than  to  J.  A. 

Van  Cleve;  do  not  know  of  any  expended  in  addition  to  expenditures 
set  forth  in  account  filed  with  secretary  of  state;  have  no  knowledge 
Stephenson  disbursed  other  than  sums  testified  to  here  before  this  com- 
mittee  439,440 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


XXI 


Page. 

Brown,  Harry  J.,  son-in-law  of  Senator  Sephenson,  and  cashier  of  Stephenson 
National  Bank  of  Marinette,  Wis.,  testimony  of — Continued. 

Van  Cleve,  J.  A.,  paid  him  $792.75  to  be  used  in  connection  with  Stephen- 
son campaign;  check  to  draw  about  September  15  against  “L.  Steph- 
enson rent  account,”  of  which  I have  charge  as  agent;  itemized  state- 
ment rendered  by,  delivered  to  Stephenson’s  office;  included  livery  and 
printing  bills  and  certain  amounts  to  individuals;  never  heard  any  sug- 
gestion that  expenditures  by,  were  improper 438, 439,  440 

C. 


Calkins,  L,  A.,  practicing  lawyer,  Green  Bay,  Wis.,  affidavit  of 1998 

Age,  51  years 1998 

Campaign  headquarters  at  Milwaukee,  received  from,  $760;  personal  ex- 
penses amounted  to  $250;  charge  for  services  covering  a period  of  about 

three  weeks,  was  $210;  other  disbursements  itemized 1998, 1999 

Campaign  work  for  Stephenson  in  Green  Bay  and  Brown  County  during 
primary  contest,  at  the  request  of  Edmonds,  who  gave  no  instructions 
as  to  the  method  of  campaigning,  excepting  he  told  him  he  wanted  him  to 
work  in  campaign  for  Stephenson  at  Green  Bay  and  as  much  in  the  county 
as  possible,  and  disbursements  would  be  paid  and  a reasonable  compen- 
sation also  paid 1998 

District  attorney  of  Brown  County  for  two  years 1998 

Green  Bay,  resided  in,  about  18  years  past 1998 

Green  Bay,  10  precincts  in 1999 

Headquarters  established  in  law  office  in  Green  Bay,  about  August  10, 1908; 
devoted  practically  entire  time  carrying  on  correspondence,  engaging 
office  help,  procuring  preparation  of  advertising  material,  causing  cam- 
paign articles  to  be  printed  in  newspapers,  hiring  necessary  conveyances 
for  bringing  people  to  polls,  engaging  livery  rigs  for  travel  about  the 

county,  and  employing  precinct  workers 1998 

Judge  of  the  criminal  court  of  Ashland  County,  Wis.,  for  five  years,  prior 

to  residence  at  Green  Bay 1998 

Madison  investigation,  not  called  as  witness  at 1999 

Memoranda  of  disbursements,  kept  no  detailed,  excepting  receipted  bills, 
which  he  is  unable  to  find  and  produce,  although  he  has  looked  for  them. . 1999 

Money  not  disbursed  for  the  purpose  of  corruptly  or  unlawfully  influenc- 
ing or  bribing  any  person 1999 

Precinct  workers,  unable  to  remember  any  considerable  number  of;  em 
ployed  many  on  recommendation  of  others;  names  of  four  given;  none 
employed  unless  they  were  supporters  of  Stephenson  at  time  of  employ- 
ment  1999 

Statement,  itemized,  never  called  upon  for,  by  campaign  committee 1999 

Campaign,  cost  of  conducting  in  Wisconsin,  as  to  admission  of  testimony  in 

regard  to < 772,  773,  795,  796,  797,  798,  799,  800,  801,  802,  803,  900,  2039,  2040 

Candidates  for  the  legislature,  copies  of  letters  from  Stephenson,  stating  he 

could  not,  under  the  law,  give  any  assistance  toward  the  election  of 2038,  2039 

Checks  used  by  Edmonds,  drawn  on  his  account  in  the  National  Exchange 

Bank 1255,2025 

Checks  used  by  Stephenson  in  primary  campaign 1255,  2025 

Clark,  Robert  B.,  traveling  salesman,  Fort  Atkinson,  Wis.,  affidavit  of 1999 

Age,  30  years 1999 

Campaign  work  in  the  south  half  of  Jefferson  County  during  primary  con- 
test, at  the  request  of  Harry  Bowman;  principal  work  instructed  to  do  was 
to  canvass  towns,  getting  list  of  Stephenson  men,  circulating  and  post- 
ing literature,  lithographs,  etc.,  and  advocating  election  of  Stephenson, 
and  to  have  as  many  friends  as  possible  at  the  polls  on  primary  day 
to  advocate  Stephenson’s  election;  work  covered  period  of  about  three 

weeks 1999 

Expenses  detailed  amounting  to  about  $100,  and  compensation  for  serv- 
ices, $150 1999 

Jefferson  County,  resided  in,  for  past  30  years 1999 

Madison  investigation,  not  called  as  witness  in 1999 

Money  not  disbursed  for  the  purpose  of  corruptly  or  unlawfully  influencing 

or  bribing  any  person 1999 

Statement  of  expenses,  never  called  upon  to  furnish  itemized 1999 


XXIX 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page. 

Clary,  T.  L.,  railroad  conductor,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1883 

Money,  received  or  expended  none  in  connection  with  Senator  Stephen-* 

son’s  election;  was  never  a member  of  the  firm  of  Cleary  & Klumb 1883 

Cleary,  M.  J.,  lawyer,  Blanchardville,  Wis.,  called  as  a witness  and  excused  . . 834 

Cleary,  Morris,  of  the  firm  of  Cleary  & Klumb,  not  obtainable  as  a witness 1932, 

1933, 1963 

Conversations,  objection  of  counsel  for  Stephenson  to  witness  stating  conclu- 
sions of 573,  574,  575,  576 

Cook,  Wirt  H.,  lumber  and  timber  business,  Duluth,  Minn.,  testimony  of 1353 

Blaine,  Senator,  never  heard  of,  in  my  life;  did  not  know  anything  about 

any  charges  filed  by 1368 

Cloquet  Lumber  Co.  came  into  Virginia  & Rainy  Lake  Co.  in  fall  of  1908.  1356 

Crownhart,  do  not  know  anyone  by  that  name 1367 

Duluth,  Rainy  Lake  & Winnipeg  Railroad,  was  president  of,  for  awhile..  1356 
Grand  Pacific  Hotel,  overheard  conversation  between  Hines  and  Turrish  in, 
on  or  about  May  1, 1909;  stop  there  sometimes  when  in  Chicago.  1362, 1384, 1385 
Haley,  Dan,  conversation  with,  about  trouble  between  Shields  and  Hines; 
had  sent  to  Stephenson  to  pay  half;  was  refused,  as  Senator  said  he  had 
paid  twice  what  the  job  was  worth  already;  Hines  sent  Cusson  to  Supe- 
rior to  fix  matter  up  with  Shields 1360, 1368, 1369 

Haley,  conversation  with,  after  meeting  in  McCordic’s  office,  told  of  inter- 
view with  Gov.  Morris  and  subject  matter  of  that  conference;  suggested 

he  should  see  Shields ; more  than  one  talk  on  this  matter 1378 

Haley,  conversation  with,  claims  Shields  still  stuck  to  Hines  for  money  and 
was  finally  settled  for  $7,500  and  further  consideration  in  certain  line  of 
fire  insurance:  associate  had  in  mind  when  talked  to  Gov.  Morris  in 

McCordic’s  office 1360, 1370, 1374 

Haley,  vice  president  of  Trout  Lake  Lumber  Co.,  conversation  with,  after 
meeting  Shields  on  train,  about  trouble  between  Shields  and  Hines  at 
Madison;  Shields  wanted  pay  in  connection  with  election  of  Stephenson, 
claimed  Hines  promised  $15,000;  Hines  called  him  blackmailer  and  had 
taken  up  matter  with  Harper;  trouble  again  in  Chicago,  about  same 

thing 1359,1368,1369 

Harper-Shields  Agency  got  nearly  all  of  Virginia  & Rainy  Lake  Co.’s  insur- 
ance business  after  Hines  came  in;  offices  in  Duluth,  Minn.,  and  Supe- 
rior, Wis 1357 

Hines,  never  was  on  friendly  terms  with;  never  discussed  Stephenson  case 

with 1360,1362 

Husting,  Senator,  from  Wisconsin,  met  in  McCordic’s  office;  was  present  at 
conversation  held  with  Gov.  Morris;  promised  him  to  see  Shields  as  soon 

as  possible 1364, 1365, 1367, 1371 

Ketcham,  J.  G.,  occupied  offices  with,  since  last  May  or  June;  sales  man- 
ager for  Trout  Lake  Lumber  Co 1357 

LaSalle  Hotel,  Chicago,  met  Shields  accidentally,  in  lobby  of;  no  reference 
made  to  invitation  to  my  office  in  Duluth;  referred  to  matter  with  Hines, 
said  he  did  not  blame  me  for  going  after  him,  but  if  I hurt  him  he  would 
shoot  me;  he  was  excited,  and  could  not  get  him  to  talk  any  further;  no 

reference  made  to  conversation  on  train 1377, 1378, 1379, 1387 

McCordic,  A.  E.,  my  attorney,  offices,  ninth  floor  Rookery  Building,  Chi- 
cago, had  lived  in  Duluth;  always  go  to  his  office  to  write  letters  and 
attend  to  correspondence  when  there;  went  there  morning  after  return- 
ing from  Springfield  where  I had  testified  in  Helm  committee,  for  no 
unusual  reason  or  appointment;  was  informed  some  gentlemen  from 

Wisconsin  wished  to  see  me 1363, 1364, 1371, 1372, 1373, 1380, 1381 

McCordic,  A.  E.,  promised  would  communicate  with  after  meeting  there 

in  spring  at  his  office  as  soon  as  I could  see  Shields 1373, 1377 

McCordic,  A.  E.,  talked  over  matter  of  information  I had  relative  to  Steph- 
enson election,  just  as  I had  done  about  Lorimer  investigation 1373 

Maluski,  George,  my  stenographer,  1909;  present  address,  in  office  of  Wm. 

O’Brien,  Duluth,  Minn 1357 

Meeting  at  McCordic’s  office,  with  Gov.  Morris,  Senator  Husting,  and  Mr. 

Titus;  this  was  the  first  information  they  had  on  subject  of  my  conversa- 
tion on  train  with  Shields,  so  far  as  I know 1375 

Morris,  Lieut.  Gov.,  conversation  with  in  McCordic’s  office,  gave  substance 
of  talk  with  Shields  on  train;  understood  nothing  was  to  be  said  outside 
of  office;  all  I knew  was  hearsay,  except  about  meeting  Shields  on  train; 
had  better  go  to  Shields  for  information;  denial  of  statements  he  claims 
I made 1367, 1368, 1369, 1372, 1376 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


XXIII 


Page. 

Cook,  Wirt  H.,  lumber  and  timber  business,  Duluth,  Minn.,  testimony  of— Con. 
Morris,  met  once  in  Chicago  at  McCordic’s  office  last  spring,  told  him  had 
heard  Hines  had  raised  $100,000  or  $115,000  to  elect  Senator  Stephenson; 
never  mentioned  Stephenson’s  name  in  connection  with  raising  of  money, 
nor  said  Shields  had  been  to  Washington;  did  not  state  any  part  of  money 

was  used  to  keep  Democrats  out  of  session 1363-1367, 1379 

O’Brien,  president  of  Trout  Lake  Co.,  name  was  not  mentioned  at  meeting 
with  Gov.  Morris  in  McCordic’s  office;  have  no  information  from;  in  busi- 
ness with 1353, 1374, 1384 

Reader,  special  train  for,  to  bring  to  legislature,  never  said  had  to  have. . . 1379 

Sanderson,  do  not  know  anyone  by  that  name 1367 

Shields,  R.  J.: 

Conversation  with,  first  and  only,  on  subject  of  election,  on  North  West- 
ern train  between  Duluth  and  Chicago  in  fall  of  1909,  referred  indi- 
rectly to  election;  joked  with  about  settling  so  cheap,  as  I had  heard 
it  from  Haley  understood  was  going  to  get  $15,000  and  settled  for 

$7,500 1358, 1360, 1375, 1376, 1384-1387 

Conversation  with,  on  train,  in  fall  of  1909,  admitted  trouble  with  Hines 
at  Madison,  which  made  me  think  it  was  the  Stephenson  case;  said 
it  was  all  fixed  up;  did  not  speak  of  what  terms  of  settlement  had 
been;  did  not  tell  him  from  whom  I had  heard  about  trouble;  took 

place  before  meeting  in  McCordic’s  office 1360-1363, 1374-1376, 1386 

Conversation  with,  on  train,  in  reference  to  senatorial  job;  told  Haley 
did  not  want  to  see  me;  understood  was  engaged  in  looking  up  wit- 
nesses on  a Pullman  car  in  connection  with  conversation  made  by  a 

Mr.  Weihe 1376, 1379, 1382 

Never  had  any  conversation  with,  in  1908  or  1909,  in  reference  to  cam- 
paign or  election  of  Senator  Stephenson;  never  heard  him  in  offices  at 
Duluth  discuss  or  make  any  statement  in  reference  to  the  candidacy 

or  election  of  Stephenson  as  United  States  Senator 1358 

Never  met,  at  office  of  Trout  Lake  Lumber  Co.;  have  seen  in  offices  of 
Virginia  & Rainy  Lake  Co.  with  Mr.  Cusson,  manager;  came  to  see 

no  one  in  particular 1355, 1357, 1359 

Saw  him  after  meeting  in  McCordic’s  office  in  Chicago,  tried  to  get  him 
to  go  down  to  Madison  and  tell  the  truth;  promised  to  come  to  my 
office  within  three-quarters  of  an  hour  after  I left  him,  but  did  not; 
did  not  say  why  I wanted  him;  never  saw  him  any  more  for  quite  a 

while,  and  then  matter  was  not  discussed 1370, 1371, 1377 

Titus,  attorney  general  or  assistant  attorney  general,  met  in  McCordic’s 
office  last  spring;  think  have  met  him  prior  to  that;  did  not  write  him  a 

letter 1364,1372,1381 

Trout  Lake  Lumber  Co.,  secretary  and  treasurer  of;  organized  about  a 
month  ago;  offices  at  Duluth,  Minn.,  separate,  but  in  same  building  with 
Virginia  & Rainy  Lake  Co.;  officers  of,  Wm.  O’Brien,  president;  Ander- 
son, treasurer;  and  G.  D.  Jones,  secretary,  who  lived  in  Wausau,  Wis., 

and  force  of  bookkeepers  and  stenographers 1353, 1354, 1355, 1357 

Turrish,  Henry,  formerly  partner  with,  in  timber  business;  lives  in  Duluth, 

but  has  gone  West  at  present  time 1386, 1387 

Turrish,  Henry,  in  conversation  with  Hines,  asked  how  he  was  getting  on 
down  in  Washington,  replied  he  was  having  a hell  of  a time;  for  instance, 
there  was  Stephenson,  whom  he  had  gotten  elected  and  now  was  working 

for  free  lumber;  he  had  a terrible  time  getting  him  lined  up 1362, 

1363, 1382-1384, 1386 

Virginia  & Rainy  Lake  Co.,  am  a stockholder  and  director  in;  organized, 

July  31,  1905;  officers  of,  Edward  Hines,  president;  Wm.  O’Brien,  vice 
president;  H.  C.  Hornby,  secretary;  and  F.  E.  Weyerhaeuser,  jr.,  treas- 
urer; offices,  main,  at  Virginia,  Minn.,  and  sales  at  Duluth,  just  estab- 
lished last  spring 1353, 1354, 

Virginia  & Rainy  Lake  Co.,  have  never  been  in  offices  at  Duluth;  in  offices 

at  Virginia  last  time  March  8 

Virginia  & Rainy  Lake  Co.,  was  active  manager  of,  until  December  18  or 
19,  1908,  after  primary  in  Wisconsin;  had  three  rooms  cut  off  then,  for 

own  use 

Washburn,  Bailey  & Mitchell,  my  attorneys  in  Duluth . 

Walsh,  J.  F.,  brother-in-law,  timber  man,  occupied  offices  with  me  for 

number  of  years 

Corporation,  contribution  of,  to  a campaign  fund,  statute  with  reference  to 


1355 
1354 

1356 
1382 

1356 

361 


XXIV 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page. 

Corruption,  bribery,  and  illegal  voting,  provisions  of  statutes  with  regard  to. . . 329, 

601,  604,  605,  629,  677 

Cost  of  conducting  campaign  in  Wisconsin,  as  to  admission  of  testimony  in  regard 

to 772,  773,  795,  796,  797,  798,  799,  800,  801,  802,  803,  900,  2039,  2040 

Counsel  for  Senator  Isaac  Stephenson  entered 1 

Cowie,  Robert  S.,  Whitehall,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1097 

Assembly  fight,  my  activity  did  not  begin  in  the  primary  at  all;  talked 
with  man  I favored,  but  it  went  no  further  than  consulting  with  him; 

I took  a very  active  part  after  the  primary  in  joint  election  in  behalf  of 
the  Republican  ticket;  made  some  campaign  speeches  for  assembly 

candidate 1099 

Edmonds,  asked  me  to  do  this  work  and  I told  him  I would,  but  that  I 
did  not  feel  that  I could  afford  to  pay  my  own  expenses  traveling  around; 
told  him  I would  expect  to  be  reimbursed  for  my  expenses,  and  a couple 
of  weeks  after  he  sent  me  check  for  $150;  that  is  all  the  talk  I ever  had 

with  him 1100 

Edmonds,  understanding  I had  with  him  when  I was  called  to  Milwaukee 
was  that  I was  to  travel  around  and  ascertain  the  sentiment  in  three 
counties;  I merely  furnished  him  with  the  names  of  the  leading  men 
and  newspaper  men  in  different  sections,  with  the  statement  of  their 
leaning  toward  Stephenson  and  the  different  candidates;  told  him  I 
was  occupying  an  office  in  which  I did  not  think  it  would  be  proper  for 

me  to  act  as  campaign  manager 1098 

Expenses,  money  used  for;  I think  I had  a deficit,  but  I never  reported  it; 
included  hotel  bills,  railroad  fare,  livery  hire,  etc.;  did  not  keep  an 

account  of  them;  not  called  on  for  one 1099, 1100 

Money,  not  used  by  me  or,  as  far  as  I know,  by  those  with  whom  I had 
conferences,  for  the  purpose  of  bribing  or  corruptly  influencing  voters. . 1100 

Money,  received  $150  from  Stephenson  fund  in  latter  part  of  July  or  early 
in  August,  1908,  to  reimburse  me  for  expenses  incurred  for  traveling 
around  looking  up  the  situation  for  Edmonds  and  Stephenson;  not  a 


Offices  held,  was  county  judge  of  Trempealeau  County  during  campaign; 
it  was  a four-year  term,  which  terminated  two  years  ago;  resigned  to  go 
on  State  board  of  control;  was  district  attorney  of  Trempealeau  County  for 

five  years 1099 

Stephenson,  felt  it  my  duty  to  support  him  in  joint  election,  he  being 

Republican  nominee;  did  no  more  than  that 1099 

Stephenson,  supported  him  for  the  United  States  Senate;  I had  written  to 
him  before  I entered  upon  this  service,  encouraging  him  to  enter  the 

race  and  offering  him  my  support 1098 

Whitehall,  resident  of  10  or  12  years 1097 

Cowling,  excused  from  testifying  in  regard  to  cost  of  running  a campaign. . 2039,  2040 

Cox,  Lemuel  B.,  farmer,  Onalaska,  Wis.,  affidavit  of 2000 

Age,  65  years 2000 

Campaign  headquarters  at  Milwaukee,  received  from,  $175;  $135  expended 
to  different  individuals  to  put  up  posters  and  pennants  and  circulate 
campaign  literature;  in  preparing  poll  lists  for  benefit  of  headquarters  at 

Milwaukee  $40  was  expended 2000 

Campaign  work  for  Stephenson  in  county  of  La  Crosse  during  primary 
contest;  was  volunteered,  and  he  received  no  instructions;  was  informed 
personal  expenses  would  be  paid,  and  other  legitimate  expense  would 
be  taken  care  of  by  the  campaign  committee;  covered  period  of  60  days.  2000 

La  Crosse  County,  had  charge  of  16  precincts  in 2000 

La  Crosse  County,  resided  in,  about  past  60  years 2000 

Madison  investigation,  not  called  as  witness  in v 2000 

Memoranda  of  disbursements,  expenses,  etc.,  kept;  been  mislaid  and  he  is 

unable  to  find  it 2000 

Money  not  disbursed  for  the  purpose  of  corruptly  or  unlawfully  influencing 

or  bribing  any  person 2000 

Nomination  papers  circulated  for  Stephenson 2000 

Personal  expenses,  about  $40;  also  expended  some  of  his  own  money  in  the 

interest  of  Stephenson 2000 

Poll  workers  employed,  does  not  remember  their  names;  $90  expended  for; 
not  engaged  unless  they  were  Stephenson  men  before  they  were 
employed 2000 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


XXV 


Page. 

Cox,  Lemuel  B.,  farmer,  Onalaska,  Wis.,  affidavit  of — Continued. 

Services,  never  received  anything  for,  in  the  campaign 2000 

Statement  of  disbursements,  never  been  called  on  for  itemized 2000 

Stephenson,  supporter  of,  before  he  did  any  work;  had  personally  known 

him  for  a great  many  years 2000 

Teams  hired  to  get  voters  to  the  polls 2000 

Curran,  John  D.,  hotel  keeper,  Stevens  Point,  Wis.,  affidavit  of 2000 

Age,  65  years 2000 

Campaign  work  for  Stephenson  in  Stevens  Point  and  Portage  County  dur- 
ing primary  contest  at  request  of  campaign  managers  at  Milwaukee;  no 
instructions  given  except  to  engage  precinct  workers  needed  and  advo- 
cate election  of  Stephenson,  look  after  keeping  of  posters  and  lithographs, 
and  furnish  names;  service  covered  two  weeks;  generally  occupied  in 

traveling  about  county 2001 

Madison  investigation,  not  called  as  witness  at 2001 

Memoranda  of  disbursements,  kept  no  detailed,  a3  they  were  incurred 2001 

Money  not  disbursed  for  the  purpose  of  corruptly  or  unlawfully  influencing 

or  bribing  any  person 2001 

Money  received  for  distribution  and  for  own  services,  $250;  had  done  con- 
siderable work  before  the  receipt  of  any 2001 

Portage  County,  about  20  precincts  in 2001 

Personal  expenses,  including  Weisner’s,  about  $100;  consisted  of  livery 

hire,  hotel  expenses,  entertainment,  cigars,  etc 2001 

Precinct  workers  employed;  unable  to  give  the  names  of,  because  employed 
by  either  Weisner  or  else  introduced  by  other  men;  about  $150  expended 
for;  none  employed  unless  they  were  supporters  of  Stephenson  at  time  of 

employment 2001 

Statement  of  disbursements,  at  no  time  called  upon  to  render  itemized. . 2001 

Stephenson,  supporter  of  at  all  times  irrespective  of  his  engagement  to 

work 2001 

Stevens  Point,  resided  in  about  past  50  years 2000 

Weisner,  Leo,  of  Stevens  Point,  assisting  affiant  principally 2001 

D. 

Dart,  George  W.,  Montello,  Wis.,  testimony  of 974 

Account,  I did  not  render  one  for  any  of  money;  do  not  think  I was  requested 

to  furnish  one 979 

Carter,  Johnny,  lives  in  Buffalo,  gave  him  either  $5  or  $10  to  go  to  see 
fellows  over  there  and  take  his  team  and  fetch  them  in  primary  day...  977 
Dart,  George  H.,  my  son,  I gave  him  all  of  first  $50  received;  he  hired  a 
rig  and  went  around  putting  up  lithographs  and  campaign  literature.. . 975 

Edmonds,  sent  me  $400  in  a check;  I paid  part  of  to  men  to  take  teams 


Field,  Frank,  made  him  the  biggest  payment,  $50;  gave  him  that  to  go  up 
through  the  edge  of  Adams  County  and  through  the  town  of  Douglas; 
he  was  running  a creamery  at  Mellenville  and  was  well  acquainted  all 
through  there;  was  in  favor  of  Stephenson;  I called  on  him  and  met 
him  at  Pewaukee  and  gave  him  the  $50  and  sent  him  out  through  there 
to  do  what  he  could  with  his  friends ; I do  not  know  what  he  spent  it  for . 976,  977 
Game  warden,  I was  a deputy  at  that  time;  was  performing  duties  as  game 

warden 974,  979,  983 

Literature,  I paid  others  for  putting  it  out 976 

Men  to  whom  I gave  money  did  not  pay  it  out  in  my  presence 978 

Money  ^ I spent  three-fourths  of  it  for  workers;  spent  something  like  $100 

for  cigars  and  treating 979 

Money,  none  used  by  me,  or  as  far  as  I know  by  men  to  whom  I paid  it, 

for  purpose  of  bribing  or  corruptly  influencing  electors 983 

Money,  received  $450  to  be  used  m behalf  of  Stephenson  in  1908  campaign.  974 

Money,  when  I got  through  I thought  I had  spent  some  of  my  own 978, 979 

Names  of  people  to  whom  I paid  money,  I think  I paid  some  of  them  $3  and 
some  of  them  $5;  paid  to  bring  people  to  polls;  were  friends  of  Stephen- 


Saloons,  my  former  testimony  that  I spent  quite  a lot  of  money  in,  is  true.  976 
Stephenson  fund,  I did  not  contribute  to  it;  did  not  aid  in  raising  one  for 
campaign 982 


XXVI 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page. 

Dart,  George  W.,  Montello,  Wis.,  testimony  of — Continued. 

Stone,  J.  W.,  State  game  warden,  received  first  $50  from  him;  told  me  I 

was  to  help  Stephenson  as  much  as  I could  with  that  money 974 

Sum  of  $400,  when  I got  it,  I put  it  in  my  pocket,  and  did  not  keep  it  in  my 
pocket;  it  went  until  it  was  gone;  I think  I must  have  got  the  check 
about  the  20th  of  August;  it  was  all  gone  before  the  primary;  I think  the 

heft  of  it  was  spent  probably  in  a couple  of  days . 978 

Taggets,  Herman,  I think  I gave  him  $5 977 

Trips,  used  my  own  team  on  them ; that  I charged  up  to  the  State;  and  when 
I drove  any  nights,  I paid  that  out  of  the  Stephenson  fund;  was  engaged 
in  work  as  game  warden;  when  I put  that  $400  in  I was  out  on  a trip;  I 

went  around  I think  three  or  four  days 983 

Williamson,  Leslie,  I think  I gave  him  $10  to  go  to  see  people  around  where 

he  lived,  in  the  town  of  Buffalo  and  Pewaukee 977 

Davies,  D.  H.,  State  treasury  agent,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1403 

Edmonds,  received  money  from,  about  $40  or  $50,  while  in  Madison. . 1405, 1406 
Employed  to  keep  tab  on  members  of  assembly;  received  $5  a day  and  ex- 
penses; was  in  and  about  the  halls  of  the  legislature  part  of  the  time  I 

was  in  Madison 1404 

Leuch,  did  not  tell  him  I had  authority  to  say  that  he  could  have  anything 
he  wanted  if  he  would  stay  in  the  joint  convention  and  vote;  do  not  re- 
member any  conversation  with  him  to  such  effect;  was  not  authorized 

to  make  any  such  promise 1404, 1405 

Money,  do  not  know  of  any  spent,  either  directly  or  indirectly  for  the  pur- 
pose of  bribing  or  corruptly  or  unlawfully  influencing  any  electors  in  the 

primary  election  in  the  interest  of  Senator  Stephenson 1407 

Money,  spent  none,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  in  connection  with  the 

senatorial  contest 1405 

Overbeck,  received  check  from;  do  not  remember  the  amount 1405, 1406 

State  treasury  agent,  held  office  of  two  years  and  two  months;  appointed 

by  Gov.  Davidson;  am  holding  over 1406 

Dee,  George  E.,  editor  and  proprietor  of  the  Chippewa  Herald,  Chippewa  Falls, 

Wis.,  testimony  of 1218 

Advertisements  for  Stephenson  inserted  in  both  daily  and  weekly  editions.  1229 
Advertising  for  Stephenson,  my  testimony  before  former  committee  that 
I did  not  publish  any  between  the  time  I saw  Ring  and  August  18  is 

correct 1229, 1230 

Advertising  material  concerning  Stephenson,  I may  have  written  some 
of  the  articles  and  some  were  sent  from  headquarters  and  some  I took 
from  other  papers;  Ring  did  not  send  me  any  material;  would  not  say 
whether  or  not  he  sent  articles  from  headquarters;  I might  have  got  some 
“boilerplate”  from  him;  we  had  a cut  of  Stephenson;  I do  not  recall 

from  what  source  it  came 1219 

Advertising  rates,  former  committee  wanted  to  hold  it  down  to  a com- 
mercial business;  but  in  any  advertising  campaign  we  are  allowed  lee- 
way on  the  preparation  of  copy;  where  you  expend  professional  services 

you  charge  a little  more  than  commercial  rate 1233 

Advertising  rates,  sliding  scale  of;  sometimes  if  we  insert  an  advertisement 
where  there  is  liable  to  be  a loss  of  business  to  the  paper  through  some 
friends  in  our  community  we  may  expect  a little  higher  price  for  that...  1224 
Article  headed  “Ling,  Eleventh-Hour  Candidate,”  I wrote  it;  considered 
good  political  stuff;  it  probably  would  not  look  exactly  like  an  adver- 
tisement, yet  it  was  done  in  the  interest  of  Stephenson;  it  was  political 

newspaper  work 1228 

Article  in  my  issue  of  August  6;  I could  not  state  whether  it  was  published 
before  or  after  I saw  Ring;  it  was  clipped  as  a press  dispatch  from  some 
Milwaukee  paper;  can  not  say  how  it  happened  to  get  in  Herald;  would 
probably  not  consider  it  favorable  to  Stephenson;  I do  not  always  see 
everything  that  goes  in  paper;  not  significant  as  to  Stephenson’s  position 
in  race;  merely  a newspaper  man’s  estimate;  news  item  and  not  an 

editorial 1227, 1228, 1234 

Article  published  in  my  paper  August  18  given;  was  after  I had  arrange- 
ment with  Ring;  I should  consider  it  an  advertisement  for  Stephenson; 
rate  for  article  on  a commercial  basis  would  be  5 cents  a line. . 1226, 1227, 1232 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


XXVII 


Dee,  George  E.,  editor  and  proprietor  of  the  Chippewa  Herald,  Chippewa  Falls, 
Wis.,  testimony  of — Continued. 

Business  books,  I think  there  is  an  entry  of  $150  item  under  the  head  of 
advertising  in  cashbook;  do  not  keep  a book  account  of  cash  trans- 
actions; where  it  is  credit  business  we  do;  make  a statement  every  year 
to  comply  with  corporation-tax  law;  required  to  state  amount  of  business 

and  we  get  that  from  cashbook 1230, 

Chippewa  Falls,  in  the  city,  I think  we  hired  two  teams  to  get  some  voters 
to  the  polls  and  drivers  were  instructed  to  ask  some  of  the  men  they 
hauled  to  vote  for  Stephenson,  if  they  could;  but  there  was  no  thought 

of  buying  any  vote 

Chippewa  Falls,  resident  of  14  years 

Chippewa  Herald,  is  a Republican  paper,  is  a daily  and  weekly 1218, 

Editorial  support,  articles  have  frequently  appeared  in  my  paper  and 
others  throughout  the  State  in  interest  of  some  candidacy  that  may  be 
alleged  to  be  editorials;  we  call  them  “boomers;”  sometimes  we  get  an 
editorial  from  a baking-powder  concern,  for  which  they  pay  us  a fair 

price  for  inserting;  I do  not  know  that  we  cut  it  out 

Edmonds,  arranged  with  him  by  telephone  from  Milwaukee  to  secure  poll 
workers;  think  $200  came  from  him  next  morning;  day  after  primary  he 
telephoned  me  and  we  had  a sort  of  congratulatory  talk;  did  not  render 

him  an  account;  not  asked  to 1225, 

Extra  copies  of  Herald  sent  out,  more  especially  of  daily  editions;  some  of 
weekly  editions  sent  out;  sent  in  general  vicinity  to  people  who  were  not 
subscribers;  had  a list  of  names  in  office;  copied  by  stenographer  from 
different  gazetteers  and  directories;  sometimes  sent  out  as  many  as  four 

or  five  hundred  in  a batch 1233, 

“Grand  Old  Man”  advertisement  was  a plate  sent  out  from  Milwaukee; 

former  testimony  concerning  date  on  which  it  ran 1227, 

Hatton,  I was  originally  appointed  his  manager  for  Chippewa  County;  but 
I withdrew  from  that  and  notified  them  very  clearly;  withdrew  some- 
time in  July;  it  must  have  been  a couple  of  weeks  before  arrangement 

with  Ring 1224, 

Herald  Printing  Co.  is  name  of  our  company;  it  is  incorporated 

McIntyre,  paid  him  I think  $5  to  make  a trip  up  in  the  Bloomer  country. . 
Men,  sent  out  to  employ  others,  as  I recollect  not  given  money;  authorized 

to  make  contracts  with  responsible  parties  and  report  those 

Money,  I did  not  receive  any  from  Stephenson  or  his  representatives  as  a 

consideration  for  supporting  him  in  my  paper . 1218, 

Money,  none  used  by  me  or  as  far  as  I know  by  those  to  whom  I intrusted 

it  for  purpose  of  bribing  or  corruptly  influencing  electors 

Political  advertisements,  I did  not  classify  as  to  rates;  never  heard  of  a 

newspaper  in  the  country  that  gets  out  a rate  card  on 1227, 

Poll  workers,  instructions  to;  paid  from  $3.50  to  $5  a day;  individually  I think 
$5  was  about  the  limit  paid  any  worker;  asked  them  to  stay  at  polls  and 
hand  out  sample  ballots  and  ask  various  voters  if  they  had  no  preference 

to  give  their  vote  to  Stephenson 1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 

Preston,  Charles,  Chippewa  Falls,  I think  I gave  him  some  money  to  secure 
poll  workers  up  around  Cadott  and  Segal;  told  me  he  had  gotten  two  or 

three  good  men  up  in  that  country  and  I left  it  to  him 

Ring,  conversation  with  in  my  office  when  contract  for  advertising  was 
made;  I said  “If  I do  any  supporting  in  this  campaign  it  will  be  for 
Stephenson;”  said  he  was  representing  Stephenson  committee  and 
would  like  to  make  an  advertising  contract;  I named  my  price  as  $150; 
wanted  me  to  give  as  much  space  as  I could;  no  definite  arrangement 
about  space  made;  was  fore  part  of  August;  contract  wholly  verbal;  prior 
to  that  had  not  supported  any  other  senatorial  candidate. . 1223, 1224, 1229, 
Ring,  M.  C.,  Neillsville,  received  $150  from  him  to  pay  for  advertising;  he 
made  a contract  with  me  for  advertising  Stephenson’s  candidacy;  wanted 
him  liberally  advertised  in  columns  of  Herald;  paid  me  $50  when  con- 
tract was  made  and  sent  me  $100  later,  I think;  furnished  extra  copies  of 

paper  as  well  as  advertising 1219, 1223, 

Rowe,  Lewis  I.,  Stanley,  I enlisted  his  services;  he  said  he  knew  reliable 

Earties  in  that  section  who  could  attend  to  precincts;  and  I furnished 
im  with  ballots  and  gave  him  exact  instructions  I wished  to  be  carried 

out 

Space  given  to  campaign  about  277  inches;  merely  an  estimate 


Page. 


1231 


1222 

1218 

1223 


1224 

1226 


1235 

1228 

1225 

1231 

1222 

1222 

1219 

1234 

1229 

1225 

1222 


1232 

1229 

1225 

1233 


XXVIII 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page. 

Dee,  George  E.,  editor  and  proprietor  of  the  Chippewa  Herald,  Chippewa  Falls, 

Wis.,  testimony  of — Continued. 

Stephenson,  do  not  recall  that  I said  anything  favorable  to  him  prior  to 
arrangement  with  Ring;  do  not  remember  saying  anything  unfavorable 
in  editorial  comment  prior  to  that;  decided  to  support  him  prior  to  Ring’s 

visit - 1225, 1234 

Stephenson,  supported  his  candidacy  in  1908  campaign 1218 

Sum  of  $200  received  from  headquarters  to  organize  a crew  of  poll  workers 
for  the  primary;  figured  after  campaign  I had  paid  out  a little  more  than 
that;  did  not  keep  any  of  it  for  compensation;  did  not  keep  a record  of 
to  whom  paid;  some  of  it  paid  indirectly;  received  it  about  five  days 

before  primary,  all  for  services  election  day 1219, 1220, 1221, 1222, 1225 

Dillingham,  William  P.,  chairman  of  committee  appointing  subcommittee  to 

investigate  charges  against  Senator  Stephenson 3,  4 

Dolan,  P.  F.,  real  estate  business,  Shawano,  Wis.,  testimony  of 918 

Account  of  disbursements,  I kept  one  because  I supposed  I would  have  to 
answer  to  somebody,  and  I wanted  to  know  what  I was  doing;  did  not 

do  it  by  direction  of  Edmonds 922,  923 

Auto  hire,  one  day,  $10 920 

George,  D.  H.,  paid  him  a check  of  $8.50  for  doing  work  in  the  city;  to  get 

men  to  hand  out  cards  at  polls  on  election  day 920 

Literature,  labor  for  addressing  and  stamping,  $10 920 

Memorandum  in  hand  is  carbon  copy  of  original  report  made  to  Edmonds 

February  2 919 

Men  to  hand  out  Stephenson  cards  on  election  day,  $54;  I paid  them  $3 
apiece;  there  were  18  of  them;  names  of  a few  given;  not  duty  to  bring 

voters  up;  just  stood  at  the  polls , 920,  921 

Money;  did  not  and,  to  my  knowledge,  none  to  whom  I gave  money  did  use 

it  for  purpose  of  bribing  or  corruptly  influencing  voters 924 

Money  expended  amounted  to  $392.90,  leaving  a balance  of  $7.10,  for  which 

I sent  a check  to  Edmonds 920,  923 

Money;  I received  $400;  think  it  was  from  Edmonds;  sent  me  by  draft, 

payable  to  my  order,  about  August  26,  at  Shawano 918,  919,  923 

Personal  expense,  railroad  fare  and  hotel  bills,  $15 920 

Postage,  $27,  was  for  sending  out  literature  that  I got  from  office  in  Milwau- 
kee and  had  printed  in  Shawano 919 

Printing  bills,  Shawano  County  Advocate,  $18.50,  for  striking  off  some 
printed  matter  and  printing  some  cards;  Shawano  Journal,  $8.50;  Volkes- 

blatte,  $6 919,920 

Saloon  bill,  $95.90,  for  beer  and  cigars  for  fellows  that  might  be  standing 
around  in  the  saloons;  I made  the  expenditure  personally;  Edmonds  had 
paid  me  before  I reported  item  to  him;  I went  to  saloons,  distributing  lit- 
erature and  bought  drinks  while  I was  there;  not  my  intention  to  carry  on 

a saloon  campaign 920,  921,  923 

Sexton  employed  me;  he  came  up  to  my  office  at  Shawano  to  see  me;  I was 
busy  and  refused  to  go  ahead  with  the  work;  he  insisted,  and  I told  him 
if  he  would  get  a man  to  handle  the  eastern  part  of  the  county,  and  also 
somebody  to  look  after  the  city,  I was  well  acquainted  in  the  western 
part  and  would  do  that  work  myself;  we  agreed  Zachow  would  take  the 

eastern  part  of  county 918,  922 

Shawano  County;  I was  to  organize  it  in  behalf  of  Stephenson;  to  get  them 
to  work  to  distribute  literature  and  to  hand  out  cards;  details  of  compe- 
tition there 919,  924 

Stephenson,  participated  in  his  behalf  in  campaign  of  1908;  was  for  him 
before  I made  arrangement  with  Edmonds;  had  been  for  him  from  about 

the  time  he  started  to  carry  Bob  La  Follette  on,  I think 918,  925 

Telephoning,  $3.50 920 

Zachow,  W.  Z.,  Shawano,  looked  after  eastern  part  of  county;  I paid  him 
$138;  Sexton  engaged  him;  he  is  a banker  and  paper  manufacturer. . 920,  922 
Domachowski,  Joseph  A.,  member  of  Legislature  of  Wisconsin  in  1909,  testi- 
mony of 1546 

Absence  of,  I will  say  I walked  out  once  to  break  a quorum;  never  went 

out  or  in  to  help  to  elect  him 1553, 1554 

Absence  of,  was  not  offered  money  or  other  inducement  to  stay  out  of  joint 
session 1546, 1547 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


XXIX 


Page. 

Domachowski,  Joseph  A.,  member  of  Legislature  of  Wisconsin  in  1909,  testi- 
mony of — Continued. 

Brown,  Neal,  regular  Democratic  candidate;  voted  for 1554 

Business  of,  was  with  the  Prudential  Insurance  Co.;  was  painter  and 

decorator . 1554 

Farrell,  never  told  him  as  to  my  conversations  about  offer  of  $1,500 1553 

Money,  all  talk  of  being  approached  with  offers  of,  without  foundation 1548 

Money,  never  offered  any,  or  other  valuable  consideration  to  support 
Senator  Stephenson,  or  to  refrain  from  doing  anything  to  the  benefit  or 

success  of  Senator  Stephenson 1548 

Money,  the  only  talk  I had  about  receiving,  was  with  O’Neal 1548 

Money,  was  never  offered  any,  or  other  inducement,  to  be  absent  when  vote 


O’Neal,  conversation  with;  he  said,  “Joe,  how  much  did  it  take  to  turn 
you  over?”  I said,  “Fifteen  hundred;”  he  said,  “Is  that  so?”  I said 
“Yes;”  he  said,  “Well,  I could  fix  you  up  better  than  that;”  I said 
“Go  ahead;”  he  said,  “What  will  you  have?”  and  we  had  something 


O’Neal,  I was  jesting  when  I told  him  I had  received  $1,500 1547 

O’Neal,  never  told  him  that  the  offer  to  me  of  $1,500  was  a joke 1552 

Pearson,  C.  L.,  testimony  of,  that  I told  him  I had  received  $1,500  is  true. . 1549 

Pearson,  had  a second  talk  with,  about  the  offer  of  $1,500  to  me  after  I 


Pearson,  think  he  was  sincere  and  honest  when  he  asked  me  about  the  offer 

of  $1,500  to  me 1552 

Pearson,  when  he  asked  me  if  the  story  that  Zimmerman  told  him  of  my 
being  offered  $1,500  was  true,  I said  “Sure,”  or  was  it  “yes?”  Was  the 

last  person  to  whom  I told  of  the  alleged  offer  of  $1,500 1549, 1550 

Powell,  W.  M.,  conversation  with;  Watrous  and  Everet  also  present 1548 

Probation  officer  of  the  juvenile  court  in  Milwaukee  County;  appoint- 
ment  1548,1549,1554 

Ramsey,  never  told  him  as  to  my  conversations  about  offer  of  $1,500 1553 

Reporters,  had  conversation  with,  about  money;  interviewed  me  as  to  my 

statement  that  I had  been  offered  $1,500 1546, 1547, 1548, 1550, 1551, 1552 

Reporters,  never  told  them  that  the  offer  of  $1,500  to  me  was  a joke 1552 

Towne,  never  told  him  as  to  my  conversation  about  offer  of  $1,500 1553 

Watrous,  P.  J.,  told  him  or  some  other  reporter  that  I had  had  a conversa- 


Zimmerman,  am  sorry  I made  statement  to,  that  I had  been  offered  $1,500 
to  absent  myself  from  the  joint  session  at  which  Senator  Stephenson  was 

elected 1546 

Zimmerman,  my  statement  to,  that  I received  $1,500  to  absent  myself 


Zimmerman,  think  his  inquiry  of  me  why  certain  members  had  absented 

themselves  and  as  to  the  offer  of  $1,500  to  me  was  legitimate 1551 

Dormady,  Patrick,  sheriff  of  Ashland  County,  Ashland,  Wis.,  affidavit  of 2001 

Age,  52  years 2001 

Ashland,  resided  in  about  past  25  years 2001 

Ashland  County,  very  large,  with  28  precincts 2002 

Campaign  work  for  Stephenson  in  Ashland  city  and  Ashland  County,  dur- 
ing primary  contest,  at  request  of  campaign  managers  at  Milwaukee; 
services  covered  period  of  about  60  days;  received  no  instructions,  other 
than  told  to  use  own  judgment  in  legitimate  and  proper  way  to  advance 
interests  of  Stephenson;  expenses  and  a reasonable  compensation  for 

services  would  be  paid 2001 

Headquarters  at  Milwaukee,  received  from,  $125  for  personal  expenses  and 

services 2001 

Memoranda  of  disbursements,  kept  no  detailed,  as  incurred 2002 

Money  not  disbursed  for  purpose  of  corruptly  or  unlawfully  influencing  or 

bribing  any  person 2002 

Personal  expenses  consisted  of  cost  of  entertainment  and  hotel  bills, 

cigars,  etc.... 2001 

Statement  of  disbursements,  never  called  upon  for 2002 

Stephenson,  supporter  of  prior  to  doing  any  work  for,  by  request  or  other- 
wise....  2001 

Traveled  in  and  throughout  Ashland  County  on  two  different  occasions. . . 2002 


XXX 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page. 


Dresser,  Lester  S.,  Minneapolis,  Minn.,  formerly  of  St.  Croix  Falls,  Polk 

County,  Wis.,  testimony  of.... 997 

Account,  Edmonds,  Stephenson,  or  anyone  did  not  ask  me  for  one  at  any 

time 1014 

Account  in  small  book  that  I carried  in  my  pocket  was  destroyed  before  I 


testified,  because  I did  not  suppose  I would  ever  have  any  use  for  it 1003, 

1004, 1014, 1015 

Anderson,  Albert,  lawyer,  Hudson,  when  I testified  before  the  other  com- 
mittee my  recollection  was  I paid  him  $150;  afterwards  he  told  me  I 
had  made  a mistake,  it  was  $350;  I gave  him  the  money  to  use  as  he 
thought  best;  I do  not  know  how  much  he  retained  for  his  own  services; 

never  rendered  an  account  to  me 1001 

Business,  I was  engaged  in  other  business  while  I was  running  campaign.  1007 
Campaign,  I did  not  do  anything  except  to  receive  money  from  Edmonds 
of  Puelicher  and  pass  it  to  the  gentlemen  named  and  when  I was  through 
with  my  official  business  I always  talked  for  Stephenson  wherever  I 
was;  in  ordinary  conversation;  I assumed  no  responsibility  for  the  cam- 
paign  1017 

Edmonds,  conversation  with  when  I made  arrangements  as  to  territory  I 
was  to  cover  was  some  time  after  I received  letter  from  Stephenson;  I 
think  that  was  only  time  I saw  him  during  campaign;  1 went  up  to  his 
office  and  met  him;  we  talked  over  campaign  and  particularly  south 
part  of  eleventh  district;  he  said  there  was  not  anybody  in  there;  I 
suggested  Hetting;  I told  him  I did  not  know  how  much  money  it  would 

take  up  there;  he  finally  said  $300  a county  ought  to  do 1011, 1012, 1017 

Election  of  United  States  Senator,  had  nothing  to  do  with  outside  the 
primaries;  I was  in  Madison  almost  all  winter;  office  there;  I had  noth- 
ing to  do  with  creating  Stephenson  sentiment  among  members  of  gen- 
eral assembly  after  its  sessions  began 1016 

Expense  account,  I knew  in  a general  way  candidate  had  to  file  one;  I 

supposed  he  could  do  that  from  his  own  records 1015 

First  payment  of  $300,  I drew  the  money  and  turned  it  over  to  different 

individuals 997,  998 

Halls,  Olof,  Ellsworth,  Wis.,  gave  him  $50  to  look  over  Pierce  County  and 
report  senatorial  situation  to  me;  memorandum  of  transaction  on  slip  of 
paper  destroyed;  do  not  think  he  was  to  pay  out  any  part  of  money,  it 

was  for  his  own  use 999 

Hetting,  did  not  render  me  an  account  of  his  expenditures  at  that  time; 
he  did  later;  I have  misplaced  it  and  can  not  find  it;  he  did  not  turn 
over  an  account  book;  in  spring  of  1909,  he  was  at  Madison  and  I sug- 
gested it  would  be  well  to  make  a general  statement;  he  did  it  from 

memory;  gave  six  or  seven  items  out  of  sum  something  like  $1,800 1002, 

1003, 1013, 1014 

Hetting,  Henry,  lived  at  St.  Croix  Falls;  worked  through  the  campaign — 
two  months ; he  spent  the  rest  of  the  money  that  I did  not  pay  out  to  other 
people;  gave  him  the  amount  ($1,800)  at  different  times;  he  was  to 
travel  through  seven  different  counties  and  talk  with  people  and  ad- 
vance Stephenson’s  interests;  was  to  get  workers  for  local  towns  to  see 
that  the  vote  was  gotten  out,  literature  distributed,  and  to  talk  for  Ste- 
phenson  1002, 1005, 1017 

Hetting,  I supplied  him  with  money  before  I received  any  from  Stephen- 
son fund;  began  to  advance  him  money  after  July  4 and  I did  not  receive 
money  from  Stephenson  committee  until  some  time  in  August;  advanced 
him  six  or  seven  hundred  dollars;  have  no  account  of  advances  now.  1003, 1004 
Hetting,  was  not  to  pay  any  persons  money  for  supporting  or  voting  for 
Stephenson;  said  he  usually  treated  where  he  went;  did  not  tell  me  in 
detail  how  he  spent  first  $500;  I can  not  tell  offhand  how  long  it  took 
him  to  spend  it;  sums  of  $75,  $25,  and  $50  not  always  given  rapidly 
day  after  day;  gave  him  money  in  St.  Croix  Falls,  most  of  the  time  in 
cash;  conversation  with  when  retained;  think  I told  him  he  would  be 

paid  $200  .for  services 1005, 1006, 1007, 1012, 1013 

Last  sum  of  $250,  received  right  after  the  primary  from  Edmonds;  I think 

it  came  in  a check,  about  September  8 1016 

Legislative  campaign,  I did  not  spend  any  of  Stephenson  money  in  behalf 
of  any  candidate  for  legislature;  men  to  whom  I gave  money  did  not 
to  my  knowledge 1007, 1008 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


XXXI 


Page. 

Dresser,  Lester  S.,  Minneapolis,  Minn.,  formerly  of  St.  Croix  Falls,  Polk 
County,  Wis.,  testimony  of — Continued. 

McGill,  Judge,  Ladysmith,  paid  him  $25;  I was  in  his  office  and  he  said 
they  were  sending  out  some  literature  and  lacked  $25  for  postage;  I 

did  not  ask  him  what  literature  he  was  sending  out 1000 

Member  of  Wisconsin  State  Board  of  Control,  as  such  officer  it  was  my 
duty  to  visit  State  institutions;  visited  institutions  in  counties  I was 
assigned  to,  during  campaign;  I have  expense  account  book  that  I kept 
for  my  expenses  with  State;  did  not  charge  Stephenson  for  traveling 
expenses;  I think  it  was  in  March,  1908,  the  board  divided  up  the  State 
and  I was  assigned  to  the  eleventh  district;  that  was  before  I talked 

with  Stephenson  in  Washington;  position  is  appointive 1008, 1015, 1018 

Money,  I did  not  keep  any  of  it  either  as  compensation  or  expenses  for 

myself 1007, 1018 

Money,  I did  not  spend  any  after  the  nominations  were  made 1016 

Money,  none  used  by  me  or  to  my  knowledge  by  those  I intrusted  it  to, 
for  the  purpose  of  directly  or  indirectly  bribing  or  corruptly  influencing 

voters 1018 

Nesbit,  Lloyd,  Barron,  Wis.,  gave  him  $50  to  pay  his  expenses  in  travel- 
ing over  Barron  County  talking  for  Stephenson;  he  did  not  account 
for  the  money;  I do  not  know  for  what  purpose  he  spent  it;  I had  mem- 
orandum of  money  paid  him  on  a little  slip  of  paper,  which  I destroyed 

after  the  campaign  was  over 998 

Saloon  campaign,  I did  not  make  one 1006 

Stephenson,  did  not  meet  him  in  Washington  during  campaign;  conversa- 
tion with,  at  Washington  in  March,  1908,  as  recorded  in  testimony  before 

former  committee  true 1010, 1011 

Stephenson,  his  letter  of  July  14,  1908,  to  me;  expression  in  it  “I  hope 

some  one  will  look  after  Douglas”  means  Douglas  County 1009, 1010, 1011 

Stephenson,  how  I came  to  advance  funds  for  him;  when  he  announced 
his  candidacy,  I wrote  him  a letter  and  told  him  I was  for  him  and  sug- 
gested that  he  get  somebody  to  look  after  the  district;  and  he  wrote  and 
told  me  to  get  somebody;  and  I advanced  money  out  of  friendship  for 

him 1004 

Stevenson,  Menominee,  I paid  him  $75  to  travel  over  Dunn  County,  see 
what  conditions  were  and  talk  for  Stephenson;  I do  not  know  whether 
he  did  it;  he  was  recommended  to  me  as  a good  man  by  Albert  Anderson, 

of  Hudson 1000 

Sum  of  $1,800,  received  about  August  12  for  the  organization  of  several 
counties  in  the  eleventh  congressional  district;  received  all  in  one  check 
or  draft;  cashed  it  in  St.  Paul  and  deposited  part  of  it  in  Merchants’ 

National  Bank  there 999, 1004, 1005 

Total  of  $2,350  received  by  me  from  Stephenson  fund — $300  and  $1,800  the 
fore  part  of  August  and  $250  immediately  following  the  primaries;  dis- 
bursements of 997, 1016, 1017 


E. 

Eastman,  O.  W.,  statement  made  by  Blaine  before  this  committee  in  regard  to 
conversation  with  Eastman,  not  made  by  Blaine  before  the  joint  investigating 


committee 2027,  2028,  2029 

Eastman,  O.  A.,  Platteville,  Wis.,  affidavit  of 2029 


Blaine,  John  J.,  read  testimony  of,  given  before  this  committee;  did  meet 
him  in  Madison,  but  denies  he  asked  him  to  pull  off  or  not  to  have  the 
investigation  or  not  to  use  his  influence  for  an  investigation;  denies  he 
gave  reason  stated  by  him;  denies  he  told  him  any  of  Cook’s  supporters 
had  been  changed  to  Stephenson  for  any  money  consideration;  denies 
that  Cook’s  supporters  were  so  changed;  denies  getting  any  money  for 

changing  from  Stephenson  people 2029,  2030 

Primary  campaign,  only  transaction  of  a financial  character  had  was  to 
guarantee  payment  of  $7.50  for  one  of  Stephenson’s  supporters;  that  sum 
was  advanced  by  him  and  afterwards  repaid  to  him ; with  exception  of 

this  $7.50  never  received  or  disbursed  any  money  at  any  time 2030 

Testimony  at  Madison,  reaffirms  denials  made  in,  as  to  the  conversation 
which  Blaine  alleged  he  had  with  affiant 2030 

15235°— 11 m 


xxxn 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page. 

Editorial  influence,  purchase  of,  or  newspaper  advertising,  as  to  statute  on  the 

subject  of 356, 357 

Edmonds,  carbon  copy  of  letter  from,  to  Stephenson,  dated  August  4,  1908.  2026,  2029 
Edmonds,  checks  used  by,  drawn  on  his  account  in  the  National  Exchange 

Bank 1255,2025 

Edmonds,  E.  A.,  print  and  wrapping  paper  manufacturer,  Appleton,  Wis., 

testimony  of 59, 178,  2041 

Account  filed  with  legislative  committee,  I did  not  make  it;  but  I think 
from  what  I heard  that  Sacket  and  Puelicher  did;  do  not  discredit  it. . . 72 

Account  filed  with  secretary  of  state,  do  not  know  why  it  does  not  indicate 

amounts  paid  managers  for  personal  compensation 305 

Account,  I was  to  keep  one  of  the  fund  of  $5,000  and  rendered  a statement 
of  it;  I required  it  of  myself  for  my  own  protection  and  safety;  I did  not 
keep  account  of  other  funds  which  I drew,  because  the  man  from  whom 
I got  the  money  rendered  the  report;  that  account  was  done  in  my  office.  246 
Account  in  Marshall  & Isley  Bank,  carried  under  title  of  “E.  A.  E.  No.  2.” 

If  I had  been  asked  if  I had  one  two  weeks  ago,  I should  have  said  “No.” 

But  from  fact  such  an  account  is  found  in  their  books,  I know  it  to  be 
true;  I have  checked  every  item  in  that  account  against  the  items  in 
Exhibit  49  and  find  that  every  item  in  account  has  been  sworn  to  previ- 
ously by  me;  $5,827.68  aggregate  amount  of  deposits.  2041,  2042,  2043,  2044,  2045 
Account  of  personal  expenditures,  I never  kept  an  itemized  account  of  sums 
I expended;  I never  had  been  in  habit  of  doing  that  in  my  personal 

expenses  and  I considered  this  the  same  way 190, 191 

Accounts,  arrangements  for  bookkeeping  and  office  management  had 
already  been  made  and  Mr.  Sacket  was  in  charge  of  headquarters  when 
I came  to  Milwaukee;  think  he  kept  the  memoranda  or  book  account  of 
expenses;  did  not  give  matter  of  filing  account  any  attention  during 
campaign  except  that  I knew  those  employed  to  do  it  were  doing  it. . . 101, 

102, 107, 182, 183, 191 

Accounts,  do  not  know  that  I ever  talked  with  Puelicher  and  Sacket  about 
necessity  of  care  in  keeping  them  so  as  to  enable  Stephenson  to  file 

proper  account;  did  not  take  legal  counsel  concerning 107 

Advertising,  at  first  thought  it  best  means  of  interesting  voters;  did  it  in 
every  conceivable  way ; I drew  up  some  of  the  matter ; can  not  recollect 
what  I said;  we  tried  to  bring  out  the  good  points  of  the  Senator;  roughly, 
should  say  we  spent  about  $40,000  for;  advertised  in  every  paper  in  the 
State  that  did  not  refuse;  do  not  remember  items  in  $12,696.76  in  account 

for  newspaper  advertising  attributed  to  me 67,68 

Ames,  A.  R.,  Dane  County  organizing,  do  not  know  how  many  days  he 
worked  for  which  he  was  paid  $350,  August  8;  assume  amount  was  paid 
him  at  time  agreement  was  made  and  he  thought  it  was  what  he  ought  to 
have  for  work  he  deemed  necessary  and  for  his  own  services;  item  of  $200, 

July  18  was  first  money  paid  to;  do  not  know  about  it;  conversation  with 
concerning  organizing ; do  not  know  except  in  a general  way  what  he  used 

money  for;  recollect  he  received  $200  for  personal  compensation 77, 

78,  91,  92,  93, 102, 178, 179,  248,  275 

Appleton,  Wis.,  have  resided  there  four  years 59 

Ashland,  D.  G.,  Sampson,  $100;  think  he  was  doing  organizing  work  in 

that  county ; money  paid  him  for  that  and  no  other  purpose 345 

Bancroft,  discussed  employment  of  with  Sacket;  I would  not  have  made 
contract  with,  if  I had  been  at  home;  I thought  it  was  too  close  a point,  too 
close  to  the  law  which  provided  that  a candidate  for  the  United  States 
Senate  should  not  pay  money  to  a candidate  for  State  senate  or  assembly 
to  influence  his  vote;  that  is  what  would  be  assumed;  Sacket  thought 
there  could  not  be  any  question  of  propriety  because  in  campaign  two 
years  before  and  in  election  of  Stephenson  Bancroft  was  one  of  his  warmest 

supporters - 74,  75, 105, 106,  222 

Bancroft,  had  met  him  before  campaign;  did  not  pay  him  or  give  him  an 
order  for  $250,  July  31;  do  not  know  what  it  was  paid  him  for;  think 
Puelicher  told  me  it  was  paid  him,  several  days  after  the  payment  was 
made;  I recall  that  the  money  was  given  him  after  I had  left  on  Saturday 
night;  Puelicher  said  Bancroft  was  in  and  he  had  made  arrangements  for 
him  to  look  after  Stephenson’s  interests  in  Richland  County ; think  Sacket 
will  know  about  transaction  with 72*  73, 222 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


XXXIII 


Page. 

Edmonds,  E.  A.,  print  and  wrapping  paper  manufacturer,  Appleton,  Wis., 
testimony  of — Continued. 

Bancroft,  is  now  attorney  general;  is  not  the  attorney  general  who  wrote  the 

opinion  introduced  before  the  subcommittee 222,  223 

Beyer,  George,  paid  $300  August  29  for  organization  work  in  Oconto  County; 

I do  not  believe  any  of  it  was  for  compensation 336 

Bills,  contracted  in  connection  with  primary,  paid  or  arranged  to  be  paid 

within  three  or  four  days  after  election 79 

Bills  paid  on  September  5,  I knew  them  to  be  just;  can  not  remember  any 
particular  instance  wffien  details  were  given ; I undoubtedly  talked  with 
these  men  as  I saw  them;  can  not  give  any  one  of  the  items;  have  abso- 
lutely no  book  account;  I do  not  think  it  would  be  of  sufficient  importance 
to  charge  my  mind  with  the  details  of  an  expenditure  of  $250  or  $500  that 

a man  made  two  or  three  years  before 273,  274 

Bills,  usually  when  O.  K’d,  quite  often  Mr.  Sacket  was  present  and  some- 
times Mr.  Puelicher,  and  if  they  were  present  they  took  them  and , I assume, 
paid  them;  I did  not  draw  checks  for  the  payment  of  any  bills  except  to 
the  extent  of  the  $5,000;  think  I O.  K’d  the  bills  that  I contracted;  bills 
were  paid  by  Puelicher  and  Sacket  that  I did  not  O.  K. ; had  nothing  to 

do  with  them  in  many  instances 68,  69, 112 

Bills,  when  I say  paying  money,  I mean  to  state  that  I contracted  the  bills 
and  I gave  instructions  either  to  Sacket,  office  manager,  or  Puelicher, 
custodian,  to  turn  the  money  over;  so  while  I did  not  myself  pay  money, 

virtually  I did 97 

Blaine,  Senator,  made  charges  of  corruption  before  legislature;  made  them 
on  information  and  belief,  as  he  said,  and  then  when  called  before  the 
committee  to  testify  he  pleaded  leave  not  to  testify  because  he  was  a 
member  of  the  senate,  and  he  refused  absolutely  to  name  the  charges  and 


specify  what  they  might  be 126 

Bowman,  Harry,  was  one  of  the  deputy  game  wardens,  do  not  recollect  item 

of  $20  paid  to 337 

Brady,  C.  E.,  paid  $500  for  organizing  in  Manitowoc;  do  not  know  what 

he  did 76 

Brady,  do  not  recall  having  made  a statement  to  him  that  it  had  been  my 
policy  as  manager  not  to  require  any  statements  of  accounts  from  my 

submanagers;  I had  not  formulated  any  policy  as  to  those  things 2052 

Bratz,  W.,  paid  him  $100  August  13  for  work  in  Washington  County;  told 


me  he  was  supporting  Stephenson  before  I paid  him  the  money. . 263,  267,  275 
Brown  County,  $250,  August  12,  I believe  that  to  be  an  amount  paid  to 
Mr.  Calkins  to  organize  that  county;  manner  of  expenditure  left  to  his 
judgment;  paid  $200,  August  13,  on  prior  agreement;  never  required  or 
received  an  account  from  him;  I think  I telephoned  Calkins;  men  in 
Brown  County  gave  me  his  name  as  best  man  to  conduct  campaign;  he 
had  been  a candidate  for  circuit  judge  and  was  well  acquainted;  the 

county  cast  a large  vote  for  Stephenson 250,  251,  252,  276 

Business  connections  at  time  I entered  in  arrangements  with  Stephenson 

relative  to  campaign,  in  detail 115, 116 

Campaign,  became  actively  interested  in  about  July  4,  1908;  about  two 
weeks  after  telephone  communication  from  Stephenson;  do  not  know 

what  the  first  act  I did  in  connection  with  was 62 

Campaign  duties,  between  8th  and  18th  of  July,  “Why,  I was  trying  to 
learn  where  I was  at.  This  was  a new  business  to  me  entirely.  I was 
trying  to  learn  something  about  methods  and  to  formulate  a policy  in 

conducting  campaign  ” 63 

Campaign  speeches,  believe  some  were  made;  assume  involved  use  of  halls 

and  bands  in  different  localities;  can  not  name  a single  meeting 234 

Candidates  for  legislature,  know  of  none  who  received  money  except  Ban- 
croft and  Shauer;  heard  of  no  others 87 

Carbon  copies  of  letters  sent  out;  do  not  know  where,  they  are;  left  them 
in  the  office  when  I left;  not  among  things  destroyed;  were  in  general 
charge  of  Sacket  and,  perhaps,  Lambeck ; were  kept  in  same  room  Lambeck 
was  in;  if  I wanted  them  now  I would  not  know  where  to  go;  can  not 
make  available  any  copies  except  that  I found  in  my  files  six  months 
ago  a book  wherein  some  letters  were  copied;  recollect  they  were  “form” 
letters 265,266 


XXXIV 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page. 

Edmonds,  E.  A.,  print  and  wrapping  paper  manufacturer,  Appleton,  Wis., 
testimony  of — Continued. 

Cashier’s  checks  issued  by  Marshall  & Isley  Bank  to  parties  whose  names  I 
gave  them,  not  delivered  to  payees  but  used  by  me  as  deposits  in  my 

No.  2 account  in  bank;  reason  for  explained 2044 

Chairman  of  Republican  State  central  committee  from  1908  to  1910;  se- 
lected according  to  law 59, 117 

Charges  of  corruption  first  made  through  press,  I think,  January  26,  when 

Senator  Blaine  made  charges  before  legislature 125, 126 

Checks,  have  no  idea  what  numbers  on  refer  to 231,  232,  233 

Compensation  for  services,  did  not  receive  a dollar  for  six  weeks’  time;  did 
work  without  pay  because  I had  asked  Stephenson  a favor  and  he  asked 
this  as  a favor  of  me;  I would  not  have  taken  any  money  if  he  had  offered 
it  to  me;  I could  not  have  gotten  any  compensation  out  of  the  $5,000, 
for  I returned  the  checks  and  stubs  and  balance  to  Stephenson;  the  only 
way  I could  have  gotten  compensation  was  out  of  expense  money  given 

me  by  Puelicher,  and  I did  not  “ knock  down  ” 81,  82,  83, 117 

Conferences  with  these  people  employed  held  in  a private  room 267 

Conversations  with  different  people  during  campaign,  presume  it  would 

run  up  into  thousands 332 

Correspondence  and  poll  lists,  disposition  of;  I asked  Mr.  Lambeck  to  tele- 
phone Stephenson  and  ask  him  if  he  might  turn  over  to  me  a list  of  names 
which  I thought  might  be  of  future  service  to  me;  Lambeck  reported  to 
me  that  Stephenson  said  no,  to  send  them  to  him;  that  is  all  I know  of 
disposition  of  any  papers  in  connection  with  campaign,  except  in  my  per- 
sonal files  I find  correspondence  with  Stephenson  which  I considered 
personal  and  took  home  with  me;  do  not  recall  whether  list  of  names  was 

afterwards  given  me 2048,  2049 

County  managers,  how  compensated;  if  a man  were  given  $350  for  the  six 
weeks,  in  all  probability  I would  make  an  agreement  with  him  as  to  how 
much  he  would  keep  for  his  own  services;  presume  he  would  keep  about 
$100;  the  other  $250,  how  spent  in  organizing;  how  amount  they  needed 
for  organizing  arrived  at;  not  required  to  account  for  funds  by  itemized 
statement;  their  own  compensation  fixed  according  to  ability  of  man 
and  amount  he  demanded;  do  not  believe  any  of  these  men  kept  money 

intrusted  to  them 85,  86, 100, 101, 103, 105,  333 

County  managers,  made  agreements  with  about  half  of  them,  probably  35, 
for  compensation  for  their  personal  services;  accounts  of  amounts  paid  to, 
kept  in  office;  I kept  no  personal  record  of  accounts  with;  would  proba- 
bly make  notations  of  arrangements  with  on  some  paper  in  order  that  I 
might  report;  have  none  of  the  papers;  do  not  recall  I turned  them  over 

to  legislative  committee 103,  304,  305 

Cox,  L.  B.,  came  to  Milwaukee  and  saw  me  and  I paid  him  $100  for  work 
that  he  was  to  do,  according  to  his  best  judgment,  in  La  Crosse  County; 
had  known  him  1892  when  we  were  members  of  assembly  together;  told 

me  he  had  been  supporting  Stephenson 257,  258 

Customary  in  campaigns  to  employ  men  with  conveyances  at  polls;  to  have 

watchers  at  the  polls 119 

Davies  had  no  authority  from  me  to  make  a proposition  of  any  kind  to 

Assemblyman  Leuch;  I have  no  knowledge  of  any  such  arrangement 2054 

Democrats  did  not  pay  or  offer  to  pay  any  sum  of  money  to  any  one  of  the 
three  who  left  the  legislature  on  March  4,  the  day  when  Stephenson  was 
elected;  within  my  knowledge  no  one  did;  no  promise  or  agreement  of 

any  kind  made  them  by  me  or  within  my  knowledge 2055 

Detailed  organization,  my  idea  of  it  is  it’s  a pretty  expensive  proposition; 

I should  want  in  each  town  at  least  three  men  to  do  the  necessary  work; 
discussed  organization  of  every  precinct  with  people  employed;  we 
decided  we  could  not  go  into  it  so  completely;  did  not  have  detailed  can- 
vass of  any  precinct;  did  not  have  time  nor  funds  to  go  into  it  that  way..  92,  99, 124 
Dettman;  1 think  I sent  him  $50  August  8 for  assistance  among  German  Lu- 
therans of  his  locality;  paid  $25  September  5 for  same  purpose 246,  342 

Disbursements  for  Senator  Stephenson  during  session  of  legislature,  as  ap- 
pearing in  statement  given  in  the  evidence  at  Madison;  carries  them  up 
to  April  1;  aggregates  $1,950.24;  items  given  and  explained;  sums  spent 
in  addition  to  $1,950.24;  total  approximated  $2,400;  received  payment 
for  from  Stephenson  in  two  checks,  one  for  $1,500  and  one  for  $900;  none 
of  it  paid  to  any  member  of  legislature;  not  included  in  account  filed 
with  secretary  of  state 2055,  2056, 2057, 2058,  2059 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


XXXV 


Page. 

Edmonds,  E.  A.,  print  and  wrapping  paper  manufacturer,  Appleton,  Wis., 
testimony  of — Continued. 

Disbursements  for  Senator  Stephenson  during  session  of  legislature,  infor- 
mation given  Stephenson  from  which  he  could  file  an  account  with 
secretary  of  state,  about  1st  of  April  and  again  in  September;  do  not 

know  whether  account  of  those  expenditures  were  filed 2059 

Dormady,  Pat,  paid  him  $50  for  services  he  might  render  Stephenson  in 
Ashland  County;  when  money  was  sent  him  I believe  he  was  candidate 
for  nomination  of  sheriff  in  that  county  and  he  thought  he  could  be  of 
assistance  to  Stephenson  when  getting  around  working  for  himself;  do 
not  know  whether  he  spent  the  $50  to  advance  his  own  interests  or  Ste- 
phenson’s  239,  240 

Dresser,  L.  B.,  paid  $1,800,  August  12,  to  organize  seven  counties  in 
eleventh  district;  would  include  payment  for  his  own  work,  for  organizing 
or  any  purpose  whatever;  no  detailed  statement  of  his  expenditures; 
think  contract  with  was  made.against  an  empty  treasury;  I do  not  know 
how  he  distributed  money;  do  not  remember  details  concerning  payment 
of  money  to;  sent  him  $300  August  4 by  mail,  asking  him  to  look  over 
situation  and  report. ...  79,  86,  111,  112, 113, 114,  233,  234,  242,  260,  270,  271,  272 
Duties  as  manager;  it  was  necessary  in  order  to  get  votes  for  Stephenson’s 
nomination  to  interest  a plurality  of  the  people  of  the  State  and  get  them 
out  to  the  polls;  Stephenson  left  details  to  me;  since  time  was  so  short  I 
turned  over  to  two  men  in  different  counties  the  campaign  there;  in  re- 
gard to  finances,  explained 67,  98, 112,  234,  235 

Employment  of  men;  I did  not  employ  them  until  after  I believed  they 
were  fit  to  conduct  a campaign  in  their  counties  and  knew  conditions 
there;  if  I decided  the  amount  they  thought  was  best  to  be  expended 
was  sufficient,  I gave  an  order  on  banker  to  pay  the  money;  sometimes  I 
would  telephone  bank  to  pay;  presume  they  were  paid  against  fund  Ste- 
phenson had  furnished;  did  not  employ  men  I thought  it  necessary  to 

caution  about  law;  none  but  men  of  good  reputation  employed 71, 

94,  99, 127,  286,  331,  332,  333 

Etter,  R.  A.,  paid  $200  for  organizing  Green  County;  do  not  know  how  he 

expended  money 261 

Exhibit  49  of  proceedings  before  joint  committee  is  statement  of  campaign 
expenses  as  prepared  by  office  manager;  best  way  to  identify  the  part  of 
the  $98,083.72  represented  in  statement,  which  was  disbursed  under  my 

direction,  is  by  testimony  of  office  manager,  who  would  know 113 

Expenditure  of  money  in  campaign,  when  questioned,  did  not  realize 
burden  is  upon  party  expending  it  to  show  that  it  is  legitimate;  do  not 

know  it  now 280,  281 

Expense  in  connection  with  the  investigation,  if  it  had  not  been  for,  I 
doubt  if  the  total  amount  of  expenditure  of  Stephenson  after  he  was  nomi- 
nated would  have  exceeded  $200 2059 

Fond  du  Lac  County,  $250,  I think  the  amounts  paid  for  organizing  that 

county  were  paid  to  R.  L.  Morse 276,  277 

Frank,  J.  H.,  I was  responsible  for  having  $150  paid  to,  July  27;  arranged 
with  him  to  organize  m Clark  County  as  he  judged  best;  can  not  remem- 
ber conversation  with;  first  saw  him  date  payment  was  made;  recollect  he 
was  to  receive  $150  as  personal  compensation;  paid  $140,  August  20  as  part 
of  compensation  and  expense;  I did  not  ask  him  to  render  an  account;  do 
not  remember  discussing  law  with;  I have  no  memorandum  of  his  ex- 
penditures; do  not  recall  payment  of  $100  to  on  the  20th;  payment  of 
$225,  September  5 196, 197, 198, 199,  280,  342 


Franke,  Hugo,  paid  $100;  was  a man  from  Milwaukee  who  was  sent  to  Ash- 
land and  some  other  localities,  I think,  to  interest  labor  organizations  in 

Stephenson’s  behalf 257 

Fund  of  $5,000,  no  part  of  that  was  used  by  me,  for  reasons  that  I wanted 
the  stubs  to  show  that  was  used  for  other  purposes 245 


Fund  of  $5,000  placed  by  itself  in  National  Exchange  Bank;  never  was 
exhausted  until  I turned  in  stubs  and  checks  to  Stephenson;  stubs  were 
in  hands  of  investigating  committee  at  Madison  at  time  I testified  before 
them;  any  checks  I drew  on  that  bank  are  consecutively  numbered  and 
are  in  the  stubs;  how  disbursed  shown  in  detail 231,  232,  233,  2041,  2042 


XXXVI 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page. 

Edmonds,  E.  A.,  print  and  wrapping  paper  manufacturer,  Appleton,  Wis., 
testimony  of — Continued. 

Funds,  I want  to  repeat  that  I did  not  receive  any  money  but  $5,000  for 
expenses;  I received  $100  and  $200  at  different  times  in  money  or  by 
check  from  Puelicher  for  expenses;  I was  stopping  at  the  hotel  and  my 
expenses  were  paid  out  of  the  general  fund  and  nothing  else;  with  the 
exception  of  those  amounts  I spent  but  the  part  of  the  $5,000  that  I did  not 

return  to  Stephenson 66,  69,  70 

Funds,  were  substantially  exhausted  for  a period  of  something  like  10  days 

during  campaign . . 323,  326,  366 

Game  warden’s  department,  as  organized  in  1900,  I believe,  had  been  the 
most  effective  force  used  by  the  governor  at  that  time  to  further  his 
political  ambitions;  La  Follette  was  governor;  knew  it  was  an  effective 

political  machine 262,  298,  299,  347 

Gehbe,  F.  H.,  paid  him  $200  for  helping  to  organize  and  get  out  the  vote  in 
Manitowoc  County;  he  did  not  render  an  account;  do  not  know  whether 
he  kept  money  for  his  own  trouble  or  paid  it  out  to  others;  I do  not  know 
whether  he  would  have  supported  Stephenson  if  I had  declined  to  give 

h:m  money 247,  248 

“General,”  I would  not  think  that  items  so  marked  in  expense  account 

would  add  up  to  more  than  $3,000 297 

“General,”  items  so  marked  aggregating  close  to  $1,000,  unable  to  tell  what 
they  were  for;  did  not  call  for  any  statement  in  regard  to  them;  no  money 

marked  “general  ” spent  for  liquor  by  me 249,  250 

“General,  $150,”  I have  no  means  of  knowing  what  kind  of  an  item  it  is. . 249 

“General,  $250,”  do  not  know  to  whom  item  was  paid;  I do  not  know  what 

Sacket  will  know 246 

General  expense,  organizing,  July  6,  $100,  can  throw  no  light  on  item 63 

“General  organizing,  Edmonds  check,  $150,”  money  was  paid  to  me;  do 

not  remember  what  I did  with  it 179 

“General  organizing,  July  21,  $250,”  do  not  know  what  item  refers  to;  I 

did  not  keep  the  record;  Mr.  Sacket,  office  manager,  did 65,  66 

“General  organizing,  $200,”  have  no  definite'  recollection  of  having  re- 
ceived, but  I have  no  reason  to  doubt  I did;  as  those  amounts  were  re- 
ceived that  are  charged  to  me,  they  were  used  to  pay  hotel  bills;  my 
own  and  those  I invited;  do  not  recall  how  this  money  was  paid  out; 
did  not  keep  a memorandum  of  it;  item  for,  included  in  Stephenson’s 
statement, ffiled  with  secretary  of  state  under  item  of  $53,729.56;  my  name 

not  mentioned  in  that  item 190, 191, 192, 193 

Grady,  Daniel,  paid  $15,  as  an  attorney  who  was  delegated  to  collect  that 
from  campaign  committee  for  a printing  company  for  advertising.. . . 355,  2052 
Grant  County,  with  regard  to  seventh  specific  charge  against  Stephenson, 
sums  were  paid  to  persons  there  for  organizing,  through  my  instructions; 
none  of  them  were  corruptly  and  unlawfully  paid;  payments  testified 
to  in  previous  testimony;  do  not  recollect  any  other  payments  than 

those  testified  to  that  charge  might  cover 354,  372,  373 

Gordon,  George,  prominent  attorney  of  La  Crosse,  paid  him  $1,300,  August 
4,  for  work  in  La  Crosse  and  adjoining  counties;  I left  matter  of  general 
organizing  entirely  to  his  judgment;  do  not  think  matter  of  whether  he 
was  to  retain  any  part  of  money  for  his  personal  services  was  referred  to; 
do  not  know  from  personal  knowledge  whether  he  expended  the  money; 
do  not  know  whether  he  would  have  supported  Stephenson  in  absence 

of  our  arrangement 229,  230,  240,  241 

Gust,  O.  L.,  can  not  recall  payment  of  $300  to,  August  8 246 

Half-breeds,  as  designated  in  this  state,  are  people  who  are  aligned  with 

La  Follette 

Halls,  O.  O.,  paid  $200  for  organization  work  in  Pierce  County;  do  not 
know  how  he  expended  the  money;  never  met  him;  sent  a letter  at  the 
suggestion  of  Mr.  Dresser,  I believe,  who  advised  me  that  Halls  was 
very  strong  in  that  county  and  that  he  was  a supporter  of  Stephenson’s. 
Hambright,  C.  M.,  do  not  know  about  payment  of  $50  to,  July  6;  is  an  ex- 
member of  assembly;  I did  not  make  arrangements  with  him;  was  em- 
ployed when  I came;  do  not  recall  having  paid  him  money;  do  not 
know  for  what  he  was  paid  $50  July  28;  he  was  sent  out  to  different 
parts  of  State  to  look  up  men  who  would  be  satisfactory  for  county  mana- 
gers; items  paid  to,  may  have  been  for  compensation  or  expenses;  recol- 
lect his  compensation  was  $100  a month,  possibly  more;  Sacket  would 
not  know  about  item 63,  207,  208,  209,  223,  273, 351,  352 


242 

247 

123 


262 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


XXXVII 


Page. 

Edmonds,  E.  A.,  print  and  wrapping  paper  manufacturer,  Appleton,  Wis., 
testimony  of— Continued . 

Hambright,  with  regard  to  fifth  specific  charge  against  Stephenson,  was 
employed  as  a scout;  did  not  render  an  account  of  his  expenditures  to 
me;  perhaps  he  did  to  the  office;  I do  not  know  about  items  in  his  ex- 
pense account;  never  heard  or  read  his  testimony  before  legislative 

committee 351,352 

Haslam,  was  a deputy  game  warden,  but  he  was  on  vacation  and  was  not 
drawing  any  pay  during  campaign;  I employed  him  and  he  was  paid  by 
me;  for  payment  of  $200  went  into  different  parts  of  Brown,  Door,  and 
Kewaunee  Counties,  I think;  have  no  rendered  statement  from;  am 
sure  he  was  a Stephenson  man  before  he  received  money;  I did  not 
have  a conversation  with  him  or  with  Mr.  Stone  in  regard  to  his  going 

back  on  force 254,255,261,262,343 

Headquarters,  do  not  know  who  opened  them;  found  them  established 

when  I came  here 62 

Headquarters,  I think  I left  on  5 o’clock,  September  5;  that  statement 
due  to  fact  I saw  checks  that  had  been  written  on  that  date;  I am  quite 
positive  now  I left  the  second  day  after  the  election,  which  I am  in- 
formed took  place  September  1 266,2047,2048 

Headquarters,  in  Wells  Building,  Milwaukee,  for  everything  except  Mil- 
waukee; they  had  another  headquarters  in  another  part  of  tlie  city  for 

Milwaukee 83 

Headquarters  of  State  central  committee,  at  Plankinton  Hotel,  Milwaukee.  266 
Heyer,  A.  0.,  paid  $200  for  organizing  Sheboygan  County;  never  made  a 

report  to  me;  do  not  know  how  money  was  expended 260,  261 

Hizer,  general  counsel  for  North  Western  Railroad;  I have  such  confidence 
in  his  judgment  and  ability  that  if  he  had  said  give  Mr.  Perrin  or  any 
other  man  whom  he  recommended  even  $10,000  1 would  have  given  it  to 
him  and  not  felt  that  I should  be  questioned  at  all;  would  have  given  it 
without  consulting  Stephenson  or  Puelicher,  Van  Cleve,  and  Sacket; 
would  have  been  willing  to  accept  his  judgment  as  to  placing  of  entire 

campaign  fund;  specific  charge  against  Stephenson  concerning 227, 

228,  360,  361,  362 

Information,  given  Stephenson  of  disbursements  in  legislative  campaign 
from  which  he  could  file  an  account  with  secretary  of  State,  about  1st  of 
April  and  again  in  September;  do  not  know  whether  account  of  those 

expenditures  were  filed 2059 

Investigating  committee,  I appeared  before  it  and  testified  since  Septem- 
ber, 1908;  I think  I was  the  second  or  third  witness  before  it;  I think  1 

appeared  at  three  different  times  before  the  two  committees 352 

Investigating  committee,  my  opinion  of  its  personnel;  there  were  two  com- 
mittees; first  made  up  of  assembly  members,  who  were  not  unfriendly  to 

Stephenson,  and  members  of  State  senate,  who  were  unfriendly 295 

Iron  County,  A.  L.  Osborn,  $154,  I do  not  recall  the  payment;  I remember 
having  had  a conversation  with  Osborn  relative  to  work  he  would  do  in 
Iron  County,  and  undoubtedly  this  was  a bill  paid  after  he  rendered  the 

service 343 

Itemized  expense  account,  have  no  recollection  of  requiring  one  from  any 
person  to  whom  I gave  money  to  transact  business  for  me;  in  my  business, 
if  I had  confidence  in  a man  to  send  him  out  to  sell  paper,  I did  not  believe 
he  would  steal  in  his  expense  account;  I do  not  employ  that  kind  of  men; 
and  I did  not  in  the  campaign;  did  not  request  political  agents  to  keep 

one,  because  it  was  not  customary 206,  207,  291 

Items  of  July  6 in  account  filed  with  legislative  committee;  do  not  know 
who  made  the  entries;  do  not  know  whether  paid  before  I took  charge  or 
not;  men  were  all  employed  before  I went  to  Milwaukee;  I remember 
what  they  were  doing  at  different  times  during  the  campaign;  not  paid 

out  of  $5,000  given  me 63,  64 

Jones,  A.  M.,  do  not  remember  item  ‘‘Oconomowoc,  $150”;  think  Jones 
was  paid  more  than  that;  he  was  in  office  and  I talked  over  matter  of 
doing  work  in.Oconomowoc  and  Waukesha  Counties;  do  not  recall  how 
much  he  was  to  get,  but  I should  think  it  a larger  amount,  as  Waukesha 

was  a large  county  and  he  was  an  influential  politician 344 

Jones,  J.  R.,  $183.50  paid  September  5 was  in  settlement  of  his  bill  for  serv- 
ices as  organizer  in  Racine  County;  he  came  to  me  and  told  me  he  had 
paid  out  so  much  money  in  excess  of  what  he  had  been  paid;  he  did  not 
render  an  account;  item  of  $150  paid  to,  for  same  purpose 273,  339,  341 


xxxvm 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page. 

Edmonds,  E.  A.,  print  and  wrapping  paper  manufacturer,  Appleton,  Wis., 
testimony  of — Continued. 

Joyce,  J.  T.,  was  a friend  of  Stephenson’s  and  a reputable  banker  at  Eau 

Claire;  unable  to  state  for  what  purpose  $50  was  sent  him 337,  338 

Juneau  County,  J.  T.  Hanson,  items  of  $250,  August  19,  and  $150,  August  30, 
were  for  advertising  in  that  county;  I am  not  sure  Hanson  was  the  man 
employed  there;  the  man  whom  I employed  was  a banker,  and  I agreed 

to  pay  him  $400;  it  does  not  seem  to  me  his  name  was  Hanson 346 

Keller,  U.  C.,  with  regard  to  fourth  specific  charge  against  Stephenson, 
some  amount  was  paid  him  by  Stephenson  through  me;  made  in  a per- 
fectly lawful  manner;  for  purpose  of  reimbursing  him  for  time  and  expense 
in  campaign;  was  formerly  clerk  of  the  court  of  Sauk  County;  his  work 

done  preliminary  to  primary  campaign 349,  350,  351 

Kelley,  J.  E.,  $500,  August  6,  Milwaukee;  I made  an  agreement  with  Mr. 
Kelley,  who  was  city  attorney  of  Milwaukee,  to  make  speeches  in  differ- 
ent parts  of  State;  I paid  him  $500  in  advance  for  his  services;  later  my 
suggestion  as  to  the  advisability  of  his  making  speeches  was  discussed, 
and  it  was  decided  not  to  send  him  out;  did  not  make  a speech  that  I 
know  of ; $500  was  an  absolute  loss ; not  at  fault,  because  he  was  ready  to  go ; 

do  not  know  whether  he  voted  for  Stephenson 77,  237,  238,  239,  242 

Kewaunee  County,  $75;  do  not  know  who  paid  that;  should  think  Sacket 

would  know;  do  not  recall  anything  about  payment  of  $100 237,  243 

Keyes,  J.  R.,  as  I recall  he  was  a railroad  man  and  he  did  go  out  for  Stephen- 
son; I am  not  positive  whether  I or  Mr.  Sacket  made  arrangements  with 
him;  I do  not  know  definitely  what  money  was  paid  him  for;  should  think 
Sacket  would  know;  he  was  sent  to  me  by  a friend  of  Stephenson’s,  as  I 
recall,  and  I was  assured  by  them  he  was  for  Stephenson.  221,  222,  237,  248,  249 
Koch  Advertising  Agency,  do  not  recall  definitely  what  items  paid  to,  were 
for,  but  I think  the  agency  was  employed  by  us  through  a representative 
of  mine  to  get  the  advertising  into  the  newspapers  in  the  cheapest  manner 


possible;  IO  K’d  bills  from 68 

La  Follette  campaign  of  1900  and  1902,  had  charge  of  in  Oconto  County; 
did  the  organizing  for  purpose  of  getting  delegates  to  State  convention 

favorable  to  La  Follette 117 

Lambeck,  A.  H.,  had  some  employment  with  Stephenson  in  Washington; 
had  charge  of  mailing  force  at  office;  had  nothing  to  do  with  paying  out 

money 264 

Large  sums  of  money  charged  against  Puelicher  and  Van  Cleve;  I did  not 
expend  them;  I contracted  the  liability,  but  I did  not  make  payments; 
paid  by  cashier’s  check  or  otherwise  from  the  bank 66 


Larson,  C.  O.,  think  I paid  him  item  of  $25,  July  30;  was  our  organizer  in 
Ozaukee  County;  am  not  positive  how  much  money  I paid  him  altogether; 
do  not  recall  who  made  the  payment  of  $140,  August  10;  Sacket  not 
expected  to  know  about  item,  as  this  is  my  deal;  recollect  about  $200  was 
gross  amount  paid  him;  do  not  know  how  he  expended  money;  lives  at 
Port  Washington;  money  paid  to,  partly  for  expenses  and  partly  for  com- 
pensation  217,  218,  249,  250,  339,  340 

Law,  I believe  I assumed  these  men  employed  understood  the  law  as  well 
as  I,  and  that  in  the  records  in  the  office,  as  they  were  kept  by  the  office 
manager,  the  items  that  we  expended  from  the  office  could  be  explained 

in  detail 292,293 

Law,  knew  we  had  to  make  a report  of  expenditures;  I do  not  think  it 

occurred  to  me  I would  have  to  go  into  details 101, 104, 182, 191, 193 

Law,  relating  to  election  expense  account,  do  not  think  I read  it  at  that 
time;  I have  no  definite  recollection  of  any  person  with  whom  I discussed 
it,  though  I knew  what  the  law  was,  I think,  in  a satisfactory  manner;  I 
believed  report  Stephenson  made  of  my  expenditures  would  come  within 
law;  law  does  not  require  that  anyone  except  candidate  shall  make 
report;  do  not  think  I gave  question  as  to  how  candidate  could  make  item- 
ized statement  unless  his  agents  furnished  him  with  data  very  much 

consideration 193,194 

Legislative  campaign,  I did  not,  in  behalf  of  Stephenson  or  otherwise,  give 
or  agree  to  give  or  authorize  giving  any  sum  of  money  to  any  person, 
directly  or  indirectly,  for  purpose  of  influencing  vote  of  any  member  of 
the  legislature;  did  not  make  any  political  promises  during  that  session 
of  legislature 2054 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


XXXIX 


Page. 

Edmonds,  E.  A.,  print  and  wrapping  paper  manufacturer,  Appleton,  Wis., 
testimony  of — Continued. 

Letter  to  Stephenson,  September  6,  1909,  closing  up  transaction  during 
legislative  campaign,  from  me;  nature  of  items  referred  to  in,  ex- 
plained  2057,2058 

Letters,  files,  records,  I do  not  believe  I gave  any  instruction  with  reference 
to  disposal  of  at  time  I left  office ; think  testimony  to  contrary  is  a mis- 
take; not  improbable  that  I should  leave  office  without  disposing  of 
them,  because  when  I went  there  the  office  was  open  and  in  charge  of 
Sacket,  and  when  I got  through  with  my  work  it  is  not  surprising  I went 
home  and  left  it;  first  learned  these  things  had  been  sent  to  Stephenson 

from  Mr.  Black  something  like  a year  ago 2061,  2062 

Letters,  sent  to  various  candidates  for  the  assembly  and  senate  inquiring 
whether  they  needed  assistance,  when  I was  chairman  of  State  central 
committee;  m response  to  replies  indicating  they  needed  it,  25  or  30 

payments,  ranging  from  $100  to  $300  were  sent 2050 

Lewis,  H.,  I presume  that  I called  him  in  and  talked  the  situation  over 
with  him  in  Dane  County  and  he  suggested  he  could  use  $200  to  advantage 
in  organizing  there;  I do  not  know  what  was  said;  I made  arrangement 
for  payment  of  $200  to;  he  was  a soldier  and  a warm  personal  friend  of 
Stephenson  and  was  given  that  money  and  possibly  more  to  do  such 
work  as  he  saw  fit;  do  not  recall  how  much  money  he  received;  no 
means  of  knowing  whether  money  legitimately  expended;  did  not  ask 

him  for  detailed  statement;  Sacket  will  not  know  about  item 71,  210,  211,  212 

Liquor  and  cigars,  I had  no  information,  money  intrusted  to  agents  was 
being  spent  for;  no  one  ever  reported  that  to  me,  but  if  it  had  been, 

I would  not  have  been  surprised;  it  is  customary  in  this  State;  never 
heard  of  a sum  of  $37,000  of  this  $107,000  that  had  been  spent  that  way. . 294 

List  of  items  selected  by  me  from  Exhibit  49,  of  which  I have  personal 

knowledge 306 

List  of  local  managers,  with  whom  I had  arrangements  for  special  com- 
pensation, with  amount  of  compensation  according  to  best  recollection. . 323 

List  of  payments,  giving  items  of  which  I have  personal  knowledge  in 
regard  to  the  contract  and  payment  of,  have  no  personal  knowledge  of 
purpose  for  which  any  of  payments  were  used ; I never  asked  for  any 
detailed  report;  only  method  I had  of  getting  any  report  would  be  a 
verbal  one,  in  case  these  men  came  into  the  office;  I can  not  explain  any 
item  more  fully  than  those  taken  up  specifically;  knowledge  of  any 
wrongful  use  of  the  money  has  never  come  to  me;  I have  made  no 

effort  to  ascertain  whether  expenditures  were  wrongful 280,284,285 

List  of  voters,  had  none;  that  is  where  we  were  so  terribly  lame;  why  the 
expenditure  of  so  much  money  was  necessary;  we  got  from  county 
managers  lists  of  names  of  people  to  whom  they  deemed  it  advisable  to 
send  literature;  had  mailing  lists  of  two  newspapers,  I believe,  but  people 

on  might  have  been  Democrats  or  Socialists 84, 124,  334 

Literature,  used,  perhaps  a dozen  different  kinds  in  campaign;  included 
platform  on  which  Stephenson  was  running  and  personal  letters  to  voters; 

endeavored  to  twice  circularize  people  whose  n,ames  we  had ' 124, 125 

Livermore,  J.,  paid  $50  for  work  in  Oconto  County;  think  that  is  the  only 
amo mt  paid  to;  do  not  know  whether  he  would  have  done  anything  for 

Stephenson  in  absence  of  payment  of  $50  to 238,  239,  240,  242 

Lyons,  Senator,  I do  not  recall  sending  him  a check  for  $100,  after  the 
primary,  as  chairman  of  State  central  committee;  do  not  think  Stephenson 

made  a request  that  he  be  sent  the  money 2049,  2051 

McGill,  L.  E.,  paid  him  $200  for  organizing  Rusk  County;  was  a prominent 
lawyer  there;  I saw  him  during  campaign  and  he  stated  the  number  of 

votes  he  had  to  get  out  for  Stephenson,  etc 263 

McGillivary,  J.  J.,  paid  him  $600  Aug.  6 for  organizing  work  in  Jackson 
County;  he  made  some  speeches;  was  not  a senator  at  that  time;  do  not 
know  whether  he  paid  any  of  $600  to  other  people;  never  had  an  account 
from  him;  was  friendly  to  Stephenson,  but  I hardly  think  he  would 
have  spent  any  large  amount  of  his  own  money  to  organize  the  county 
if  he  had  not  expected  to  be  reimbursed 238,  239,  240 


XL, 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page. 

Edmonds,  E.  A.,  print  and  wrapping  paper  manufacturer,  Appleton,  Wis., 
testimony  of — Continued. 

McMahon,  do  not  remember  making  payment  of  $50  to,  July  6;  he  was 
there  before  I came;  do  not  know  what  his  duties  were;  he  went  around 
in  different  parts  of  the  State;  do  not  recollect  about  payment  of  $300 
to  Sept.  5;  presume  Sacket  will  know  about  arrangements  with;  he  was  a 
field  man;  did  some  work  in  the  office;  do  not  know  whether  his  expendi- 
tures were  legitimate;  I told  him  what  to  do,  but  he  did  not  ask  me  for 
money;  think  he  enlisted  services  of  a Mr.  Stevens  in  Grant  County  and 

a Mr.  Rogers  in  Iowa  County 63,  64,  218,  219,  220,  221,  273,  719 

Madison,  was  there  when  legislature  that  elected  Stephenson  was  in  session; 
not  there  when  Stephenson  was  elected;  looked  after  Stephenson’s  in- 
terests there  for  about  three  weeks;  talked  with  members;  left,  I think, 

three  weeks  before  election 87,  88 

Man  who  has  not  $170,000  or  $180,000  better  keep  out  of  politics 121 

Marshall,  J.  B.,  can  recall  the  name  but  do  not  recall  why  payment  of 
$50  was  made  July  30;  do  not  know  whether  I made  the  payment;  if 
Sacket  says  he  does  not  know  about  it,  I doubt  if  it  will  be  possible  to 

determine  who  paid  it 216,  217 

Memoranda,  I did  not  make  any  written  statement  when  I gave  instruc- 
tions for  payment  of  money  to  various  persons,  as  to  the  services  they 
were  to  perform;  do  not  recall  making  any  memoranda  at  any  time  in 
regard  to  purpose  money  I ordered  paid  was  to  be  used;  did  not  destroy 
any  memoranda  kept  by  me  or  under  my  direction  during  campaign; 

everything- 1 had  was  turned  over  to  investigating  committee 182,  212 

Memorandum,  showing  transactions  made  with  several  parties  for  service; 
do  not  think  any  clerk  or  employe  made  or  had  one,  because  I don’t 

believe  any  of  them  knew  about  it 266,  267 

Men,  to  whom  I paid  money  to  work  for  Stephenson,  in  every  instance 
knew  them  to  be  friendly  and  in  favor  of  his  nomination;  money  not 
paid  them  to  influence  their  vote;  in  almost  every  instance  solicited  by 

me  to  organize 240 

Men  employed,  after  I gave  a man  money  to  conduct  campaign,  I am  not 
certain  in  any  instance  I called  him  in  and  said  “what  have  you  been 
doing  with  that  money,  but  wherever  there  was  an  opportunity  to  dis- 
cuss what  was  being  done  with  it,  I tried  to  keep  track  of  affairs;  do 
not  recall  that  I admonished  them  to  keep  within  the  law;  do  not  re- 
member to  have  in  any  particular  instance  given  definite  instructions 

about  expenditures ; in  general  way  stated  what  money  was  for 93, 

94,  95,  98,  99, 104,  287,  288,  289,  290,  330,  332,  334 
Miller,  J.  C.,  do  not  recollect  payment  of  $50  to  July  6;  do  not  know  services 
performed  by,  but  know  he  was  out  in  different  parts  of  State;  I did 

not  make  any  contract  with  him 63,  64,  71,  243 

Milwaukee  County,  R.  J.  White,  cash,  September  5,  I remember  having 
paid  Mr.  White  an  amount  of  money,  whether  $150  or  $100  I was  not 
certain;  he  assisted  in  management  of  county  campaign;  believe,  at  this 
time,  as  his  record  will  show,  the  county  campaign  fund  had  been  ex- 
hausted and  he  reported  to  me  he  had  overpaid  this  amount,  and  needed 

it,  and  it  was  paid  to  him 341. 

Milwaukee  County  campaign,  conducted  independently  of  general  head- 
quarters, except  for  two  items,  as  far  as  I know 341 

Money: 

Did  not  spend  any  out  of  my  own  pocket  for  Stephenson  that  I know  of.  64,  69 
Do  not  think  I gave  it  to  everybody  who  asked  for  it;  I am  afraid  I was 
something  of  an  easy  mark  in  the  matter  in  a good  many  instances; 
cash  received  from  Puelicher,  would  sometimes  pay  $25  or  $50  out 

of  my  pocket  to  men;  did  not  keep  a list  of  their  names 235,  236 

How  paid  to  managers,  I would  arrange  with  the  man  for  the  expendi- 
ture of  a certain  amount  of  money  and  before  he  left  town  he  would 
receive  at  least  a part  of  it,  usually  all  of  it;  in  most  instances  I 
think  I would  communicate  that  fact  to  Sacket,  and  he  would  make 

a requisition  of  some  kind  for  cash  or  equivalent  from  Puelicher 107, 

108, 109, 110,  236 

It  is  not  true  that  I and  other  managers  handed  it  out  to  these  agents 
to  spend  as  they  pleased,  not  desiring  to  know  how  they  spent  it; 
had  no  source  of  learning  how  it  was  spent,  except  as  these  men 
would  come  in  and  talk  over  what  they  were  doing 293 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


XLI 


Page. 

Edmonds,  E.  A.,  print  and  wrapping  paper  manufacturer,  Appleton,  Wis., 
testimony  of — Continued. 

Money — Continued. 

None  used  corruptly  or  improperly  in  Stephenson  campanign,  that  I 
know  of  ; to  my  knowledge,  not  one  cent  used  to  bribe  any  voter; 
not  one  cent  that  I know  of  used  to  induce  any  member  of  legisla- 
ture to  support  Stephenson;  did  not  have  any  information  that 

any  money  was  used  corruptly  for  campaign 125,  372 

Thought  it  a natural  result  of  the  primary  election  law  that  a candidate* 

should  spend  so  much  money 186, 187 

Undoubtedly,  in  my  judgment  there  was  money  wasted  in  the  cam- 
paign; it  is  not  strange  that  Stephenson,  having  a reputation  for 
being  a good  spender  in  campaigns,  men  who  would  work  for  a man 
who  was  poor  for  nothing,  would  demand  pay  for  their  services  for 

Stephenson 86,  87 

Whatever  disbursed  from  general  headquarters  was  either  paid  out  or 

contracted  to  be  paid  out  by  Sacket  or  me 218 

Morse,  E.  A.,  was  running  for  Congress,  and  I had  agreed  with  him  what- 
ever expenses  he  had  in  connection  with  his  campaign  where  he  could 
work  in  Stephenson’s  interests  we  would  divide  up,  and  $27  was  paid  in, 
as  he  told  me  that  was  half  amount  expended ; think  it  was  part  printing 

and  part  hall  rent 341,  342 

Morse,  Roy,  Fond  du  Lac,  with  reference  to  sixth  specific  charge  against 
Stephenson,  I do  not  think  I paid  him  $1,000,  but  I paid  him  some 
amounts  aggregating  several  hundred  dollars  for  purpose  of  organizing 
voters  in  Fond  du  Lac  and  neighboring  counties;  act  of  paying  him 

money  was  not  corruptly  and  unlawfully  done 353,  354,  372 

Newspapers,  with  regard  to  tenth  specific  charge  against  Stephenson,  I 
paid  newspaper  publishers  in  the  State  for  the  support  of  Stephenson,  at 
least  to  further  his  candidacy;  they  were  paid  for  space  in  their  papers. . 358 

Oconto  Falls  Herald,  I think  I paid  $100  to;  not  for  purpose  of  purchasing 
editorial  support;  best  judgment  is  it  was  favorable  to  candidacy  of 
Stephenson;  unable  to  say  whether  they  so  expressed  themselves  prior 


to  contract  to  pay  money 358 

Organization,  think  minimum  expenditure  for  effective  one  in  State  would 
be  $170,000  to  $180,000;  that  would  be  necessary  to  get  all  the  voters 
friendly  to  your  candidate 121 


Organization,  would  be  impossible  to  create  in  Stephenson’s  interest  at 
primary  as  efficient  a one  in  the  short  time  we  had,  as  the  Republican 
party  had  in  general  election;  do  not  know  what  it  would  have  cost;  as 
efficient  a precinct  organization  in  Oconto  County  as  we  had  in  general 
election  would  cost  $2,500  to  $3,000;  $2,500  would  be  small  average  per 
county  for  a complete  organization;  would  not  include  all  expenses, 

literature,  advertising,  etc 119, 120, 121 

Organizers,  do  not  know  number  employed  in  State;  there  are  71  counties 
and  in  some  instances  more  than  one  man  in  a county — ordinarily  not — 
and  then  there  were  other  men  who  went  around  from  county  to  county; 

should  say  100  to  125  were  employed  from  our  office 75, 122,  331 

Organizers,  I believe  not  in  a single  instance  could  I give  specifically  any 
item  of  expenditure  made  by  them  during  campaign;  rendered  no  ac- 
count  268 

Organizers,  would  have  worked  for  Stephenson  in  a lesser  manner  without 
pay,  but  I doubt  if  they  would  have  hustled  around  the  country  and 
spent  money  and  time  for  his  election  if  they  had  to  stand  the  expense 

themselves 259 

Organizing,  defined;  only  method  I know  of  organizing  and  running  a 
campaign  was  to  divide  the  State  in  certain  units  of  counties  and  to  select 
some  man  in  that  county  to  look  after  Stephenson’s  interests;  by  “looking 
after”  mean  to  endeavor  to  get  out  the  vote  and  interest  people  in  Ste- 
phenson’s campaign;  to  do  anything  to  get  best  results  within  the  law; 
to  get  out  advertising,  interest  influential  men  to  interest  their  friends, 

and  to  get  vote  to  polls 76,  77,  78,  269,  270,  271,  272,  326,  327,  329,  330 

Organizing,  men  from  different  counties  came  and  complained  the  work 

was  not  being  sufficiently  done 293,  294 

Overbeck,  had  particular  charge  of  speakers  and  was  a general  assistant  in 
State  central  committee  campaign;  had  charge  of  matters  during  legis- 
lature at  Madison,  when  I was  absent 2051, 2054 


xm 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page. 

Edmonds,  E.  A.,  print  and  wrapping  paper  manufacturer,  Appleton,  Wis., 
testimony  of — Continued. 

Overbeck  was  with  me  much  of  the  time  and  was  well  posted  in  politics  in 
the  State  and  in  many  instances  I made  inquiries  of  him  about  men;  asked 
him  at  different  times  to  come  into  conferences;  introduced  me  to  men  I 
did  not  know  and  told  me  who  they  were  and  what  they  were  able  to  do.  264,  267 
Papers,  when  I left  the  office  and  went  back  to  Appleton  whatever  was  in 
my  desk  that  was  scrap  paper  or  paper  that  I did  not  consider  of  any  value 
was  destroyed — put  in  waste  basket;  do  not  know  what  they  were;  do  not 
know  now  how  I decided  what  was  valuable;  were  not  memoranda  of 

money  spent. 212,  213,  214,  215,  216 

Perrin,  S.  L.,  paid  $3,000  altogether  for  organizing  in  Douglas  and  surround- 
ing counties;  understand  he  was  paid  when  agreement  was  made  and 
then  he  conducted  campaign  in  that  county  under  his  best  judgment;  I 
authorized  payment  of  items  to;  do  not  know  what  he  did  for  $1,000  item; 
he  was  not  a candidate  for  anything;  do  not  recall  discussion  about  his 
compensation ; Hizer  introduced  me  to  him ; I could  not  have  taken  time 
to  go  over  details  of  his  work;  not  my  recollection  that  amount  paid  to, 
figured  $4,000  shown  in  statement. . . 76,  225,  226,  227,  228,  229,  240,  242,  268,  275 
Personal  expenses,  item  of  August  8 of  $250  payable  to  me  drawn  for  that 

purpose;  drawn  from  funds  supplied  by  Puelicher 245,  246 

Pestalozzi;  Mr.  Knell  informed  me  I better  have  nothing  to  do  with  him  as 
he  was  not  reliable;  but  at  repeated  requests  from  a man  named  Bartlett, 
who  said  he  was  a warm  friend  of  Stephenson’s,  I went  to  Pestalozzi’s  store, 
not  there  more  than  two  minutes;  asked  him  whether  he  would  be  for  Ste- 
phenson in  campaign ; do  not  recall  what  he  answered ; did  not  make  him 
any  proposition  directly  or  indirectly;  never  heard  anybody  offered  him 
money  to  abandon  McGovern’s  candidacy  for  Stephenson;  Yandersee 

had  no  authority  from  me  to  make  him  a proposition 2052,  2053,  2054 

Peterson,  G.,  can  not  recall  arrangement  by  which  he  was  paid  $25 189, 190 

Petitions,  think  they  had  all  been  filed  by  August  21;  required  by  law  to  be 
filed  30  days  before  September  2;  not  hiring  men  to  circulate  after  August  2.  76 

Phlughhoeft,  M.  W.,  my  recollection  of  item  of  $126  paid  August  28  to  him  is 
not  very  clear;  I remember  the  fact  that  he  did  work  among  Germans'  in 
German  communities;  paid  $152  in  accordance  with  same  arrangement.  335,  342 
Political  preference,  I did  not  arrange  with  any  man  who  preferred  some 
other  candidate  to  support  Stephenson;  do  not  know  or  did  not  hear  of 
any  man  employed  in  behalf  of  Stephenson  who  favored  some  other  can- 
didate prior  to  his  employment 108 

Politics,  how  long  and  in  what  manner  engaged  in;  I am  sure  that  in  reading 
the  papers  articles  have  very  often  come  to  my  attention  charging  corrup- 
tion in 285,  286 

Pollock,  Edward,  Lancaster,  Wis.,  with  reference  to  tenth  specific  charge 
against  Stephenson,  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge  and  belief  I did  not  pay 
him  any  sum  of  money  for  his  newspaper  support;  do  not  recollect  that 
anyone  representing  Stephenson  did;  make  statement  in  that  manner 
because  efforts  were  made  to  urge  editors  in  different  localities  for  their 

support,  but  I do  not  recall  I solicited  his 355,  356,  357,  358 

Portage  County,  J.  D.  Curran,  $250,  August  28,  Mr.  Curran  was  our  organ- 
izer there;  I am  not  certain  whether  I talked  with  him  otherwise  than 

by  phone;  money  paid  was  for  organizing 335,336 

Postage,  knew  there  were  large  items  for,  at  different  times;  think  account 
stated  entire  amount  as  $11,000;  if  you  had  seen  the  hundreds  of  sacks  of 
mail  you  would  see  that  it  would  be  possible;  used  to  send  out  posters, 

lithographs,  and  personal  letters  to  voters 83 

Primary  campaign,  you  have  no  nucleus  unless  you  send  some  one  out  to 
find  where  it  is;  you  do  not  know  what  Republican  is  with  you  and  what 
Republican  against  you,  and  in  six  weeks  it  was  necessary  to  gather  that 
information ; there  were  four  candidates  and  Stephenson’s  manager  in  hun- 
dreds of  localities  did  not  know  the  name  of  one  man  to  whom  he  might 
write  and  he  had  to  get  that  information;  for  that  reason  State  divided 

into  counties  and  county  managers  employed 84,  328 

Primary  law,  this  campaign  first  time  it  was  tried  out  in  the  election  of 
United  States  Senator 84 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


XLIII 


Page. 

Edmonds,  E.  A.,  print  and  wrapping  paper  manufacturer,  Appleton,  Wis., 
testimony  of — Continued. 

Puelicher,  J.  H.: 

I can  not  give  account  for  funds  received  by,  during  August  or  dispo- 
sition of  them;  he  disbursed  money  without  my  order;  do  not  know 

what  his  agreement  with  Stephenson  was 112 

I did  not  employ  him  to  act  as  banker;  Stephenson  mistaken  about  it.  69, 

70,  73 

Is  cashier  of  Marshall  & Ilsley  Bank  of  Milwaukee;  had  known  him 

personally;  had  some  stock  in  his  bank 61 

Paid  money  on  my  telephone  communication;  I think  when  Sacket 
might  be  out  and  the  getting  of  the  amount  might  be  delayed,  that 
Puelicher  would  allow  the  funds  to  be  paid  over  on  my  telephone 

order,  because  he  would  recognize  my  voice 115, 127 

Presume  he  did  not  pay  out  any  money  for  bills  I contracted  without 

an  order  from  me 107 

Think  money  I handled  all  came  from  him  with  exception  of  $5,000 
given  me  directly  by  Stephenson;  advised  me  from  time  to  time  as 
to  condition  of  fund;  just  before  check  for  $30,000  indorsed  over  to 
Puelicher  by  Van  Cleve,  August  12,  he  reported  to  me  there  were 
no  funds  on  hand  and  a few  days  later  that  he  had  received  funds; 
recollect  I was  advised  of  condition  when  I sent  a man  to  Sacket  and 

he  reported  there  were  no  funds 108, 109,  111,  302 

Puls,  E.  F.,  looked  after  mailing  work  as  outlined  by  Mr.  Lambeck 264 

Purtell,  T.,  I think  I paid  him  the  $175  on  August  13;  recollect  his  home 
was  in  northern  part  of  State  and  he  was  aiding  Stephenson  there;  do  not 

know  what  he  did  for  the  money 263 

Racine  County,  $100,  have  no  recollection  of  item 243,  244 

Record,  to  best  of  my  recollection  made  none  either  in  book  or  otherwise  as 
to  purpose  for  which  money  was  paid;  did  not  feel  it  was  necessary, 

because  it  was  done  by  Sacket 182 

Reinold,  F.,  think  Sacket  can  explain  about  payment  of  $50  to  him  July 
30;  I remember  the  man’s  name  and  I think  he  went  down  to  Kenosha 
County;  recollect  payment  of  $111.05  was  check  sent  him  September  5 

for  services  rendered 217,340 

Report  made  by  joint  senatorial  primary  investigating  committee  of  Wis- 
consin Legislature,  I never  read  it;  never  read  statement  therein  under 
head  of  “ expense  accounts;”  made  by  members  of  assembly  who  were 
not  unfriendly;  do  not  know  about  truth  of  statement  in  that  $30,000  was 
used  for  buying  liquor  and  so  on;  do  not  know  anything  about  estimate 

therein  of  $20,000  for  ward  and  poll  work 294,  295,  296,  297 

Reynolds,  T.  F.,  best  recollection  is  that  item  of  $100,  July  24,  was  sent  by 
me  in  a letter  and  I think  it  has  been  referred  to  here  as  a cashier’s  check; 

I asked  him  to  use  it  in  Stephenson’s  interest  in  Oconto  County  or  Oconto 
Falls;  do  not  know  how  he  expended  it;  he  is  not  man  who  was  candidate 
for  legislature;  is  cashier  of  State  Bank  at  Oconto  Falls;  do  not  think  I 

placed  any  restrictions  about  manner  of  expenditure 194, 195, 196,  358,  359 

Reynolds,  Thomas,  when  I was  chairman  of  State  central  committee  I sent 
him  a check  for  $100;  chairman  of  committee  in  his  county  applied  for 
aid;  do  not  recollect  Stephenson  requested  me  to  send  it;  Mr.  Overbeck 
suggested  instead  of  sending  it  to  the  county  committee  it  be  sent  to 
Reynolds;  did  not  give  him  any  money  as  manager  of  Stephenson’s 

primary  campaign 2049,  2050,  2051 

Richland  County,  N.  L.  James,  $200;  think  efforts  of  Mr.  James  were  not 
confined  to  Richland  County;  was  an  old  soldier;  an  old  friend,  I believe, 
of  Stephenson’s;  was  a very  prominent  man  in  political  life  for  a good 
many  years  in  Wisconsin;  do  not  recall  how  he  was  paid;  had  several 
talks  with  him  about  condition  of  campaign;  item  of  $300  paid  to,  August 

25 340,344,345 

Ring,  M.  C.,  paid  for  working  in  Clark  County;  his  work,  as  I recall,  was 
more  general;  he  was  well  acquainted  all  over  the  State;  was  paid,  I 
think,  something  like  $500;  item  of  $170  paid  to,  for  going  about  State 
to  learn  the  sentiment;  is  a lawyer  at  Neillsville;  had  known  him  10 
years;  do  not  know  what  he  did  with  money;  believe  he  was  in  favor  of 

Stephenson  before  I hired  him;  introduced  to  me  by  Mr.  Hizer 199, 

200,  244,  245,  338 


XLJV 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page. 

Edmonds,  E.  A.,  print  and  wrapping  paper  manufacturer,  Appleton,  Wis., 
testimony  of — Continued. 

Riordan,  D.  E.,  an  attorney  living  in  Vilas  County,  I think;  paid  him 
$1,300  as  a fund  to  be  used  by  him  for  Stephenson  in  his  judgment;  I 
believe  he  used  it;  did  not  render  an  account;  was  to  look  after  7 counties; 
no  restrictions  placed  on  him  as  to  character  of  services  he  was  to  pur- 
chase with  money;  he  had  been  State  senator  from  that  district;  was  not 
in  legislature  that  elected  Stephenson;  recollect  payment  was  out  of 

fund  of  $5,000;  recollect  total  amount  paid  to  was  $2,300 230, 

231,  232,  233,  240,  242,  286,  287,  292,  293 
Rogers,  E.  J.,  do  not  think  I made  payment  of  $50  to  August  5;  can  be 

charged  to  Sacket 235,  236 

Rowe,  R.  H.,  do  not  recall  item  paid  to;  should  think  you  might  ask 

Sacket 236,250 

Russell,  C.  II.,  paid  $200  August  10;  was  a candidate  for  Congress,  and  it 
was  thought  best  by  the  workers  in  thajt  locality  with  whom  I talked  to 
join  with  Russell  in  working;  he  was  to  put  up  the  same  amount  of  money 

that  was  given  him  and  they  would  work  jointly  for  Stephenson 249 

Sacket,  Rodney: 

Did  not  know  anything  about  arrangements  with  Perrin,  Gordon,  or 

Riordan 231 

Had  charge  of  bookkeeping 264 

I did  not  examine  his  accounts;  I was  often  in  his  office  and  I would 
notice  he  had  a record  where  he  kept  track  of  what  he  was  getting 
from  the  bank;  recollect  it  was  in  some  book  or  paper  he  had  on  his 
desk;  do  not  remember  which;  can  not  recall  occasion;  do  not  know 
anything  about  destruction  of  his  memoranda  or  card  index;  never 
consulted  with  him  about  destroying  them;  just  now  knew  for  first 

time  they  were  destroyed 182, 183, 184, 185,  247,  304 

I did  not  see  a list  of  payments  kept  by  him;  was  working  independ- 
ently of  me;  could  make  a contract  for  expenditure  of  money;  do 
not  know  of  arrangement  between  Stephenson  and  him;  Puelicher 
would  honor  his  orders  without  consulting  me;  he  did  not  have  to 
report  to  me;  did  not  confer  with  him  in  regard  to  finances;  do  not 
know  whether  he  made  any  written  memoranda  in  connection  with 

money  which  I contracted  to  be  given  out 110,  111,  115 

I would  report  arrangements  with  county  managers  to,  and  in  almost 
every  instance  he  would  get  the  funds  from  the  bank  and  either 
mail  or  give  them  to  the  person,  sometimes  by  phone,  but  very 
often  in  the  other  manner;  do  not  believe  that  in  every  instance  I 
explained  that  a certain  amount  was  to  go  for  salary  and  the  rest 

for  organizing 102,  305 

Looked  after  people  who  sent  out  mail  matter,  and  clerks 83 

There  was  an  attempt  to  talk  over  expenditures  of  campaign  with,  at 
the  time  legislative  report  was  being  prepared;  we  did  not  confer 
during  campaign  with  regard  to  the  propriety  of  expenditures;  we 
did  confer  with  reference  to  purpose  of  which  items  of  expenditure 

were  made 187, 188,  297,  298 

Salaries,  was  receiving  none  from  any  business  organization  in  1908 116 

Sells,  Max,  named  in  thirteenth  specific  charge  against  Stephenson;  my 
recollection  is  that  a sum  of  $25  has  been  stated  as  having  been  paid  him 
in  our  report;  not  certain  I engaged  him  and  do  not  recall  what  payment 

was  for 360,  361,  362 

Sexton,  T.  J.,  helped  organize  Dane  County;  my  recollection  is  he  was  a 
railroad  man  and  was  sent  out  and  given  $50  to  line  up  the  railroad  men 
for  Stephenson;  so  far  as  I know  he  might  have  expended  it  for  cigars 
or  treats;  I do  not  recall  giving  him  the  money;  I arranged  with  him; 
my  recollection  is  his  expenditures  were  simply  for  own  salary  and 
expenses;  do  not  think  he  paid  money  to  anyone;  would  have  remem- 
bered if  we  had  any  conversation  in  regard  to  law 65,  209,  210,  223,  275 

Shauers,  of  Oconto  County,  paid  him  to  see  railroad  men  in  different  parts 
of  State;  distinctly  understood  he  was  to  spend  no  time  or  money  in 
district  he  was  a candidate  for  legislature  from;  do  not  recall  sum  paid 
him;  would  range  from  $50  to  $125;  do  not  think  it  affected  his  own 

election  or  nomination 75, 106 

Shields,  R.  J.,  can  not  recall  whether  I made  the  payment  of  $200  to  August 
6;  lives  in  Superior;  know  him  slightly;  think  he  is  a lawyer 243 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


XLV 


Page. 

Edmonds,  E.  A.,  print  and  wrayping  paper  manufacturer,  Appleton,  Wis., 

testimony  of — Continued. 

Smith,  C.  D.,  paid  $50  on  August  12;  he  represented  that  he  was  a very 
ardent  friend  of  Stephenson;  that  he  had  been  doing  a good  deal  of  work 
in  Fond  du  Lac  and  that  he  was  better  equipped  than  anyone  to  conduct 
campaign  in  that  county;  from  inquiries  I made  I did  not  think  so,  still 
I paid  him  $50  for  doing  some  work  he  told  me  of;  am  fairly  confident 

he  was  supporting  Stephenson 258 

Stamps,  have  no  recollection  of  receiving  $200  for,  except  as  it  is  made 
plain  in  statement;  were  for  headquarters;  to  my  knowledge,  did  not 
purchase  and  send  out  stamps  to  any  other  branch  of  organization;  all 
stamp  items  are  in  connection  with  State  office  and  county  office;  do  not 

know  whether  items  for  State  and  county  are  separate  in  report 189, 190 

State  campaign  of  Republican  Party,  think  expenditure  of  money  for  was 
about  one-quarter  of  that  for  that  expended  in  primary  for  one  candi- 
date; as  State  chairman  could  call  on  any  Republican  in  a community 
and  assume  they  were  all  for  him;  details  of  precinct  and  county  organi- 
zation given;  8,966  Republicans  in  party  organization  whose  sole  purpose 

was  to  get  out  vote 84, 118, 123 

State  offices  held:  In  1892  I was  elected  to  serve  two  years  in  the  assembly; 
appointed  member  of  board  of  regents  of  the  university  in  1900  to  serve 

three  years 59,117 

Statement,  filed  with  legislative  committee;  I did  not  make  it;  I do  not 
know  who  made  it  out;  not  made  from  my  testimony;  I believe 
it  to  be  correct;  it  is  not  a statement  of  my  expenses  chargeable  against 
moneys  received  by  me  for  campaign;  I received  but  $5,000  in  money; 
that  I accounted  for;  contracted  bills  for  some  of  the  items  in  statement; 

did  not  aid  Sacket  in  making  it  out 64,  70, 106, 107 

Statement  of  account  of  “E.  A.  E.  No.  2”  in  Marshall  & Ilsley  Bank  and 
detailed  memoranda  showing  items  of  Exhibit  49  that  compare  with 

transcript  from  books  of  bank 2043,  2045,  2046 

Statement  of  election  expenses,  I believe  I suggested  the  form;  it  was 
taken  from  tlie  form  of  the  statement  submitted  by  the  present  Gov. 

McGovern 192 

Statute,  requiring  expense  account  be  filed,  do  not  know  purpose  of;  never 
occurred  to  me  I was  apt  to  jeopardize  interests  of  Stephenson  by  failing 
to  comply  with  it;  if  I thought  any  question  would  ever  be  raised  as  to 
those  expenditures  I would  have  kept  and  rendered  an  itemized  state- 
ment to  Stephenson 191 

Stephenson,  Senator: 

At  no  time  ever  told  me  what  he  expected  to  spend  in  the  campaign. . 324, 

363,  2061 

Can  not  remember  when  he  first  told  me  to  “keep  within  the  law”; 
think  he  mentioned  it  in  conversation  with  me  by  phone  from  Mari- 
nette; do  not  think  he  told  me  that  law  required  him  to  file  an 
expense  account  showing  persons  to  whom  money  was  paid  and  for 

what  it  was  paid 101 

Contributed  $2,000  to  central-committee  campaign  fund;  I had  no 
agreement  with  him  that  the  amount  or  any  sum  should  be  used 
in  the  interests  of  any  candidates  that  were  friendly  to  him;  he  made 
two  contributions  of  $1,000  each;  I do  not  recall  whether  it  was  by 

letter;  did  not  hold  any  string  on  contributions  he  made 2051,  2052 

Conversation  with,  had  one,  I think,  less  than  48  hours  prior  to  his 
telephone  communication  which  resulted  in  my  accepting  manage- 
ment of  his  campaign;  at  his  home;  not  about  campaign,  although 
a reference  was  made  to  the  fact  that  I should  be  glad  to  be  of  any 
service  to  him;  visit  was  occasioned  because  I wanted  him  to  take 
no  hand  in  congressional  fight;  I was  for  Minor  and  believed  if  Steph- 
enson took  no  hand  for  Kiistermann,  Minor  would  be  nominated; 
told  him  it  was  first  time  I had  not  been  in  salaried  position. . 60,  61, 116 
Conversation  with,  when  I asked  him  for  $5,000  check;  objected  to 
detailed  precinct  organization;  told  him  about  lavish  expenditures 
of  other  candidates  and  wanted  him  to  place  a limit  upon  amount 
we  were  to  spend;  held  at  his  home  at  Marinette;  inference  was  to 
be  as  careful  as  possible  and  not  go  too  far,  but  no  limit  was  placed; 

made  no  inquiries  as  to  how  money  was  being  expended 363, 

364,  365,  366,  367,  368,  373 


XL  VI 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page. 

Edmonds,  E.  A.,  print  and  wrapping  paper  manufacturer,  Appleton,  Wis., 
testimony  of — Continued. 

Stephenson,  Senator — Continued. 

Could  state  upon  information  and  belief  as  required  by  law  in  his 
report  by  getting  from  me  the  information  I had;  but  there  was  no 
possibility  of  my  getting  information  from  Mr.  Riordan  or  others; 
he  could  get  that  from  them  as  well  as  I could;  I did  not  have  to 

make  the  report 293 

Do  not  know  that  I ever  had  any  conversation  with,  in  which  I advised 
him  of  liberal  sums  I distributed  without  knowing  what  was  received 
for  it;  think  I saw  him  only  two  or  three  times  during  campaign; 
do  not  think  he  had  any  knowledge  that  I was  paying  men  in  his 
behalf  without  requiring  them  to  make  some  showing;  do  not  think 

he  knew  of  payment  of  $3,000  to  Perrin 268,  364 

Fourteenth  specific  charge  against,  have  no  knowledge  of  the  matters 

and  things  in  that  charge 362 

Friends  of,  often  found  they  were  previously  pledged  to  one  of  other 
three  candidates;  do  not  know  how  many;  fact  that  they  were  not 
at  liberty  to  support  Stephenson  involved  expenditure  of  more 

money  than  would  have  otherwise  been  required 123,  328 

Had  only  casual  business  transactions  with  prior  to  undertaking  man- 
agement of  his  campaign;  had  personal  acquaintance  with  for  15 

years;  not  a relative  of 59,  60,  81, 113 

How  elected  by  legislature;  I felt  that  he  was  legally  elected  in  January 
when  the  first  vote  was  taken;  there  were  not  votes  enough  there 
after  that  day  to  elect  him,  and  the  only  way  he  could  be  elected 
would  be  that  some  men  that  were  voting  against  him  would  get 
tired,  or  some  day  when  all  of  Stephenson’s  friends  were  there  some 
of  his  opponents  might  be  away  and  he  would  get  a majority;  how 
I helped  bring  that  contingency  about;  know  nothing  about  charge 


that  three  Democrats  were  paid  to  absent  themselves 88 

I believed  at  the  time  that  the  means  in  the  office  by  which  he  was 
to  receive  an  account  were  adequate  to  enable  him  to  make  the 
report,  and  believe  so  now 304 


Shortly  before  August  7 I wrote  him  we  needed  more  money;  he  said 
by  telephone  the  money  would  be  in  the  bank  the  next  day;  was 
informed  when  funds  were  exhausted  campaign  would  come  to  a 
standstill  and  men  be  called  in;  he  then  sent  $30,000  to  bank;  pos- 
sibly he  said  something  then  about  it  taking  too  much  money;  do 
not  think  talk  with  him  at  that  time  suggested  to  me  I ought  to 

keep  an  expense  account 303,  304,  305,  323,  325,  364,  367,  2060 

Specific  charges  against 348,  349,  351,  353,  354,  355,  359,  360,  362 

Telephoned  me  asking  me  to  come  to  Milwaukee  to  consider  question 
of  my  taking  the  management  of  campaign;  I think  I was  asked  to 

meet  my  associates  Monday  morning,  the  next  day 61 

Think  he  had  a good  many  voluntary  supporters;  I thought  he  had  a 
large  following  and  I was  adding  to  the  number  by  organization  and 
getting  the  fellows  out  to  vote;  trying  to  get  support  for,  against 

vigorous  opposition  of  Hatton,  Cook,  and  McGovern 258,  259 

Third  specific  charge  against,  absolutely  untrue 349 

Understood  the  general  plan , that  I was  organizing  in  different  coun- 
ties, and  that  certain  individuals  would  have  to  take  charge  in  those 

localities  because  one  person  could  not  do  it 269 

Was  complaining  a good  deal  about  the  amount  of  money  it  was  taking; 
he  thought  we  were  using  too  much  money;  said  he  wanted  to  win 

election,  but  did  not  propose  to  buy  it 303,  363 

Was  the  man  who  would  have  to  make  the  report;  now  if  I didn’t  ex- 
pend any  moneys,  there  was  no  need  of  my  keeping  an  account;  I 

returned  the  checks  and  the  balance  of  the  $5,000  to  Stephenson 107 

With  reference  to  eighth  specific  charge  against,  considerations  were 
given  by  me  as  a representative  of  Stephenson  to  other  persons  than 
those  named  in  charges;  it  was  not  corruptly  and  unlawfully  done; 
payments  testified  to  in  previous  testimony;  do  not  recollect  any 

other  payments  than  those  testified  to  that  charge  might  cover 354, 

355,  372,  373 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


XL  VII 


Page. 

Edmonds,  E.  A.,  print  and  wrapping  paper  manufacturer,  Appleton,  Wis., 
testimony  of — Continued. 

Stephenson,  Senator — Continued. 

With  reference  to  first  specific  charge  against,  gave  me  a check  for 
$5,000  and  placed  subject  to  my  control  as  nearly  as  I can  recall  a 

sum,  approximately,  $100,000 348 

With  reference  to  ninth  specific  charge  against,  no  such  sums  were  paid 
by  me  and  I do  not  believe  it  to  be  true;  in  one  instance  a Democrat, 

Mr.  Grady,  was  paid  money;  as  I recollect  $15  paid  to,  was  for  services 
of  a legal  character ; no  effort  made  to  influence  his  vote  in  primary . . 355 

With  reference  to  second  specific  charge  against,  should  say  that  he 
understood  sums  were  to  be  given  other  electors  of  State,  in  his 
payment  of  the  money;  there  were  items  as  stated  “from  $5  a day 

to  $1,000  in  bulk  ” 348,  349 

With  regard  to  thirteenth  specific  charge  against,  I do  not  know  any- 
thing of  transaction  or  allegation  upon  which  it  is  based;  statute 

about  which  charge  is  made 360,  361,  362 

With  regard  to  twelfth  specific  charge  against,  I deny  having  made 
any  such  transaction.  I do  not  believe  and  have  no  knowledge  of 

anything  of  that  kind  having  been  done  by  any  agent  of  his 360 

Stevens,  L.  H.,  asked  me  to  have  his  bank  made  a State  depository  of 
funds.  I took  it  up  with  the  State  officers  and  asked  them  if  they  would 
place  him  on  the  list  and  it  was  done;  do  not  think  I had  any  conference 
with  Stephenson  in  regard  to  matter;  Stephenson  had  nothing  to  do 

with  it  that  I know  of 2049,  2054 

Stevens,  quite  sure  I did  not  pay  item  to;  think  it  should  be  in  Grant 

County  instead  of  Iowa 237,  354 

Stone,  I remember  reading  newspaper  extracts  from  his  testimony  before 
investigating  committee;  did  not  read  his  sworn  testimony;  realized 
responsibility  I had  for  payment  of  money  to  him  and  duty  I owed 
Stephenson  to  get  something  for  the  money;  when  it  came  to  my  notice 
he  had  not  performed  certain  services  and  had  attempted  to  cover  up 
that  fact*  I did  not  think  it  my  duty  to  investigate,  because  I was 
entirely  through  campaign  when  I heard  it  and,  furthermore  Stephenson 

had  recommended  him 256 

Stone,  J.  W.,  I think  Stephenson  telephoned  me  or  sent  word  through 
Stone  to  give  him  $2,500;  I think  I gave  him  an  order  on  the  bank;  was 
State  game  warden;  Sacket  says  he  paid  him  in  cash;  sum  represents 
compensation  for  everything  he  did;  he  talked  about  his  different  assist- 
ants who  would  help  him;  do  not  remember  names  except  Bowman  and 
Haslam;  do  not  know  whether  he  spent  money  in  behalf  of  Stephenson 
or  kept  it;  he  had  a deputy  for  each  county;  I got  names  of  ones  friendly 
and  unfriendly  to  Stephenson;  I think  I understood  money  was  to  be 

expended  through  game  wardens 66, 67, 

78,  79,  252,  253,  254,  255,  256,  257,  298,  299,  300,  301,  302 
Sturtevandt,  J.  L.,  is  running  a daily  and  weekly  newspaper  at  Wausau; 
believe  I sent  him  item  of  $100  to  use  as  he  saw  fit  m promoting  the 
interests  of  Stephenson;  do  not  know  that  it  was  for  any  specific  adver- 
tisement; I thought  with  the  hundred  dollars  he  would  be  more  active 

in  his  support ; sent  him  after  petitions  were  filed 224,  225,  358,  359 

Sum  of  $4,000,  paid  out  between  September  5 and  15,  minor  items  of,  read 
in  detail,  do  not  know  about;  Milwaukee  items  included,  do  not  know 

about 79,80,81 

Sum  of  $5,000;  had  entered  on  management  of  campaign  before  I received 
it;  think  it  was  received  about  10  days  after  I moved  into  headquarters; 
think  it  was  a draft  from  Stephenson  and  I placed  it  in  National  Ex- 
change Bank  to  my  credit 62,  63,  348,  365,  366 

Sum  of  $30,000,  might  reasonably  have  been  exhausted  in  five  days,  be- 
cause for  several  days  there  had  been  no  funds  in  the  bank  and  debts 
that  had  been  contracted  in  the  meantime  would  be  paid  out  of  that 

fund Ill 

Testimony  before  joint  legislative  committee,  never  read  it;  did  not  hear 
Mr.  Sacket’s;  was  in  Madison  part  of  time  it  was  taken,  all  of  the  time 
I was  testifying,  and  as  soon  as  I could  get  home  I went  home ; I had  no 
reason  to  believe  there  would  be  anything  incriminating  to  Stephen- 
son; there  was  no  reason  why  I should  listen;  did  not  hear  all  of  Ste- 
phenson’s testimony 185, 186, 187,  352,  373,  374 

15235°— 11 iv 


xLvm 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page. 

Edmonds,  E.  A.,  print  and  wrapping  paper  manufacturer,  Appleton,  Wis., 
testimony  of — Continued. 

Tilton,  Lester,  with  reference  to  eleventh  specific  charge  against  Stephen- 
son, did  not  have  any  knowledge  of  transaction;  so  far  as  I am  concerned 
it  is  not  true  and  I do  not  believe  it  to  be  true;  have  not  seen  exhibit 

showing  affidavit  made  by  Tilton 359,  360 

Trempealeau  County,  do  not  know  why  item  of  $375  is  made  out  to  my- 
self; I know  that  the  money  was  paid  over;  I can  not  think  of  the  man’s 

name;  I will  think  that  up  later. 275 

Van  Cleve,  do  not  know  that  he  received  checks  from  Stephenson  which 

he  indorsed  to  Puelicher;  he  did  not  indorse  any  over  to  me 66 

Van  Cleve,  I do  not  think  I knew  he  was  acting  as  one  of  the  managers; 

do  not  think  I ever  communicated  with  him  during  the  campaign 302 

Van  Cleve  resides  at  Marinette;  met  me  in  Milwaukee;  presume  Stephen- 
son asked  him  to 61,  62 

Vote,  easier  to  get  it  out  at  the  general  election  with  expenditure  of  about 
$17,000  than  to  get  it  out  at  primary  with  expenditure  made  by  Ste- 
phenson   118, 119 

Vote,  if  there  was  not  a lot  of  dragging  out  on  the  1st  of  September  there 

would  not  be  a big  vote — a very  small  vote 121, 122 

Voters  in  Wisconsin  last  election  within  1,000  of  450,000 125 

Votes,  less  than  half  voted  at  primary  that  were  cast  at  general  election; 
Stephenson  would  not  have  got  many  if  organizers  had  not  been  em- 
ployed; were  it  not  for  very  large  expenditures  of  money  in  primary 
campaigns  no  more  persons  would  go  out  to  the  primary  elections  than 

attended  the  caucuses  in  years  past 259 

Wausau  Record-Herald  paid  $100  or  $150;  not  for  purchase  of  editorial 
support;  unable  to  say  whether  it  had  expressed  itself  favorable  to 

Stephenson’s  candidacy  prior  to  contract  for  payment  of  money 358 

Wayland,  C.  C.,  do  not  know  for  what  he  was  paid  $300  August  31;  was 
working  for  us  in  Outagamie  County;  agreement  with,  concerning  organ- 
izing; I think  I went  into  detail  with,  more  than  with  any  other  man  as 
to  expenditures;  I did  not  require  detailed  statement  from  him;  was 
brought  out  in  testimony  I paid  him  total  of  $1,150;  Sacket  had  nothing 
to  do  with  transaction;  how  he  expended  money;  he  received  no  com- 
pensation; we  were  in  business  together;  I can  not  account  for  any 

part  of  money  spent  by 79, 

95,  96,  99, 105,  200,  201,  202,  203,  204,  205, 
206,  207,  236,  237,  242,  244,  267,  269,  270,  388, 

Weisman,  A.  J.,  do  not  recall  name  or  item  of  $83  paid  to 223 

Wells,  J.  H.,  was  the  organizer  employed  in  Columbia  County;  paid  $200, 
August  28;  had  same  arrangements  and  same  general  talk  with  that  I had 
with  other  organizers;  to  my  best  recollection  there  was  not  any  com- 
pensation paid  him 335 

Windsor,  W.  F.,  of  Mosinee,  was  organizer  in  Juneau  County 2048 

Wisconsin  statute,  wfith  reference  to  requiring  a report  of  campaign  expendi- 
tures, read;  I should  say  I was  familiar  with  that;  I knew  law  required 
Stephenson  to  file  within  30  days  after  the  election  a statement  showing 
every  item  of  expenditure  which  exceeded  $5;  Sacket  employed  to  pre- 
serve information  by  which  Stephenson  could  comply  with  it 292 

Wypszinski,  J.  W.,  $50  paid  to,  July  22,  by  my  instruction;  told  him  he 
was  to  go  out  in  different  parts  of  State  to  see  people  of  his  nationality; 
Sacket  paid  him;  have  no  personal  knowledge  he  received  money;  think 
he  was  sent  to  me  by  somebody  who  knew  him;  do  not  recall  how  pay- 
ment of  $25,  July  24,  to,  was  made;  Sacket  should  know  for  what  purpose 
paid;  recollect  he  was  to  be  paid  $50  for  salary;  other  items  paid  for 
expenses;  did  not  render  an  account;  do  not  recall  where  he  was  to 

operate 179, 180, 181, 188, 189, 196 

Election  laws,  general  statutes  applicable  to 370,  371,  601,  602 

Eppling,  F.  J.,  insurance  business,  Sheboygan,  Wis.,  testimony  of 903 

Account,  I kept  track  of  every  penny  expended;  was  not  asked  to  render 
an  account;  talked  with  Edmonds  about  it  in  his  office,  about  six  weeks 
before  the  primary;  said  he  did  not  require  me  to  make  a statement;  I 
did  make  one  for  my  own  sake;  and  I expended  more  than  I received; 
items  given 907,908 


DIGEST  INDEX, 


XLIX 


Page. 

Eppljng,  F.  J.,  insurance  business,  Sheboygan,  Wis.,  testimony  of — Continued. 
Campaign,  received  money  to  cover  my  expenses  in  helping  organize  the 
various  counties;  I was  to  look  up  following  persons  in  various  counties 
to  do  work  for  Stephenson:  Werner  Pflughoeft,  Taylor  County;  Dr.  Frank, 

Clark  County;  Mr.  Bratz,  Washington  County,  and  another  son  of  Mr. 

Pflughoeft  in  Outagamie  County 904 

Clergyman,  Lutheran,  at  Algoma,  Wis.,  during  summer  of  1908 903 

Edmonds,  correspondence  with,  as  read  from  affidavit  in  testimony  before 

joint  legislative  committee  correctly  states  situation 907 

Edmonds,  had  interviews  with  him  at  various  times;  can  not  state  the 
dates;  received  $75  from  him  at  first  interview;  received  $400  from  him 

altogether 903,904 

Hensel,  Max,  I paid  him  $75  as  an  assistant  during  that  time  when  I was 
absent  from  my  congregation,  and  he  gave  me  a receipt  for  it  which  I 

filed  with  Senator  Marsh 906 

Men,  I asked  to  work  were  men  who  received  favors  from  Stephenson  during 

Peshtigofire 908,909 

Money,  was  all  for  my  personal  expenses  and  compensation;  none  of  it  was 
to  be  used  for  a subscription  to  my  church;  none  of  it  given  to  anyone 

else  for  work  done  by  them 904,  908 

Stephenson,  $200  from  him  was  not  for  any  political  purpose;  paid  August 
22;  was  a donation  to  my  congregation,  and  he  left  to  my  disposal  the  way 
I should  apply  it;  I gave  $100  each  to  Kolberg  and  Algoma  churches; 
check  was  drawn  by  his  stenographer,  signed  by  him,  and  handed  me;  his 
private  secretary  testified  this  money  was  to  be  given  Northwestern  Col- 
lege; that  is  false 905,906 

Total  of  $600  received  by  me,  $400  from  Edmonds  and  $200  from  Stephen- 
son   907 

Essmann,  William  L.,  superintendent  of  public  property,  testimony  of...  696,  740,  806 
Box,  T have  brought  here,  I think  contains  matters  pertaining  to  the  investi- 
gation, but  I do  not  think  it  contains  all  the  evidence;  I was  present  at 
that  investigation,  and  it  seems  to  me  there  was  more  than  one  box  full.  697,  740 
Box  of  receipts  and  bills  in  Stephenson  campaign,  not  marked  as  exhibits  in 
original  investigation;  I have  gone  through  them  and  they  are  simply 
receipts  of  bills  that  were  paid,  and  I did  not  mark  them;  I think  there 
is  nothing  there  but  receipts  from  Puelicher,  Sacket,  and  Knell;  I do  not 
think  you  will  find  any  letters  in  the  box ; so  far  as  I know  none  are  there . . 813, 

814,  815,  816 

Edmonds’s  expense  account,  known  as  Exhibit  49;  I have  not  been  able  to 
find  it;  I do  not  know  anything  about  it;  can  not  give  you  any  informa- 
tion to  enable  finding  it,  unless  you  should  get  it  from  members  of  the 

joint  committee  or  secretary;  it  is  not  in  trunk * 816 

Exhibits,  list  of  those  net  found  in  trunk,  enumerated 807 

Index  to  names  of  individuals 812 

Letter  from  J.  A.  Stone  to  J.  J.  Blaine;  I was  unable  to  find  it  in  my  search; 
have  not  seen  it  since  meeting  of  joint  committee;  all  I have  is  a copy  of 

it;  it  is  not  in  trunk 814,  815,  816 

List  of  exhibits  introduced  in  evidence  before  the  joint  committee  of  the 

legislature  appointed  in  1909 807,  808,  809,  810,  811 

McGovern,  Francis  E.;  I managed  his  campaign  for  United  States  Senate 

in  1908  primary 814 

Marsh,  chairman  of  joint  investigating  committee,  Neillsville;  I called  him 
up  by  telephone  and  he  does  not  seem  to  know  anything  about  it.  He 
was  under  the  impression  that  there  were  two  trunks  left  in  my  possession.  806, 

816 

Papers  used  and  presented  to  joint  committee  of  Legislature  of  Wisconsin 
in  connection  with  Stephenson  investigation;  I have  brought  with  me 

all  that  I could  find 696,  697,  806 

Report  of  the  senatorial  committee  on  investigation 812,813 

Riordan  statement,  is  not  in  the  box 817 

Stephenson ; I did  not  support  him  in  his  campaign  for  the  Senate 814 

Stone  exhibit  in  reference  to  J.  W.  Stone,  ex-game  warden,  I went  through 

the  box  three  or  four  times  and  it  is  not  in  my  custody 807 

Superintendent  of  public  property,  I was  not,  at  time  of  joint  legislative 
hearing;  succeeded  another  man  and  have  taken  what  I found  in  his 
hands 81 G 


L 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page. 

Essmann,  William  L.,  superintendent  of  public  property,  testimony  of — Con. 

Two  boxes  were  left  with  State  treasurer  by  State  Senator  Marsh,  and  when 
I called  for  them  he  gave  me  the  box  I have  here  and  another  one.  The 
other  box  was  open  and  I found  it  was  a personal  matter  that  belonged  to 
State  Senator  Sanborn,  so  I left  it  at  Madison;  my  belief  is  that  in  bringing 
the  two  boxes  to  the  treasurer  they  became  mixed  in  some  way  and  they 
brought  Senator  Sanborn’s  private  box;  possibly  he  has  the  other  box 
pertaining  to  the  investigation;  that  is  merely  a guess;  I do  not  know. . 697,  806 

Wheeler  expense  account  with  checks,  not  marked  in  the  exhibits 812 

Everett,  J.  W.,  newspaper  business,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1585 

Domachowski,  talked  with,  in  Madison  in  regard  to  his  receiving  an  offer 
of  $1,500  to  walk  out  of  legislature;  conversation  was  largely  between 
him  and  Mr.  Powell;  he  dodged,  and  said  one  thing  and  another;  told 
Powell  he  had  been  approached  “by  a friend;”  would  not  say  who  his 
friend  was;  said  to  Watrous  it  was  a concrete  offer;  never  said  it  was  a 

joke'; ’impressed  me  as  having  some  truth  in  it 1586 

Domachowski,  understood  that  the  offer  of  $1,500  to,  was  by  some  one  in 
the  interest  of  Senator  Stephenson;  did  not  ask  if  the  offer  came  from 
Senator  Stephenson  or  some  one  representing  him;  I do  not  believe  he 
was  offered  $1,500  to  stay  out  and  thus  effect  the  election  of  Senator 

Stephenson 1587, 1588, 1589 

Milwaukee  Daily  News,  am  connected  with 1585 

O’Neil,  Joe,  taiked  with  Domachowski  as  to  offer  of  $1,500;  think  he 

(O’Neil)  said  it  was  a joke 1586, 1587, 1589, 1590 

O’Neil,  think  Domachowski  thought  there  was  “something  doing”..  1588,1599 

Powell,  talked  with  Domachowski  as  to  offer  of  $1,500 1586 

Watrous,  talked  with  Domachowski  as  to  offer  of  $1,500 1586 

Exhibits : 

Ex.  Reed  No.  1,  Oct.  30,  1911,  affidavit  of  William  Fenelon,  in  regard  to 
his  telephoning  Roy  E.  Reed  that  James  Fenelon  said  it  would  be  all 

right  to  wire  Ramsey  and  ask  for  the  pair 1929 

Ex.  Regan  No.  1,  envelope  in  which  letter  came  from  Wagner  to  Wood 1689 

Ex.  Regan  No.  2,  October  24,  1911,  letter  from  Wagner  to  Wood 1689 

Exhibit  Alexander  No.  1,  October  19,  1911,  statement  of  expenses  of 
Stephenson  primary  election  campaign  in  Lincoln  and  Marathon 

Counties 1288,1289 

Exhibit  Alexander  No.  2,  October  19, 1911,  a statement  of  cash  items 

drawn  and  expended  by  Walter  Alexander 1289, 1290 

Exhibit  Ames  1,  October  18,  1911,  bundle  of  receipts 1186 

Exhibit  Ames  2,  October  18,  1911,  receipt  book,  with  stubs 1186 

Exhibit  Edmonds,  A.,  list  of  items,  selected  by  Mr.  Edmonds  from 

Exhibit  49,  of  which  he  has  personal  knowledge 306 

Exhibit  Edmonds  B,  memorandum  showing  names  of  local  managers  with 
whom  Edmonds  had  arrangements  for  special  compensation,  together 
with  amount  of  that  compensation,  according  to  his  best  recollection...  323 
Exhibit  Edmonds  letter  of  August  4,  1908;  carbon  copy  of  letter  from 

Edmonds  to  Stephenson 2026 

Exhibit  Edmonds  No.  100,  October  31,  1911,  copy  of  account  No.  2 
of  E.  A.  Edmonds  from  original  ledger  sheet  of  Marshall  & Isley  Bank. . 2045 

Exhibit  Edmonds  No.  101,  October  31,  1911,  items  ;n  Exhibit  49  that  cor- 
respond with  Edmonds  account  No.  2 in  Marshall  & Isley  Bank 2046 

Exhibit  (Essmann)  No.  1,  list  of  exhibits  not  found  in  trunk,  enumerated. . 807 

Exhibit  (Essmann)  2,  list  of  exhibits  introduced  in  evidence  before  joint 

committee  of  Wisconsi  n Legislature  appointed  in  1909 807,  808,  809,  810,  811 

Exhibit  (Essmann)  3,  index  to  names  of  individuals 812 

Exhibit  (Essmann)  4,  expense  account  of  Wheeler  with  checks 812 

Exhibit  (Essmann)  5,  report  of  Senatorial  Committee  on  Investigation. . 812,  813 
Exhibit  (Fenelon)  461a,  telegram  from  James  Fenelon  to  Thomas  Ramsey, 

in  regard  to  pair  on  United  States  Senator 1508 

Exhibit  Haslam  No.  1,  October  14,  1911,  list  from  memory  of  money 

spent  by  William  Haslam  to  further  interest  of  Stephenson 968 

Exhibit  Knell  1,  October  25,  1911,  statement  of  Milwaukee  County  ex- 
penses in  Stephenson  primary  campaign,  1908 1767-1774 

Exhibit  (Ramsey)  461a,  Edward  H.  Smith,  official  reporter,  telegram  sent 
by  James  Fenelon  March  4, 1909,  from  Ripon,  Wis.,  to  Thos.  F.  Ramsey, 
requesting  Ramsey  to  pair  with  him  on  United  States  Senator 2114, 2115 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


LI 


Page. 

Exhibits — Continued . 

Exhibit  (Ramsey)  461b,  Edward  H.  Smith,  official  reporter,  envelope  of 
Western  Union  Telegraph  Co.,  addressed  to  “ Thomas  Ramsey,  Assem- 
bly,” containing  telegram  from  Fenelon,  March  4,  1909 2114,2115 

Exhibit  (Ramsey)  462,  telegram  from  Thomas  Ramsey  to  James  Fenelon, 

Ripon,  March  4,  1909,  granting  Fenelon’s  request  to  pair  on  United  States 

Senator 2114,2115 

Exhibit,  Russell  No.  1,  October  26,  1911,  express  receipt  of  box  shipped 

from  headquarters  in  Milwaukee  to  Marinette,  dated  Sept.  5,  1908 1837 

Exhibit  (Russell)  111,  statement  of  expenditures  in  Stephenson  primary 
campaign,  made  up  day  before  called  on  stand  by  joint  legislative  com- 
mittee  1196 

Exhibit  (Sacket  and  Wellensgard)  62,  itemized  statement  of  expense  ac- 
count of  C.  C.  Wellensgard  made  to  Rodney  Sacket 443, 489,  837 

Exhibit  Sacket  Recalled  No.  1,  October  21,  1911,  list  of  persons  who  filed 

expense  accounts 2064,  2065 

Exhibit  Stephenson  1,  statement  of  expenses  in  primary  election  filed 

under  the  law,  Feb.  11,  1909 26,  27 

Exhibit  (Stephenson)  2,  letter  from  Attorney  General  Gilbert,  Sept.  28, 

1908,  to  Stephenson,  citing  his  opinion  that  candidate  for  United  States 
Senator  is  not  required  to  file  an  account  of  his  expenses  in  primary 

campaign  until  after  election  by  legislature  in  January 58,  89,  90 

Exhibit  Thayer  No.  1,  October  14,  1911,  bank  book  of  L.  W.  Thayer 943 

Exhibit  Thayer  No.  2,  October  14,  1911,  check  on  German  National  Bank, 

Ripon,  Wis.,  dated  Sept.  2,  1908,  for  $150,  payable  to  self  or  bearer, 

signed  by  L.  W.  Thayer 943 

Exhibit  Thayer  No.  3,  October  14,  1911,  check  on  German  National  Bank, 

Ripon,  dated  August  31,  1908,  for  $100,  payable  to  cash  or  bearer,  signed 

by  L.  W.  Thayer 943 

Exhibit  (Upham)  1,  statement  of  election  expenses  of  Isaac  Stephenson. . 1979, 

1980 

Exhibit  Van  Cleve  1,  showing  disbursements  by  J.  A.  Van  Cleve  in  Ste- 
phenson’s 1908  primary  campaign  in  Marinette  County,  Wis 146 

Exhibit  Van  Cleve,  No.  2,  October  9,  1911,  memorandum  book  used  during 
campaign  in  Marinette  County,  containing  expenses  during  campaign 

and  a list  of  checks  sent  to  Puelicher,  aggregating  $52,500 570 

Exhibit  Van  Houten  No.  1,  October  18,  1911,  trunk  containing  papers 

relative  to  Stephenson  campaign 1215 

Exhibit  Wellensgard  No.  1,  October  13,  1911,  receipt  for  $30  to  Wellensgard 

from  Grant  Burlingame 853 

Exhibit  (Wellensgard)  2,  receipt  for  $25  to  Wellensgard  from  C.  M.  Rose- 

brook  854 

Exhibit  49,  statement  of  Stephenson  expense  account  of  primary  cam- 
paign, 1908,  in  detail,  as  it  appeared  in  proceedings  before  Wisconsin  Legis- 
lature  . 307-322 

List  of,  filed  in  Wisconsin  investigation 808-811 

Expenditures  made  by  a candidate  being  challenged  as  to  their  legality,  the 
burden  is  upon  the  party  making  the  expenditure  to  show  that  they  were 

lawful  (opinion  of  Chairman  Heyburn) 281,282, 

283,  284,  772,  773,  795,  796,  797,  798,  799,  800,  801,  802,  803,  900,  2039,  2040 

F. 


Farr,  F.  R.,  attorney  at  law,  Eau  Claire,  Wis.,  affidavit  of 2002 

Account  of  disbursements  rendered  no  one;  was  not  asked  to  do  so,  or 

expected  to  do  so;  kept  no  memorandum  whatever 2002 

Automobiles,  had  use  of  several 2003 

Campaign  carried  on  in  Eau  Claire  County  as  clean  and  honorable  as  I have 

ever  known ; no  improper  influence  used 2003 

Eau  Claire  County,  about  50  voting  precincts  in 2002 

Money  not  paid  for  the  vote  of  any  elector;  no  improper  influence  used 

of  employed  in  connection  with  work 2002 

Poll  workers,  with  two  exceptions,  paid  from  $5  to  $10  each 2002 

Services,  none  of  money  received  was  retained  by  me  as  compensation  for 

my  individual 2002 

Stephenson,  supporter  of,  some  time  prior  to  time  money  was  paid^o me..  2002 


LII 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page. 

Farr,  F.  R.,  attorney  at  law,  Eau  Claire,  Wis.,  affidavit  of — Continued. 

Trips  made  throughout  the  various  towns  in  Eau  Claire  County  usually 
accompanied  by  a man  of  influence  and  of  excellent  character  and  stand- 
ing  2003 

Wheeler,  William  G.,  paid  $300  by  personal  check  of,  just  prior  to  elec- 
tion, for  purpose  of  being  used  in  campaign  carried  on  for  Stephenson 
in  Eau  Claire  County;  expended  by  employing  different  individuals 
on  primary  day  with  horses  and  rigs  and  for  hired  billposters;  three  per- 
sonal friends  to  whom  money  was  given  for  work  done  named 2002 

Wisconsin  politics,  more  or  less  active  in  for  the  past  25  or  30  years;  never 
before  this  had  the  disbursement  of  any  political  fund,  being  always 

theretofore  a contributor 2003 

Farrell,  John  T.,  directory  publisher,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1441 

Absent  two  or  three  times  when  joint  ballots  were  taken  on  other  occa- 
sions than  March  4;  never  absent  when  I was  in  Madison  on  any 
other  occasion;  never  before  walked  out  of  legislature  just  before  a vote 

on  senatorial  question  was  being  taken;  never  asked  to 1452, 1453, 1456 

Absenting  myself  from  joint  session  March  4,  when  Stephenson  was  elected, 

reasons  for . 1453, 1454, 1455, 1456 

Absenting  myself  on  4th  of  March  from  joint  session  of  Wisconsin  Leg- 
islature, was  not  offered  or  given  anything  for;  no  one  asked  me  to; 

charge  that  I received  money  for  not  true 1452, 1456 

Assembly  chamber,  when  I returned  there  in  afternoon  after  Stephenson’s 
election  some  of  members  were  there;  I don’t  know  who;  I sat  down 
and  wrote;  did  not  inquire  of  members  about  election;  they  did  not 

come  to  me;  stayed  there  until  4.30  or  5 1459 

Assemblymen,  saw  40  or  50  after  Stephenson  had  been  elected  that  day; 
do  not  recall  that  I talked  with  any  of  them;  did  not  speak  to  them 
and  they  did  not  speak  to  me  on  subject  of  Stephenson  election;  did 

not  hear  them  discuss  absence  of  Ramsey  or  Towne 1462, 1463 

Brown,  Neal,  Democratic  candidate  for  United  States  Senator,  voted  for 
at  all  times,  except  on  one  occasion,  when  I voted  for  Domachowski,  of 

Milwaukee,  as  a complimentary  vote 1451 

Charges  about  corruption  in  Stephenson  election  first  heard  of  in  April, 
when  Wagner  was  brought  to  Madison;  before  then  had  never  heard 
any  corruption  mentioned  about  myself;  had  seen  discussion  about 
corruption  in  the  press;  but  I have  never  had  a man  come  to  me  per- 
sonally and  discuss  it . 1460 

Constituents  seemed  satisfied  with  my  actions;  I received  unanimous 
nomination  for  reelection  at  primaries  without  a contest;  I did  not  run; 

prohibited  from  by  “20  per  cent  law,”  explained 1467, 1468 

Democratic  members,  never  told  any  of  them  my  frame  of  mind  except 
Ramsey;  did  not  tell  any  of  them  I was  going  to  absent  myself  from 
joint  session;  they  absented  themselves  and  they  did  not  ask  me  if 
they  could  go  out  or  tell  me  they  were  going  out;  they  were  more  derelict 
than  I because  they  did  it  as  a body  and  assumed  to  form  a combination 
with  “half-breeds”  and  Socialists;  whereas  I left  as  an  individual  and 
made  no  effort  to  secure  anyone  to  aid  me  in  disturbing  the  proceedings; 

I did  not  go  out  with  them 1465 

Democratic  Party  in  1908  put  into  its  platform  plank  demanding  an  in- 
vestigation of  primary;  Stephenson’s  name  was  not  specifically  men- 
tioned; they  lost  out  by  about  three  to  one 1468, 1469 

Democrats,  it  is  said  three  were  absent  March  4 1457 

Democrats,  think  they  had  no  possible  chance  to  elect  a United  States  Sen- 
ator in  legislature  of  which  I was  a member . 1469 

Edmonds,  know  him  in  a passing  way;  not  personally  acquainted  with; 
did  not  have  any  conversation  with  him  on  4th  of  March  or  at  any  time 

prior  to  election  of  Stephenson 1452 

Hughes,  Assemblyman,  had  a talk  with  evening  of  March  4 at  Park  Hotel; 
he  says,  “Well,  Stephenson  is  elected  at  last  and  you  fellows  were  out”; 
made  me  angry;  conversation  that  followed;  quieted  down  when  Dick 
White  came  along  and  invited  us  to  go  and  have  a cigar;  we  went  with 
him  to  bar  and  took  a ©igar;  I went  out  into  street;  do  not  know  where 

they  went 1460, 1461 

Hughes,  do  not  think  he  was  trying  to  elect  a Democrat  as  Senator 1469 

A 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


LIII 


Page. 

Farrell,  John  T.,  directory  publisher,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of — Contd. 

Hughes,  John,  was  Democratic  leader;  did  not  say  anything  to  him  about 
my  intention  of  absenting  myself  March  4 ; was  from  Dodge  County ; did 

not  try  to  prevent  my  renomination 1466, 1467, 1468 

Lentz,  Assemblyman,  believe  I spoke  to  him  when  I returned  to  chamber 
afternoon  of  March  4 ; did  not  have  any  conversation  with  him  about  the 

election  of  a Senator  that  day 1450 

Member  of  Legislature  of  State  of  Wisconsin  at  forty-ninth  session,  1909; 

served  one  term;  represented  first  assembly  district 1441 

Milwaukee,  resided  in  nearly  20  years 1441 

Neusse,  newspaper  man  who,  I think,  represented  Milwaukee  Journal, 
called  upon  me  between  1 and  2 o’clock,  March  4,  to  ask  me  why  I left 

the  chamber;  I was  sitting  in  a chair  at  the  Park  Hotel 1448, 1449 

Overbeck,  did  not  speak  to  me  afternoon  of  March  4 with  reference  to  elec- 
tion of  a Senator;  did  not  see  him 1450, 1451 

Ramsey  and  I talked  over  Stephenson  election  once  or  twice  two  or  three 
weeks  before  he  was  elected ; spoke  about  it  January  26  and  I said  I con- 
sidered Stephenson  elected;  I said,  “This  investigation  is  proceeding 
along  lines  that  do  not  appear  to  me  as  though  there  was  anything  in  it, 
and  it  is  delaying  legislation”;  I said,  “I  wish  this  matter  was  settled,” 

this  talk  at  Madison 1464 

Ramsey,  talked  with  him  in  afternoon  of  March  4 after  vote  was  taken, 
probably  between  4 and  5,  at  assembly  chamber;  he  said  he  was  paired 
on  the  vote  for  United  States  Senatorship  with  a man  named  Fenelon, 

and  I said,  “Well,  I got  tired  of  it  and  walked  out  ” 1457, 1458, 1463, 1464 

Senator,  none  at  any  time  offered  me  any  consideration  for  voting  or  not 

voting  for  any  candidate  for 1451, 1452 

Stephenson,  Senator: 

Felt  there  was  a conspiracy  on  to  defeat  him ; there  was  no  conspiracy 

to  elect  him,  so  far  as  I know 1457 

Have  no  personal  acquaintance  with 1452 

Heard  he  was  elected  from  general  reports  around  the  city;  no  one  told 

me ; heard  parties  saying,  1 1 Stephenson  has  received  majority  ” 1449, 

1450, 1458 

It  appeared  to  me  Democrats  and  “half-breeds”  and  social  Democrats 
were  working  with  a view  to  defeating  him;  I understood  they 

caucused  together . . 1455, 1456, 1469 

Was  not  present  day  he  received  majority  of  votes;  knew  there  would 
be  a vote  taken  in  joint  session  at  12  o’clock  that  day;  came  in  to  my 
desk  between  11.30  and  12;  remained  there  5 or  10  minutes;  left 
before  roll  was  called;  walked  from  my  desk  to  northeast  corner  of 
building;  took  my  coat  and  hat  and  went  over  to  caf6  opposite  capitol; 
sat  in  seat  24;  did  not  meet  or  speak  to  anybody  between  leaving 
chamber  and  reaching  caf6;  do  not  think  there  was  any  session  :n 

afternoon;  I was  back  in  chamber  in  afternoon  and  evening 1442, 

1443, 1444, 1445, 1446, 1447, 1448, 1456, 1458, 1466 

Towne,  did  not  talk  to  him  March  4 1457, 1463, 1464 

Vote  in  legislature,  did  not  know  it  would  be  close  March  4 1457 

White,  did  not  speak  with  him  afternoon  of  March  4 about  the  election  of  a 
Senator;  had  no  conversation  whatever  with  him;  think  I saw  him  in  the 
forenoon,  possibly  between  10  and  11;  senatorial  election  not  men- 
tioned  1450, 1451 

Zimmerman,  did  not  hear  him  make  any  statement  afternoon  of  March  4 

about  election  of  a Senator  or  my  connection  -with  it 1451 

Fenelon,  James,  former  member  of  the  assembly,  Ripon,  Fond  du  Lac  County, 

Wis.,  affidavit  of 2091 

Candidate  for  election  to  the  legislature,  had  announced  as  publicly  that 
should  he  be  elected  would  vote  for  the  candidate  for  Senator  receiving 

the  nomination  at  the  primary 2091 

Fenelon,  William,  nephew,  informed  by,  on  morning  of  March  4,  1909,  that 
Roy  E.  Reed  had  just  called  up  by  phone  and  asked  if  he  could  wire  a 
Democrat  at  Madison  asking  for  a pair  on  United  States  Senator;  that 
Reed  had  said  that  he  had  a chance  to  get  such  a pair;  affiant  informed 
him  that  it  would  be  all  right  for  Reed  to  wire  for  such  a pair;  not  long 
thereafter  affiant  was  informed  that  Thomas  Ramsey  had  paired  with 
him  on  the  vote  for  Senator 2091 


LIY 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page. 

Fenelon,  James,  former  member  of  the  assembly,  Ripon,  Fond  du  Lac  County, 

Wis.,  affidavit  of — Continued. 

Heart  trouble,  had  ever  since  the  last  of  January,  1909;  for  that  reason  did 
not  appear  before  the  committee  investigating  the  election  of  Stephenson, 
holding  sessions  at  Milwaukee,  fearing  trip  might  result  seriously  to  him.  2091 
Wisconsin  Legislature,  while  in  attendance  at  session  of  1909  of,  voted  four 
times  for  Stephenson  for  Senator,  in  month  of  January  of  that  year,  being 
the  only  times  a vote  on  Senator  was  taken  while  he  was  in  attendance 

at  session 2091 

Fenelon,  William,  affidavit  of,  in  regard  to  telephoning  Roy  E.  Reed  that  James 
Fenelon  said  it  would  be  all  right  to  wire  and  ask  Thomas  Ramsey  for  the  pair 

on  United  States  Senator  election 1929 

Flint,  R.  J.,  United  States  marshal  for  the  western  district  of  Wisconsin, 

Menomonie,  Wis.,  affidavit  of 2030 

Age,  69  years 2030 

Campaign  committee  at  Milwaukee,  received  $80  from 2030 

Campaign  work  in  primary  campaign;  did  whatever  personal  work  could 

to  further  the  election  of  the  Senator 2030,  2031 

George,  Maj.  T.  J.,  paid  $50  to,  to  be  used  in  securing  workers  at  polls  and 
in  settlement  of  sundry  small  bills  incurred  for  posting  lithographs,  print- 
ing sample  ballots,  etc.,  in  the  interest  of  Stephenson 2030 

Hallsteen,  John,  engaged  him  to  visit  several  towns  in  Dunn  County,  circu- 
late campaign  literature,  lithographs,  etc.,  and  personally  urge  the 
farmers  to  attend  the  primary  in  the  interest  of  Stephenson;  agreed  should 
devote  six  days,  using  his  own  team  and  paying  own  expenses,  at  rate 
of  $5  per  day;  for  this  service  was  paid  $30;  in  addition  he  offered  to 
assist  m getting  voters  to  the  polls  in  his  home  town  on  election  day  with- 


out further  compensation 2030 

Menomonie,  resident  of  past  40  years 2030 

Money  not  disbursed  for  the  purpose  of  corruptly  or  unlawfully  influencing 

or  bribing  any  person 2030 

Stephenson,  supporter  of,  at  all  times;  known  for  many  years;  very  warm 

friendship  has  existed 2030,  2031 

Frank,  J.  Henry,  practicing  physician  and  surgeon,  Neillsville,  Wis.,  affidavit  of.  2003 

Age,  41  years 2003 

Campaign  committee,  received  from,  $615 2003 

Campaign  work  in  Clark  County  and  city  of  Neillsville,  at  request  of  cam- 
paign committee,  during  primary  contest;  instructions  received;  in- 
formed legitimate  and  reasonable  expenses  would  be  paid;  engaged  in, 

about  six  weeks 2003 

Marth,  Frank,  paid  $200  to,  for  services  and  expenses 2003 

Money  not  disbursed  for  the  purpose  of  corruptly  or  unlawfully  influencing 

or  bribing  any  person 2004 

Neillsville,  resided  at,  about  11  years  past 2003 

Personal  traveling  expenses,  about  $200 2003 

Precinct  workers,  expended  about  $150  for  the  employment  of;  instructions 
given  to ; unable  to  give  names  and  addresses  of  all ; names  of  five  given ; 


Statement  of  expenses  and  disbursements,  never  called  upon  for  an  itemized ; 

did  not  keep  an  account  at  the  time 2004 

Stephenson,  supporter  of,  prior  to  his  engagement;  in  no  way  influenced  by 

the  fact  that  he  was  employed 2003 

Taylor  and  Marathon  Counties,  expended  about  $50  for  general  work  of  two 
persons,  who  were  to  travel  about  in  talking  Stephenson  and  circulating 

his  literature 2003,  2004 

French,  Charles  S.,  attorney,  Lake  Geneva,  Wis.,  testimony  of 871 

Account  of  expenditures,  I have  none;  did  not  make  one;  did  not  have  any 
memorandum  at  all  or  destroy  any;  I think  I should  have  kept  one,  but 


Assembly  candidates,  I did  not  make  arrangements  with  any,  to  perform 
services;  was  not  a candidate  myself;  have  never  served  in  assembly. . . 877 

Brownlow,  East  Troy,  I think  I gave  him  $10;  for  putting  his  time  in  talk- 
ing for  Stephenson  and  being  at  polls  election  day  to  solicit  votes 876 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


LV 


Page. 

French,  Charles  S.,  attorney,  Lake  Geneva,  Wis.,  testimony  of — Continued. 
Campaign,  I received  money  for  work  for  Stephenson  in  Walworth  and 
Kenosha  Counties;  did  not  receive  money  to  support  any  other  person 
during  that  campaign;  I visited  every  town  and  village  or  city  in  the  two 
counties  and  some  of  them  more  than  once;  it  was  necessary  to  spend 
money  there  as  there  was  such  an  indifference  among  people  and  it  needed 
some  one  to  stir  them  up;  and  because  of  competition.  871,  872,  874,  878,  879,  880 
Cigars  and  liquors,  expended  some  money  for  them;  can  not  tell  how  much; 
think  I spent  $10  that  way  at  Truesdale;  when  we  went  into  a place  where 
the  crowd  wanted  cigars  or  drinks,  we  bought  them;  if  there  was  anybody 
around,  we  invited  them  to  drink,  regardless  of  their  political  affiliations; 
we  were  strangers  and  visited  the  saloon  keeper  about  putting  up  litho- 
graphs  873,  876 

Edmonds,  received  $800  from  him  August  18,  1908;  made  arrangements 
with  him;  nothing  said  about  keeping  an  account  or  reporting  to  him. . . 871,  877 
Edwards,  paid  him  $30  for  devoting  time  to  talking  in  Stephenson’s  interest 
and  procuring  workers  at  polls  who  would  direct  attention  of  voters  to 

Stephenson’s  claims 873,  877 

Expenses,  amount  of  will  have  to  be  an  estimate;  there  was  the  car  and 
three  or  four  with  me  all  the  time;  automobile  was  my  own;  I did  not 

charge  for  it ' 872,  877,  879 

Ice-house  employees,  spent  $30  with  them;  got  the  most  available  man  to 
visit  his  fellow  employees  and  to  see  that  they  went  to  polls  primary 
day;  and  to  press  Stephenson’s  candidacy  at  Twin  Lakes  and  Power 

Lake 874,875 

Literature,  I think  I paid  out  around  $10  or  $15  for  boys  to  distribute  it. . . 876 

Method  of  campaigning;  I would  go  to  a town  and  I usually  had  an  acquaint- 
ance with  me  who  knew  two  or  three  prominent  men  in  that  town;  we 
would  visit  them  and  have  them  direct  us  to  other  men  about  the  town; 

they  were  all  Stephenson  men 872,  873 

Money,  I did  not  spend  any  during  the  campaign  for  the  purpose  of  directly 
or  indirectly  bribing  or  corrupting  any  electors;  as  far  as  I know  none 

expended  that  way  by  any  people  to  whom  I intrusted  money 879 

Precincts,  I spent  $10  to  $15  in  each  one,  except  four;  I think  there  are  51 
in  the  two  counties;  did  not  spend  anything  at  Lake  Geneva;  I engaged 
men  to  spend  some  time  between  time  I saw  them  and  election  day  and 
also  on  election  day;  I expected  them  to  visit  their  friends  and  neighbors 

and  get  their  support  for  Stephenson 874, 878 

Statute,  requiring  candidate  to  file  account;  I knew  there  was  one;  it  did 
not  occur  to  me  that  Stephenson  could  not  comply  with  it  unless  I fur- 
nished him  the  information 879 

Stephenson,  I supported  him  for  nomination  in  1908 871 

Sum  of  $800  received,  I paid  it  all  out  to  others  and  for  my  expenses;  none 

for  compensation 872,  877,  879 

Twin  Lakes  and  Powers  Lake,  I believe  I left  about  $90  there  to  cover 
expense  of  teams  in  getting  voters  to  polls;  can  not  tell  names  of  men  with 
whom  I left  it;  think  there  were  about  four  or  five  in  the  two  different 
localities;  they  were  to  urge  Stephenson’s  candidacy  and  get  fellow 


employees  to  polls ! 875,  876 

Wisconsin,  have  practiced  law  there  since  1879 871 

G. 

Gehbe,  Frank,  dentist,  Manitowoc,  Wis.,  affidavit  of 2125 

Age,  35  years 2125 

Brady,  C.  E.,  received  $200  from,  for  disbursement  in  campaign  for  pay- 
ment of  legitimate  expenses 2125 

Campaign  work  done  in  primary  campaign,  covering  period  of  about  30 
days,  at  request  of  campaign  managers  at  Milwaukee;  obliged  to  employ 
others  to  assist  in  various  ways;  looked  after  much  of  work  personally, 

doing  more  or  less  traveling 2125 

Envelopes  and  letterheads,  disbursed  $7.50  for 2125 

Gehbe,  Frank  H.,  disbursed  $25  to,  for  making  two  special  trips  through 
Manitowoc  County,  interesting  voters  generally  and  people  whom  he 
knew  in  the  cause  of  Stephenson;  for  personal  expenses,  conveyance, 

etc 2125 

Headquarters,  received  $200  from,  for  disbursement  in  campaign  for  pay- 
ment of  legitimate  expenses 2125 


LVl 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page. 

Gehbe,  Frank,  dentist,  Manitowoc,  Wis,  affidavit  of — Continued. 

Hoffman,  of  Manitowoc,  disbursed  $35  to,  for  expenses  of  conveyance  and 
personal  expenses,  interviewing  people  and  advocating  election  of 
Stephenson,  including  compensation  for  services,  covering  several  days.  2125 
Johnson  and  others,  disbursed  $50  to,  for  distributing  lithographs,  cam- 
paign material,  and  circulars  throughout  Manitowoc  County,  part  of 
Sheboygan  County,  part  of  Brown  County,  and  part  of  Calumet  County; 
amount  paid  Johnson  was  for  personal  expense,  service,  and  cost  of  con- 
veyance; balance  paid  others  for  services  only;  paid  $20  also  for  persons 
to  distribute  campaign  literature  on  the  fair  grounds  during  the  county 

fair 2125 

Manitowoc,  always  resided  in,  except  four  years,  when  resided  at  Clarks 

Mills 2125 

Manitowoc  Post,  disbursed  $10  to,  for  special  advertisement 2125 

Money  not  disbursed  for  the  purpose  of  corruptly  or  unlawfully  influencing 

or  bribing  any  person 2126 

Plumb,  Ralph,  disbursed  $10  to,  for  campaign  work  in  city  of  Manitowoc, 
for  personal  expenses  and  services  in  circulating  special  advertising  mat- 
ter in  interest  of  Stephenson,  and  seeing  lithographs  and  other  poster 

material  was  kept  in  place 2125 

Poll  list,  disbursed  $50  for  expense  of  getting  up 2125 

Poll  workers,  expended  about  $75  to;  instructions  given 2125,  2126 

Postage,  disbursed  $8  for 2125 

Services,  never  received  nor  charged  anything  as  compensation  for;  interest 
was  sufficient  inducement  to  devote  time  without  any  expectation  of 

more  compensation 2126 

Statement,  never  called  upon  by  campaign  committee  for  an  itemized 2126 

Stenographers’  work  in  writing  letters  to  voters,  disbursed  $15  for 2125 

Stephenson,  supporter  of  prior  to  request  to  do  work  in  campaign 2125 

Summerfield,  Clifford,  disbursed  $60  to,  for  five  weeks’  work  traveling 
around  giving  attention  to  posting  of  lithographs  and  circulating  of  liter- 
ature, also  for  services  and  expense  in  visiting  various  precincts  in  Mani- 
towoc County,  talking  with  voters  and  presenting  merits  of  Stephenson 

and  reasons  why  he  should  be  nominated 2125 

Whitney,  of  Manitowoc,  disbursed  $10  to,  for  distributing  and  putting  up 

lithographs 2125 

Willard  and  several  newsboys,  disbursed  $25  to,  for  distributing  Milwaukee 

Free  Press 2125 

Gilbert,  F.  L.,  attorney  general  of  Wisconsin,  correspondence  with  relative  to 


Gordon,  George  H.,  United  States  attorney  for  western  district  of  Wisconsin, 

La  Crosse,  Wis.,  testimony  of .+ . 741 

Accounts,  I did  not  keep  a memorandum  of  money  received  at  the  time;  I 
kept  no  accounts  at  all ; at  that  time  it  did  not  occur  to  me  that  I ought  to 


~ ~ ~ ~ ^ - 7 7 

Aggregate  of  $1,800  paid  me;  I think  Edmonds  paid  it  to  me;  at  different 
times  during  month  of  July;  I could  not  tell  the  exact  time  I received  it 
or  the  amount  received  at  any  given  time;  I did  not  retain  any  of  it  for  my 
services;  I think  I was  a little  bit  shy,  when  I got  through,  on  my  own 
account  I cashed  the  checks  and  kept  the  money  in  my  safe;  was  not 
mingled  with  my  own  funds;  paid  it  out  until  contents  of  safe  exhausted. . 741, 

742,  753,  754 

Anderson,  A.  F.,  was  man  working  during  entire  primary  campaign  for 
Stephenson;  I have  no  recollection  as  to  how  much  money  I paid  him. . . . 765 

Barber,  W.  E.,  I do  not  remember  how  much  money  I paid  him;  my  guess  is 


Campaign,  how  conducted,  there  were  three  gentlemen,  Mr.  Van  Auken, 

Mr.  Barber,  and  Mr.  Smith,  who  had  all  been  chairman  of  the  Republican 
county  committee  of  our  county  and  had  experience  in  management  of 
campaigns ; I called  them  in  to  assist  me  and  a great  many  men  were  sent 
to  me  by  these  men;  I remember  Senator  Withee  was  also  active  in  candi- 
dacy for  Stephenson  and  he  sent  some  men  to  me;  many  I knew  at  the 
time  and  many  I did  not;  but  I relied  on  these  men  to  send  me  reliable 

men  who  would  expend  the  money  properly 745 

Candidate  for  senatorial  nomination  subjected  to  a great  deal  more  expense 
than  a local  candidate  would  be;  reasons  for 772 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


LVII 


Page. 

Gordon,  George  H.,  United  States  attorney  for  the  western  district  of  Wisconsin, 

La  Crosse,  Wis.,  testimony  of — Continued. 

Chicago  & North  Western,  I was  retained  to  represent  them  locally  at  La 
Crosse  for  many  years;  and  still  do;  no  men  employed  by  me  in  cam- 
paign were  connected  with  this  road 743,  759 

Edmonds,  I think  I made  arrangements  for  receipt  and  expenditure  of 
money  with  him  over  long-distance  telephone;  received  money  from  him 
by  draft;  my  recollection  is  that  I did  not  have  a personal  interview  with 
him  in  regard  to  expenditures;  I first  met  him  in  Milwaukee  before  he 
made  arrangement  with  me;  I can  not  recall  what  he  said  about  how  it 
was  to  be  expended;  I did  not  report  to  him  details  of  work  I was  doing; 

he  did  not  know  any  of  men  I was  employing 742,  743,  771 

Gelett,  R.  B.,  made  arrangements  with  him  about  paying  $600  to  two 
newspapers;  he  is  stockholder,  manager,  and  editor  of  one  of  them; 

paid  him  in  currency 756 

Kaizer,  I can  not  remember  how  much  I paid  him 751 

La  Crosse  County,  I had  been  district  attorney  there  at  one  time  20  years 
ago;  $1,800  was  for  campaign  purposes  in  that  county;  all  expended  in 
that  county,  so  far  as  I can  tell;.  La  Crosse  city  located  there;  men  whose 
names  given  all  residents  of  La  Crosse;  36  voting  precincts  in;  I have 

lived  there  all  my  life 755,  766,  768 

Lang,  ,T.  C.,  worked  for  Stephenson;  I do  not  recollect  how  much  money  I 

gave  him 765 

Larson,  I remember  the  man  but  do  not  recollect  how  much  I gave  him. . 765 

Law,  I was  engaged  in  practice  of  when  Edmonds  asked  me  to  handle  this 

money  for  campaign;  have  been  engaged  in  25  years 743,  759 

Legislative  committee,  I testified  before  them  some  time  during  the  session; 

I do  not  remember  the  date;  the  money  was  spent  in  previous  August;  I 
do  not  think  I gave  the  committee  the  amount  paid  to  a single  individual, 
except  the  $600  to  newspapers;  since  my  examination  by  them  at  Madi- 
son, I have  not  discussed  matter  with  any  of  men  to  whom  money  was 

entrusted 754,755,766 

Liquor  and  cigars,  none  of  this  money  expended  for,  to  my  knowledge;  I 

spent  none  of  it  that  way 762 

McConnell,  candidate  for  assembly  against  Mulder;  got  the  nomination;  I 
think  he  favored  Hatton  for  United  States  Senator ; I do  not  know  whether 
I knew  that  at  that  time ; made  public  announcement  that  he  would  stand 
by  result  of  the  primary;  I do  not  know  whether  he  voted  for  Stephenson 

on  first  ballot 756,  759,  770,  771 

McConnell,  I can  not  remember  how  much  I paid  him;  he  is  not  the  same 

man  that  was  a candidate  for  the  legislature 751,  765 

Men  employed,  this  is  purely  a guess,  but  possibly  there  were  30  or  40; 
probably  were  a great  many  more  than  the  names  I have  given ; I can  not 

tell  just  how  many 

Money: 

For  what  used;  my  testimony  before  joint  committee,  substantially 
correct;  read  as  follows:  Was  distributed  among  workers,  or  dis- 
tributing literature;  putting  up  lithographs;  distributing  buttons; 
livery  hire;  automobiles;  newspaper  circulation  and  advertising 

generally — that  is  what  is  was  used  for 

How  distributed,  my  testimony  before  joint  committee,  substantially 
correct,  as  follows:  This  was  a new  experience  to  me,  the  distribu- 
tion of  money  in  La  Crosse,  and  I called  in  some  of  the  boys  that  had 
had  previous  experience  and  who  were  acquainted  with  the  men  who 
had  the  influence,  and  they  would  send  these  fellows  to  me;  and  I 
would  get  the  funds,  what  each  thought  was  right,  and  if  they  wanted 

more  they  came  back  and  got  them,  as  long  as  they  lasted 

I can  not  in  a single  instance  give  the  amount  paid  to  a certain  man 

in  the  campaign 

I expended  it  for  Stephenson  by  employing  men  to  advance  his  candi- 
dacy  

Was  used  for  purpose  of  bringing  out  the  vote  and  talking  Stephenson 
to  electors;  if  that  can  be  construed  as  “influencing,”  I would  say 
it  was  spent  for  purpose  of  influencing  electors;  I did  not  pay  any 
money  to  any  elector  for  consideration  of  his  support;  did  not  use  it 
for  purpose  of  changing  favorably  to  Stephenson  the  action  of  any 
elector;  money  not  used  by  me,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  for 
bribing  or  corruptly  influencing  any  elector 764,  765 


766 


744 


744 

764 

742 


LVIII 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page. 

Gordon,  George  H.,  United  States  attorney  for  the  western  district  of  Wisconsin, 

La  Crosse,  Wis.,  testimony  of — Continued. 

Mulder,  John,  I can  not  remember  how  much  I paid  him  or  whether  more 
than  once;  think  he  was  paid  in  my  office;  saw  him  early  in  campaign; 
should  guess  I gave  him  from  $25  to  $50;  was  one  of  the  original  Stephen- 
son men  in  county;  was  to  use  money  to  secure  workers;  I did  not  specify 
how  much  was  for  compensation;  I think  his  nomination  papers  had  been 
filed  when  money  was  given  him;  I can  not  recall  discussing  his  candi- 
dacy for  assembly  with  him;  he  announced  he  would  support  whoever 

was  nominated  at  primary 750,  751,  756,  757,  758,  759,  771 

Mulder,  John,  I think  I voted  for  him;  I do  not  think  I did  much  of  any- 
thing actively  for  him;  I think  I contributed  to  his  campaign  from  my 

own  personal  funds;  probably  $10 773,  774 

Names  of  people  to  whom  I paid  money:  C.  S.  Van  Auken,  W.  E.  Barber, 
Charles  Smith,  E.  G.  Perkins,  Mr.  Powell,  John  Mulder,  Mr.  McConnell, 

Mr.  Kaizer,  Mr.  Young;  I can  not  recall  any  more  at  present 745,  765 

Newspapers,  I paid  $600  to  Chronicle  and  Leader-Press,  La  Crosse,  for 
extra  papers  put  out  in  district;  both  papers  owned  by  same  individual; 
one  is  morning  and  other  evening  paper;  I think  two-thirds  of  $600  was 
for  one  and  one-third  of  it  for  the  other;  300  or  400  extra  papers  put  out 
with  each  issue,  daily,  I think,  during  the  month  of  August;  I put  in 
literature  sent  me  and  paper  supported  Stephenson,  editorially;  I did 
not  furnish  mailing  list;  understanding  was  that  they  would  send  out 

as  many  papers  as  that  money  would  pay  for 751,  752,  753 

Perkins,  E.  G.,  I can  not  remember  how  much  I paid  him;  I remember  his 
getting  some  money  from  me;  I think  he  got  it  only  once;  feel  certain  it 

was  less  than  $100 750 

Political  organization,  think  I have  been  familiar  with  details  since  my 
majority;  I did  not  have  time  nor  funds  to  make  canvass  to  ascertain 
the  Republicans  and  which  ones  would  support  Stephenson;  I would 
estimate  cost  per  precinct  to  carry  through  successful  organization  at 
from  $60  to  $100;  items  that  would  go  to  make  that  up  given  in  detail; 
estimate  does  not  include  newspaper  advertising,  circulation  or  publish- 
ing of  literature,  or  expense  of  headquarters 768,  769,  770 

Powell,  I gave  him  money  two  or  three  times,  but  how  much  he  got  each 

time  I can  not  remember 750 

Puelicher,  I met  him  twice,  I think,  when  I was  introduced  to  him  in  Mil- 
waukee and  at  La  Crosse  several  days  before  the  primary,  and  he  was 
then  with  Stephenson;  I guess  we  discussed  the  candidacy  at  that  time; 
not  necessarily  the  three  of  us;  there  were  a number  of  other  gentlemen 

in  Stephenson  party 744 

State  office,  I was  never  elected  to  one  at  that  time;  I was  never  a member 

of  either  house  of  legislature 745 

Statement  of  manner  of  expenditure  of  money,  I did  not  make  one  to 
Stephenson  or  anyone  in  his  behalf;  was  never  asked  to  make  one . . 742,  745,  754 
Statute,  requiring  candidate  to  file  an  account,,  I expected  Stephenson 
would  file  one,  according  to  his  knowledge  as  to  manner  money  was 
expended;  it  did  not  occur  to  me,  as  his  agent,  that  I ought  to  place  in 
his  hands  data  to  enable  him  to  file  detailed  account;  I do  not  think  law 
contemplates  anything  of  kind;  I think  the  general  statute  simply  con- 
templates that  the  candidate  shall  account  for  manner  in  which  money 

was  disbursed,  if  within  his  knowledge 760,  761,  763 

Statute,  requiring  candidate  to  file  an  account,  my  construction  of  in 
hypothetical  cases  given;  I think  campaign  manager  should  make  a 
report;  I do  not  think  same  obligation  is  upon  lieutenants  retained  by 
him;  I did  not  examine  the  law  when  I had  this  money  to  spend;  within 
my  knowledge  courts  here  have  not  judicially  considered  this  section  of 

statute  or  other  sections  pertaining  to  election  offenses 761,  762,  764 

Stephenson,  I supported  him  in  senatorial  contest  during  direct  primary  of 
1908;  had  been  a supporter  of  his  prior  to  my  receiving  any  money. . 741,  745 
Smith,  Charles,  I do  not  remember  how  much  I paid  him;  should  guess  it 
was  less  than  $100,  because  Mr.  Smith  was  not  so  active  as  Barber. . 749,  750, 756 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


LIX 


Page. 

Gordon,  George  H.,  United  States  attorney  for  western  district  of  Wisconsin, 

La  Crosse,  Wis.,  testimony  of — Continued. 

Talked  with  Barber,  Smith,  and  Van  Auken  in  my  office;  told  them  I had 
some  money  to  use  in  Stephenson  campaign,  and  I wanted  their  assist- 
ance; that  they  knew  the  workers  throughout  the  different  precincts  of 
city  and  county,  and  I wanted  to  get  men  to  work  for  Stephenson;  I do 
not  recall  how  I arrived  at  amounts  paid  them;  I gave  money  at  different 
times  to  some  of  them  and  to  some  at  once;  do  not  remember  what  I 

gave  any  of  them;  think  I paid  them  unequal  amounts 746,  747,  748,  755 

United  States  district  attorney,  I was  appointed  in  spring  of  1909,  I think. . 755 

Van  Auken,  C.  S.,  in  insurance  business,  had  been  chairman  of  county 
committee  for  great  many  years,  employed  by  me  to  look  after  his  district, 
to  get  men  to  talk  for  Stephenson  and  bring  voters  to  polls  at  primary;  he 
did  not  account  to  me;  I did  not  see  him  expend  any  of  it;  I can  not  tell 
how  much  money  was  turned  over  to  him;  think  he  was  paid  more  than 
others  because  he  was  more  active;  my  guess  is  he  was  paid  between 

$50  and  $100 742,  744,  745,  746,  748,  755,  756 

Work  necessary  for  men  to  do:  They  had  to  go  about  to  different  precincts, 
and  talk  to  voters  about  Stephenson;  there  were  arguments  used  against 
him — that  he  was  a very  old  man,  decrepit,  unfit  for  the  position,  and  it 
became  necessary  to  refute  these  statements;  Stephenson  had  been  allied 
with  other  faction  than  stalwarts  and  it  became  necessary  to  argue  with 
them  to  get  their  support;  it  was  necessary  to  talk  Stephenson;  tell  who 


he  was  and  what  his  position  had  been  in  State 768 

Young,  I can  not  remember  how  much  I paid  him 751 

Governor  of  Wisconsin,  communication  to  United  States  Senate  forwarding 
certified  copy  joint  resolution  58,  certified  copy  volume  2,  parts  1 and  2, 

Senatorial  Primary  Investigation,  dated  June  27,  1911,  from 2,3 

Governor  of  Wisconsin,  telegram  sent  to,  notifying  him  of  session  of  subcom- 
mittee convening;  inquiring  if  State  desires  to  be  represented  by  counsel 1 

II. 

Haley,  Daniel,  lumber  business,  Duluth,  Minn.,  testimony  of 1554 

Brady,  John,  talked  with  him  about  the  two  traveling  men  (Fisher  and 
another);  said  he  knew  Fisher;  said  Shields  and  Hines  had  a quarrel 

over  some  money 1560, 1561 

Business  of,  Mr.  Hines  and  Mr.  Shields  connected  with 1555 

Cook,  think  he  might  have  talked  with  me  about  Shields’s  operations  at 


Cook,  think  I made  a statement  to,  that  I heard  somebody  else  having  a 


Cook,  Wirt  H.,  and  O’Brien,  William;  associated  in  business  with;  forming 

the  Virginia  & Rainy  Lake  Co 1555 

Fisher,  made  statement  to  Cook  as  to  overhearing  conversation  of;  think 


Hines,  in  business  with 1555 

Money,  never  heard  that  Hines  or  Shields  received  or  procured  any  to 

promote  election  of  Senator  Stephenson 1556 

Shields,  in  business  with . 1555 

Shields,  talked  with,  about  election  of  Senator  Stephenson;  never  said 
anything  to  me  about  three  men  staying  out  of  session;  nothing  said  about 


Hambright,  Charles  M.,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1063 


Account,  I rendered  an  itemized  one;  by  “Sundries”  in  account  mean  items 
I was  unable  to  account  when  I came  in ; what  I was  short  I put  that  way, 
which  is  a custom  I have  always  observed  in  traveling ; account  given  to 
subcommittee  taken  from  memorandum  book  in  which  I kept  an  account 

as  different  items  of  expense  were  incurred 1063, 1064, 1070 

Account  of  Stephenson  campaign  expenses  by  me,  itemized.  1064,1065, 1066, 1067 
Account,  when  I came  in  to  headquarters  each  week  or  two  weeks,  I 
always  told  them  what  my  expenses  had  been;  I do  not  think  they 
asked  me  for  details ; I gave  them  the  amount;  outside  of  that  did  not  ren- 
der an  account  to  them 1070 


LX 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page. 

Hambright,  Charles  M.,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of — Continued. 

Blaine,  John  J.,  fifth  specific  charge  made  by,  is  absolutely  false,  so  far  as 
using  money  corruptly  is  concerned;  I admit  I received  a certain  sum 

for  services  rendered 1067, 1068 

Business,  was  in  manufacturing  business  until  January,  1908,  when  it 

burned  out;  not  in  anything  particular  after  that 1063 

Campaign,  participated  in  Stephenson’s  as  a scout;  engaged  in  two  months, 

July  and  August;  I saw  the  leading  men  in  different  counties  to  ascertain 
how  they  felt  toward  Stephenson  and  if  they  were  in  accord  with  me 

to  try  and  get  them  to  work  for  him 1063, 1068 

Compensation  was  $150  a month 1068 

Money,  I received  $300  for  services  and  then  expense  money  of  $245.50.  1063, 1069 
Money,  none  used  for  gaining  the  vote  of  any  elector,  in  my  way  of  thinking, 
unless  it  was  buying  cigars;  none  paid  out  by  me,  or  so  far  as  I know  by 
men  with  whom  I had  arrangements,  for  the  purpose  of  bribing  or  cor- 
ruptly influencing  voters 1068,1069 

Money  spent  in  nine  different  counties  for  hotel,  railroads,  posting  bills, 
telephone,  and  things  of  that  kind;  bought  meals  for  myself  and  occasion- 
ally for  men  I met;  spent  some  for  cigars,  not  for  liquor;  spent  as  set 

forth  in  account 1063, 1064, 1068 

Sacket,  I think  all  the  money  I received  came  through  his  hands;  made 
my  arrangements  with  him  in  Milwaukee,  said  “go  on  and  do  as  you 
think  best  in  the  matter  ” ; I was  to  go  out  and  do  what  I could  for  Stephen- 
son in  seeing  politicians  and  business  men;  I had  a large  acquaintance 

throughout  the  State;  he  said  “wre  do  not  want  a saloon  campaign” 1068 

Saloon  campaign,  I did  not  make  one 1064 

Wilson,  William  and  John,  of  Darlington,  two  weeks  before  the  campaign 
closed  I hired  them  to  go  on  and  work  the  county;  they  were  told  to  me 
to  be  best  workers  in  county;  were  to  do  posting  and  hand  out  buttons 
and  work  of  that  kind ; poll  work  not  mentioned ; each  was  to  receive  $5 
a day  and  expenses;  hired  them  August  14,  I think;  I do  not  know  who 

paid  them;  I did  not 1069 

Workers  in  campaign,  I did  not  disburse  any  money  to,  unless  it  was  little 

items  to  tack  up  posters  or  something  of  that  kind 1069 

Hamilton,  Archibald,  inspector  at  the  primary  election  of  1908,  Milwaukee, 

Wis.,  testimony  of 

Money,  received  $25  from  representative  of  Senator  Stephenson  for  use  in 
the  primary  election  in  1908;  used  it  for  peddling  his  literature  and 
pictures;  never  used  any  other  for  bribing  or  corruptly  influencing  any 
electors  in  the  interest  of  Senator  Stephenson;  no  complaint  ever  made 

as  to  the  discharge  of  my  duties  as  an  inspector 1923, 1924 

Hanson,  Joseph  T.,  pension  attorney  and  circuit  court  commissioner,  Mauston, 

Wis.,  affidavit  of 

Age,  68  years 2004 

Edmonds,  requested  by  to  take  charge  of  campaign  in  Juneau  County, 
but  refused  to  do  so;  notwithstanding  this,  funds  with  which  to  carry  on 
the  campaign  were  sent,  and  checks  amounting  to  $500  made  out  to 
affiant,  notwithstanding  campaign  managers  at  Milwaukee  were  in- 
structed to  make  out  the  checks  in  the  name  of  T.  J.  Dalton,  a cashier  of 
the  State  Bank  of  Mauston;  on  receipt  of  such  checks  indorsed  them  and 
turned  them  over  to  the  cashier;  funds  kept  in  bank,  deposited  in  name 

of  affiant,  and  checked  out  as  needed;  balance  of  $160  now  in  bank 

Justice  of  the  peace  for  Juneau  County,  for  many  years  served  in  the 

office  of 2004 

Mauston,  resided  in  for  more  than  50  years  past 2004 

Money  not  disbursed  for  the  purpose  of  corruptly  or  unlawfully  influencing 

or  bribing  any  person 2004,  2005 

Money,  various  persons  to  whom  paid  are  able  to  give  a detailed  and  item- 
ized statement  of  how  spent 2004 

Statement  of  money  disbursed,  not  called  upon  to  furnish  any  itemized. 
Stephenson,  supporter  of  in  the  primary  campaign  of  1908;  aside  from 
speaking  a good  word  for  him  wherever  he  could,  did  no  active  campaign 
work;  did  advise  with  campaign  managers  as  to  the  men  to  interest  in 

the  campaign,  and  gave  information  as  to  who  were  Stephenson  men 

Harlan,  Justice,  adjournment  as  mark  of  respect  on  account  of  death  of 


1923 


1925 

2004 


2004 


2004 


2004 

996 


DIGEST  INDEX, 


LXI 


Page. 


Harper,  James  H.,  fire  insurance  business,  Duluth,  Minn.,  aflidavit  of 2126 

Business  in  Duluth  conducted  by  the  Harper-Shields  Co.,  a Minnesota  cor- 
poration, and  at  Superior  by  the  Harper-Shields  Agency,  a Wisconsin 

corporation 2126 

Hines,  statement  made  that  he  sent  Wiehe  after  Shields  and  got  him  back 
and  they  compromised  on  $5,000  or  $7,000,  and  that  a certain  amount  of 
insurance  was  given  Shields  by  way  of  compromise  or  settlement,  is 

untrue,  so  far  as  affiant  has  any  personal  knowledge  or  information 2127 

Hines,  statement  made  that  he  told  Shields  that  if  he  persisted  in  black- 
mailing him  in  that  way  he  would  see  that  he  went  to  the  penitentiary 
and  the  statement  of  Shields  in  reply  thereto,  is  wholly  false,  so  far  as 

affiant  knows  or  has  any  information 2127 

Husting,  Paul  O.,  statement  made  by,  as  a witness  in  this  investigation, 
relative  to  a conversation  between  said  Husting,  Wirt  H.  Cook,  and 
others  at  the  office  of  Attorney  McCordic,  in  the  Rooker  Building,  in 
Chicago 2126 


Insurance  on  any  casket  factory  in  Chicago  was  solicited  by  affiant  of 
D.  S.  Sattler,  president  of  the  Western  Casket  Co.  and  the  Western  Casket 
& Undertaking  Co.,  about  a year  ago;  Shields  and  affiant  owned  a portion 
of  stock  of  said  casket  company,  had  never  received  a dividend  thereon, 
and  affiant  urged  and  insisted  his  agency  should  be  given  a portion  of 


the  insurance  of  said  casket  company  by  reason  of  that  fact 2127 

Shields,  Robert  J.,  of  Superior,  Wis.,  acquainted  with,  for  a number  of 
years  past;  associated  with  him  in  the  fire  insurance  business  both  at 

Duluth  and  Superior . 2126 

Shields,  statement  made  about  his  going  to  Chicago  to  get  $15,000,  then 


to  Hines’s  office  and  demanded  his  pay  for  what  he  had  done,  and  Hines 
told  him  it  was  too  much,  or  that  he  would  not  pay  him,  or  something  of 
that  kind,  affiant  does  not  know  of  his  own  personal  knowledge  as  to  its 
truth  or  falsity,  but  according  to  his  knowledge,  information,  and  belief, 

it  is  untrue 2126 

Shields,  statement  made  that  he  went  back  to  Superior  and  got  Harper, 
and  they  went  down  to  Chicago  and  Wiehe  and  Hines  were  there  and 

got  into  a dispute  and  got  pretty  loud,  is  not  true 2127 

Haslam,  William  C.,  Chicago,  111.,  deputy  game  warden  at  Appleton,  Wis., 

during  1908,  testimony  of 963 

Account,  I did  not  render  one  of  my  expenditures;  was  not  asked  to; 
would  pay  a man  as  I hired  him;  made  no  report  of  any  kind  with  respect 

to  expenditures 966,  967 

Automobile,  some  days  my  bill  for  it  would  run  $15  or  $20  and  then  again 
it  would  run  $5 ; county  is  long  and  no  railroad  cuts  into  those  towns, 

and  I went  around  to  see  that  literature  was  posted  and  kept  up 965,  969 

Brown  County,  I ran  across  89  men  who  were  going  to  do  all  they  could 
to  elect  Stephenson;  I sent  those  names  to  headquarters  in  Milwaukee. . 966 

Brown  County,  manager  of  Stephenson’s  interests  there 963 

Campaign,  I worked  from  the  1st  day  of  August  until  the  day  of  the  pri- 
mary, for  which  I received  $200  and  expenses;  was  driving  over  country 

every  day 965,  968,  969 

Deputy  game  warden,  received  at  that  time  $2.50  per  day  and  all 

expenses  as 968 

Edmonds,  I received  $200  in  cash  from  him  at  Appleton  in  the  fore  part  of 
August;  next  received  from  him  two  checks  for  $200  each;  would  not 
be  able  to  give  the  dates;  then  third  check  that  I received  for  $26  was 

some  time  in  September 963 

Edmonds,  made  arrangements  with  me  personally  at  Appleton,  Wis.;  con- 
versation with;  told  him  I thought  it  would  cost  $400,  with  $200  for  my 
own;  he  said:  “Then  that  would  be  $600”;  talk  was  after  I had  received 

chief’s  consent  to  take  a vacation 967 

Liquor  and  cigars,  must  have  expended  part  of  money  for;  did  not  expend 

to  exceed  $25  for  cigars;  spent  very  little  for  liquor 964,  965 

Money,  how  disbursed,  I hired  billposters,  men  to  get  me  lists  of  voters  in 
precincts,  and  men  with  teams  m certain  localities  to  bring  voters  to 
polls,  distribute  campaign  buttons,  cards,  and  literature;  for  railroad 
fare  and  for  eatables  for  myself  and  for  postage  stamps,  stenographers, 
stationery,  telephones,  and  telegrams 964,  969 


LX  II 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page. 

Haslam,  William  C.,  Chicago,  111.,  deputy  game  warden  at  Appleton,  Wis., 
during  1908,  testimony  of — Continued. 

Money,  I did  not  spend  any  for  purchase  of  any  votes  or  to  influence  any 
man  to  work  for  Stephenson;  none  spent  by  those  to  whom  I paid  it,  to 
my  knowledge,  for  purpose  of  bribing  or  corruptly  influencing  electors . 966,  969 
Money,  received  $626  from  Stephenson  campaign  fund;  I spent  $426  for 
expenses  incurred  in  carrying  on  work  in  Brown  County,  and  $200  I kept 

for  myself 963,  964 

“Rump  convention,”  I was  a delegate  to  it;  they  called  it  that  at  Madison 


at  the  time  the  “halfbreeds”  and  “stalwarts”  split;  I entertained  the 
delegates  in  meals  and  one  thing  and  another — cigars,  street  car  fare..  965 
Saloon  campaign,  my  orders  from  Mr.  Edmonds  were  not  to  make  a saloon 

canvass,  and  I did  not  do  it 965 

Statement  of  expenditures  rendered  before  committee,  was  a statement 
from  memory  as  near  as  I could  call  to  mind  at  the  time;  items  enumer- 
ated there  are  correct;  accounts  for  a little  over  $100;  given  as  an  ex- 
hibit  . 964,968 

Stephenson,  had  known  him  a long  time;  shined  his  shoes  for  five  years; 

have  been  much  attached  to  him  all  my  life 966 

Stone,  letter  to  him,  asking  him  for  leave  of  absence  for  month  of  August.  9-66,  968 
Vacation,  I was  on  one  as  State  game  warden  when  I was  working  for 

Stephenson  at  that  time 965 

Hearsay  testimony,  as  to  admission  of 594, 

595,  596,  597,  867,  868, 1140, 1158, 1159, 1948 
Hey  burn,  Senator  Weldon  B.,  views  of,  in  support  of  the  report  of  the  com- 
mittee   ix 

Heyer,  A.  O.,  publisher,  Sheboygan,  Wis.,  testimony  of 890 

Account,  I did  not  render  one;  kept  memorandum  for  purpose  of  giving 

one;  saw  Edmonds,  and  he  said  he  did  not  care  about  it 893 

Distributing  ballots  in  city  and  county,  $51.50;  was  for  parties  who  were 

supposed  to  be  in  different  towns  to  distribute  sample  ballots 891 

Distribution  of  literature  and  organization,  $74.50;  item  accounted  for  by 
fact  that  Edmonds  asked  parties  up  here  to  find  out  those  favoring 
Stephenson  and  send  in  their  names;  these  people  worked  before  pri- 
mary day  and  sent  in  names  to  Milwaukee  headquarters 892 

Expense  incidentals,  paid  to  workers,  $44.25;  a number  of  workers  in  dif- 
ferent wards  would  come  in  and  say  they  had  a little  expense  and  that 

is  all  put  together  in  that  item;  includes  postage 892 

Expense  of  going  through  county,  $56;  trip  took  several  days  and  included 
meals  and  stopping  at  hotels;  there  were  several  in  the  party  that  went 
along,  all  the  time,  at  different  places;  not  anything  in  particular  spent 
for  drinks  and  cigars  out  of  that,  except  when  you  stop  at  hotels  it  is 


customary  to  buy  cigars 891,  892 

Livery  hire,  $28.75 ; that  is  part  that  I paid  out  and  part  that  others  had 
paid  out  who  had  gone  out,  sent  to  help  in  organization;  kept  separate 
from  organization  item  in  account;  automobile  hire  for  same  purpose. . . 891 

Memorandum  of  bills 890 

Money,  none  spent  by  me,  nor  to  my  knowledge,  by  those  I paid  for  the 

purpose  of  bribing  or  corruptly  influencing  electors 892 

Personal  expense  item,  $16.50;  I had  to  go  to  Milwaukee  and  to  other  places 

and  that  is  about  the  amount  I spent 892 

Printing,  all  done  at  regular  advertising  and  printing  rates 891 

Saloon  campaign,  we  did  not  make  one 892 

Sum  of  $500  received  fiom  Stephenson  campaign  fund  for  paying  some  of 
the  bills  Edmonds  had  practically  contracted  for,  or  had  some  work  done 

in  Sheboygan  and  Sheboygan  County 890 

Workers  on  primary  day,  15  precincts,  $60.50;  item  was  expended  on  pri- 
mary day.  Tn  some  of  the  precincts  in  the  country,  where  people  would 
take  voters  to  the  polls,  they  received  a few  dollars;  and  in  cities  they 

distributed  cards  around  that  day,  or  saw  that  voters  got  out 892 

Hines,  Edward,  lumber  business,  Evanston,  111.,  testimony  of 1567,  2084 

Campaign  expenses,  in  1908,  do  not  remember  of  making  any  contributions 
to  State  executive  or  campaign  committees;  our  subsidiary  companies 
may  have  made  small  contributions  for  public  speaker o or  something  of 
that  kind 1576 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Lxm 


Page. 

Hines,  Edward,  lumber  business,  Evanston,  111.,  testimony  of — Continued. 

Companies  interested  in,  president  of:  White  River  Lumber  Co.,  at  Mason, 

Wis.;  lion  River  Lumber  Co.,  at  Iron  River,  Wis.;  North  Wisconsin 
Lumber  Co.,  at  Hayward,  Wis.;  and  Washburn  & North  Western  Rail- 
road; advised  all  our  managers  and  men  to  do  all  they  could  for  Stephen- 
son in  primaries;  none  of  men  took  part  in  campaign  after  election  at 

Madison 1573,1574,1575 

Conferences,  about  tariff  on  lumber,  at  which  several  Senators  and  other 

gentlemen  were  present,  demanding  $2  a thousand 1572, 1573 

Cook,  wrote  letter  about  me  on  February  7,  1911;  contemplated  making 

charges;  wanted  me  buy  stock  in  company 1569, 1570, 1571 

Davidson,  Col.,  gets  large  proportion  of  insurance,  as  matter  of  courtesy, 
by  reason  of  representing  McKenzie  & Mann,  a large  stockholder  in  Vir- 
ginia & Rainy  Lake  Co....... 1576, 1578,  2089 

Edmonds,  had  no  communication  with 1574 

General  assembly,  none  of  my  men  were  candidates  for 1575 

Harper,  know  well;  never  came  to  see  me  on  subject  of  owing  Shields 

money  for  election 1577,  2087,  2088 

Insurance,  have  not  increased  lines  at  all;  did  not  promise  Shields  any  as 
a consideration  of  services  rendered  at  Madison  or  elsewhere;  have  car- 
ried large  lines  for  great  number  of  years;  losses  have  been  at  a minimum; 
relations  with  various  companies  most  cordial;  never  had  controversy 

with  any  company 1577,  2086,  2088 

Record  kept  for  every  day  for  past  20  years,  where  I have  been  and  what 

I have  done 2086.  2087, 2088 

Shields,  Robert  J : 

Conversation  with  at  my  office  in  Chicago;  wanted  larger  amount  of 
Virginia  & Rainy  Lake  Co.’s  insurance;  could  not  give  it  to  him; 
nothing  said  on  subject  of  Stephenson’s  election;  first  heard  of 
report  about  owing  him  money  for  election  from  Saturday  afternoon 

papers  in  Chicago;  no  truth  in  it 1576, 1577,  2088,  2089 

Conversations  alleged  to  have  had  with  in  regard  to  payment  of  sum 

of  money  for  election,  absolutely  had  none 2085 

Had  no  communication  with  after  general  election;  saw  only  once 
between  October,  1908,  and  June,  1909,  at  Washington;  no  arrange- 
ment made  to  “hold  up”  election  of  Stephenson 1575,  2085 

Lives  at  West  Superior,  know  well;  never  paid  to  him  nor  authorized 
him  to  make  payment  nor  promise  of  any  for  any  sum  of  money,  or 

anything  of  value  to  assist  in  Stephenson’s  election 1568, 1569, 1580 

Never  had  any  controversy  with  about  finanical  matters,  personally, 
during  1909;  paid  him  money  continuously  for  insurance;  attends 
to  paying  all  taxes  for  us;  asked  to  assist  in  getting  signatures  of 
business  interests  for  a business  men’s  appeal  to  people  for  election 

of  Stephenson;  did  not  pay  him  for  this 1568, 1569, 1575 

Never  stated  had  burned  buildings,  bribed  assessors,  or  committed 
any  crimes  for  me;  never  made  any  demands  for  compensation  for 
services  rendered  or  had  any  settlement  with  in  regard  to  Stephen- 
son’s election " 2086 

Stephenson,  considered  him  best  man  in  every  way  for  position;  had  no 
thought  on  subject  of  tariff  at  time  of  election;  had  not  requested  me  to 
get  help  from  my  men;  was  my  own  motion;  voted  for  an  amendment 

in  Payne-Aldrich  bill  on  tariff  on  lumber 1574, 1581 

Stephenson,  did  not  approach  with  suggestion  that  his  election  was  attended 
with  trouble  and  could  take  care  of  it  if  he  would  contribute  either 

$55,000  or  $115,000 2085 

Stephenson,  have  had  extensive  business  dealings  with,  to  extent  of  eignF 
or  ten  millions  of  dollars;  bought  from,  never  sold  to;  saw  several  times 
in  Washington,  had  incidental  talk  about  election;  know  nothing  about 
his  campaign  except  what  read  in  papers  from  time  to  time;  did  not  favor 

reduction  of  tariff  on  lumber;  nor  free  lumber 1568, 1569, 1571-1574, 1580 

Stephenson,  Senator,  have  known  for  20  years  or  more;  elected  to  United 
States  Senate  March  4,  1909,  did  not  assist  him  in  any  way  in  election, 
nor  receive  money,  draft,  or  anything  of  value  to  be  used  by  me  or  any- 
one through  me  to  forward  his  election;  never  known  to  authorize  any- 
one to  fill  in  blank  draft  or  check 1567, 1569, 1571 

15235°— 11 v 


LXIV 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page. 

Hines,  Edward,  lumber  business,  Evanston,  111.,  testimony  of — Continued. 

Turrish,  Henry,  conversation  with,  in  rotunda  of  Grand  Pacific  Hotel, 
Chicago,  some  time  in  June,  1909,  in  presence  of  Cook;  wanted  to  know 
about  tariff  discussion  in  Washington,  told  him  looked  like  lumbermen 
would  have  to  make  concession  from  $2  a thousand;  nothing  said  about 
Stephenson’s  reelection;  never  made  any  statements  as  credited  to  me 

about  this . 1572, 1573, 1578, 1579, 1580 

Turrish,  in  lumber  and  timber  business;  not  associated  with 1571, 1572 

Turrish,  saw  in  Duluth  about  three  weeks  ago,  spoke  of  going  West  shortly 
in  reference  to  some  fur  interests;  heard  testify  in  Washington,  July  17.; 
my  recollection  of  conversations  credited  to  have  made  with,  just  the 

contrary 1578, 1581 

Washington,  D.  C.,  was  in  greater  part  of  time  from  November,  1908,  to 
June,  1909;  at  banquet  given  by  Congressman  Wheeler,  of  Pennsylvania, 
some  time  in  February,  1909,  was  asked  to  express  lumbermen’s  views 

on  lumber  tariff 1568, 1575, 1576, 1580 

Hornibrook,  Henry  C.,  superintendent  of  N.  Ludington  Co.,  Marinette,  Wis., 

testimony  of 1857 

Box,  first  saw  in  spring  of  1909;  was  nailed  up;  in  warehouse  of  N.  Luding- 
ton Co.;  was  not  in  charge  of  warehouse  when  came  in;  was  opened  and 
all  of  contents  taken  away  in  gunny  sacks;  showed  had  been  opened 

before 1857, 1858, 1859, 1860 

Box,  position  of  in  warehouse,  stood  to  right,  just  inside  of  door 1860 

Box,  put  back  in,  some  letter  files  that  had  been  left  in  Senator  Stephen- 
son’s office;  this  was  first  time  had  had  anything  to  do  with;  remained 
there  for  about  a month  after  this;  do  not  know  of  anyone  taking  any- 
thing out  of,  except  Miss  Stringham  and  Mr.  MacLean;  or  of  having  been 

searched  through 1858, 1859, 1860, 1861 

Gunny  sacks,  never  saw  after  taking  away  contents  of  box  at  warehouse . . . 1860 

Kates  was  with  MacLean  when  came  for  contents  of  box 1860 

Letter  files,  were  several  in  box;  had  put  them  there  about  a month  or  so 
previous;  got  from  table  in  Senator  Stephenson’s  office  same  day  Mac- 

Lean  left  them 1859 

MacLean  helped  to  get  contents  out  of  box;  had  received  instructions; 

notified  me  about  papers  at  Stephenson’s  office 1858, 1859, 1860 

Papers,  knew  to  what  referred  in  general  way;  do  not  know  why  were  taken 
away;  never  gave  it  a thought,  that  were  taken  away  in  order  to  keep 

from  investigating  committee 1860 

Store  clerk,  usually  receives  shipments  that  go  in  warehouse;,  Charles 

Skowlund  was,  at  time  box  came  in  in  fall  of  1908  1859 

Stringham,  Miss,  did  not  see  get  letter  files  from  box;  heard  she  had  taken 
them;  heard  ask  young  man  out  in  store  where  box  was;  away  from  office 

when  went  for  letter  files  to  put  back  in  box 1858, 1859 

Hoyt,  M.  A.,  editor  of  the  Milwaukee  Daily  News,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testi- 
mony of 1590 

Candidate  for  nomination  on  Democratic  ticket  for  United  States  Senator 

in  1908 1590 

Wagner,  told  me  there  had  been  a condition  at  the  Plankington  house  that 
he  knew  about;  mentioned  the  names  of  Ramsey  and  Farrel  and  a banker; 
it  seemed  so  improbable  that  I did  not  stop  to  discuss  the  thing;  think 
he  mentioned  Regan;  think  he  was  the  same  man  indicted  for  swearing 
to  the  statement  in  regard  to  this  occurrence;  never  published  the  story 

until  after  the  testimony  at  Madison 1590, 1591, 1592, 1593 

Hughes,  John,  as  to  his  not  appearing  before  committee 1991 

Hughes,  John,  former  member  of  Wisconsin  Legislature,  telegram  from  post- 
master at  Reeseville,  O.  A.  Sells,  stating  that  he  quietly  slipped  out  of  Reese- 

ville  for  parts  unknown  in  September,  1910 1934 

Hulbert,  A.  I.,  deputy  game  warden,  Barron  County,  Wis.,  testimony  of 953 

Account;  I did  not  render  one;  not  called  upon  to;  made  a memorandum 
at  the  time  I made  payments,  so  that  I could  show  Porter  to  whom  and 
how  much  I had  paid;  did  not  expect  anything  only  to  get  my  money 

back 958,  959 

Civil-service  law  with  regard  to  game  wardens 962 

Edmonds;  received  check  for  $100  in  envelope  from  him  either  day  before 
primary  or  on  that  day;  there  was  a letter  with  it  which  I think  I burned 
up  later  on;  as  near  as  I can  remember  I think  it  said:  “I  am  this  day 
mailing  you  a present,  which  should  have  been  mailed  before,  but  was 
overlooked”. . 955, 958 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


LXV 


Hulbert,  A.  I.,  deputy  game  warden,  Barron  County,  Wis.,  testimony  of— Contd. 
Edmonds;  when  the  campaign  first  started,  I got  a letter  from  him,  I think, 
asking  me  to  take  charge  of  Barron  County;  I told  him  that  I could  not 
do  it;  that  I had  all  the  work  I could  do,  and  was  under  civil  service  . . . 

Game  warden;  I was  under  civil  service  and  not  supposed  to  take  any  part 
in  politics;  if  I had  not  been  one  I think  I should  have  been  more  active 

for  Stephenson;  it  did  not  prevent  me  from  accepting  a present 

Men  to  whom  I paid  sums  aggregating  $24.50,  at  the  request  of  Warren 
Porter;  he  said  to  give  them  what  they  asked,  but  not  to  give  over  $5  to 
any  one  of  them;  I told  every  one  of  them  I was  paying  those  bills  for 

Porter 954,955,957,959 

Money,  I paid  different  parties  in  city  of  Barron  a small  sum  out  of  my  own 

pocket,  which  I was  to  receive  from  Porter  when  he  got  back 954,  956 

Money,  neither  Porter  or  Edmonds  knew  how  much  I had  disbursed  % 960 

Money,  none  paid  by  me,  or  as  far  as  I know  by  men  to  whom  I gave  it,  for 
purpose  of  directly  or  indirectly  bribing  or  corruptly  influencing  electors . 961 

Porter,  did  not  pay  me  back  at  all;  I spoke  to  him  about  it,  and  he  asked 
me  if  I did  not  get  my  pay;  I said  I got  some  money,  but  where  it  came 
from  I did  not  know;  he  said:  “If  you  are  satisfied,  all  right;  keep  still;” 

that  was  said  a month  or  six  weeks  after  the  primary 957,  958,  960 

Porter,  Warren,  took  charge  of  Barron  County;  he  is  an  old  soldier,  and  was 
going  to  the  reunion;  he  wanted  to  xnow  if  I would  not  pay  certain  parties 
that  he  had  spoken  to  some  money,  to  look  after  polls  in  city  of  Barron; 

I said  I would;  he  went  to  Milwaukee,  and  the  next  day  or  so  the  check 
for  $100  came  from  Edmonds;  I don’t  know  whether  he  had  it  sent  or  not.  953, 

954,  959,  960 

Stephenson,  I was  not  working  for  him;  I was  friendly  to  him;  made  up  my 
mind  to  vote  for  him  when  he  first  came  out;  never  had  any  talk  with 

him;  did  not  solicit  votes  for  him 956,  958,  961 

Sum  of  $24.50  all  1 disbursed 955,  960 

Sum  of  $100,  when  I received  it  I kept  it;  more  than  reimbursed  me  for 
money  I paid  out;  I spent  $24.50  at  request  of  Porter;  so  balance  of  $75.50 

was  a present  to  me;  I do  not  know  what  I got  it  for 955,  956,  957 

Husting,  Paul  O.,  member  of  Wisconsin  Senate,  testimony  of 1903, 1933 

Broughton,  P.  E.,  witness  before  Wisconsin  Senate  committee;  do  not  know 
of  any  special  features  in  connection  with  his  testimony  that  this  com- 
mittee ought  to  know 1921 

Campaign,  charge  that  Stephenson  and  managers  covered  up  methods  of 
conducting,  based  upon  whole  record  and  upon  bank  methods  and  fact 
that  he  did  not  inquire  of  any  of  his  agents  what  they  did  with  the  money.  1914 
Candidates  for  nomination  to  assembly,  Bancroft,  Wellensgard,  Reynolds, 
Mulder,  Everett,  and  W.  L.  Smith,  upon  what  section  of  statute  charge 

they  were  given  money  based 1914 

Chicago,  went  down  there  to  run  down  some  statements  I had  heard,  I think 
some  time  in  May,  1911;  was  alone  on  train;  met  Assistant  Attorney  Gen- 
eral Titus  and  Gov.  Morris  at  Great  Northern  Hotel  there  around  9 o’clock 
in  morning  of  day  we  had  talk  with  McCordic  and  Cook;  from  there  we 
proceeded  to  McCordic’s  office  in  Rookery  Building;  purpose  was  to  find 
some  information  that  might  be  valuable  for  committee  to  know  before 

legislature  adjourned 1938, 1939, 1957 

Conversation  at  Chicago  conference,  considered  it  important;  never  made 

any  record  or  memorandum  of 1957, 1958 

Cook,  at  Chicago  conference,  said  Shields  was  to  get  $15,000,  and  when  he 
demanded  it  Hines  told  him  it  was  too  much,  and  Shields  went  back  to 
Superior  and  got  Harper,  and  they  went  to  Chicago  and  Wiehe  and  Hines 
were  there  and  got  into  a dispute;  Hines  told  Shields  if  he  persisted  in 
blackmailing  him  he  would  see  that  he  went  to  the  penitentiary,  and 
Shields  said:  “I’ve  burned  buildings,  bribed  assessors,  and  committed 
every  crime  in  calendar  but  murder  for  you,  and  if  I go  to  penitentiary, 
you  are  going  along  with  me.”  Shields  left  office  in  a rage,  and  Hines 
sent  Wiehe  after  him,  and  they  compromised,  I think,  on  $5,000  and  some 

insurance  on  a casket  factory 1960 

Cook,  at  McCordic’s  office  in  Chicago,  first  thing  he  said  was  that  he  would 
refuse  to  tell  us  anything  except  in  confidence 1941, 1959 


Page. 

953 

961 


RXVI 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Husting,  Paul  O.,  member  of  Wisconsin  Senate,  testimony  of — Continued.  Page- 

Cook,  at  McCordic’s  office  in  Chicago,  told  us  substantially  same  thing 
McCordic  had  told  us,  as  near  as  I can  recollect;  also  told  us  he  had  per- 
sonally met  Shields  on  train  from  Duluth  to  Chicago  and  told  him  he 
was  a “cheap  skate”;  that  he  had  heard  he  had  a chance  to  hold  up  “old 
Hines”  and  had  “let  him  off  easy”;  and  Shields  gave  him  some  answer 
acknowledging  it  was  all  true;  barely  possible  he  told  us  that  on  train, 

but  I think  it  was  in  McCordic’s  office 1941, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961 

Crothers,  C.  E.,  witness  before  Wisconsin  Senate  committee,  do  not  know 
of  any  circumstance  that  would  make  it  important  that  this  committee 

should  examine  him 1921 

Democrats,  charge  that  election  of  Stephenson  March  4 by  legislature  was 
made  possible  by  three  who  at  the  instigation  of  Stephenson’s  managers 
and  agents  walked  out  of  joint  assembly  when  it  became  known  that 
their  presence  would  prevent  the  election  of  Stephenson,  I still  desire 
to  stand  by;  general  belief  that  something  was  done,  but  there  was  no 
evidence  before  our  committee  to  show  what  was  done,  or  in  what  man- 
ner it  was  done 1916,1918 

Destruction  of  original  memoranda  by  Stephenson  and  agents,  as  charged 
in  report,  refers  to  statute  requiring  candidates  for  office  to  file  an  account 
of  their  campaign  expenses;  twelfth  charge  in  report  that  Stephenson  had 
knowledge  that  hi3  agents  destroyed  memoranda  is  based  on  whole 

record 1908,1909,1914 

Disbursing  money,  why  charge  that  Stephenson’s  method  of,  differed  in  no 

manner  from  that  employed  by  his  managers,  was  put  in  report 1912 

Dresser,  L.  B.,  letter  to,  from  Stephenson,  dated  July  14,  substantiates 
eleventh  charge  in  report  that  Stephenson  had  knowledge  of  manner  in 
which  his  campaign  was  being  conducted  and  purposes  for  which  money 

was  being  disbursed 1912, 1913 

Eastman,  A.  O.,  witness  before  Wisconsin  Senate  committee  and  joint  legis- 
lative committee,  have  nothing  in  mind  that  would  make  it  worth  while 

to  go  to  expense  of  bringing  him  here;  his  testimony  speaks  for  itself 1922 

Edmonds,  by  destruction  of  memoranda  as  treasurer  of  State  central  com- 
mittee, violated  specific  section  cf  law 1909, 1955 

Edmonds,  Stone,  and  others,  charge  in  report  that  they  conspired  to  pre- 
vent the  disclosure  in  the  investigation  of  the  fact  that  Stone  received 
$2,500  from  Stephenson  campaign  fund,  how  classed  as  violation  of 

statutes 1915 

Eppling,  Rev.  F.  W.,  charge  in  report  that  he  had  been  a supporter  of 
McGovern  and  Stephenson  gave  him  $200,  whereupon  he  became  a sup- 
porter of  Stephenson,  is  under  the  bribery  clause 1911 

Failure  to  file  statement  of  expenses,  as  charged  in  report,  referred  to 
statute  requiring  candidates  for  office  to  file  an  account  of  their  campaign 
expenses;  shown  to  be  premeditated  by  fact  that  accounts  were  not  kept, 

as  charged  in  report,  statute  violated  by 1908,1909 

Fraud  connected  with  Stephenson  primary  campaign,  conclusion  in  report 
that  it  resulted  in  his  nomination,  and  contributed  directly  to  his  elec- 
tion by  legislature 1920 

Gehbe,  Dr.,  witness  before  Wisconsin  Senate  committee,  I remember  part 

of  his  testimony;  some  of  it  in  regard  to  controversy  with  Edmonds 1922 

Howie,  charge  in  report  that  Stephenson  paid  him,  whom  he  supposed  to 
be  influential  with  the  laboring  men,  $100,  is  under  the  bribery  clause. . 1911 

Hughes,  John,  was  a druggist  and  publisher  of  Reeseville  Review,  Reese- 
ville,  Wis.,  I understand  that  he  has  left  the  county  and  State;  think 

his  partner,  a Mr.  Flavin,  is  running  his  newspaper  now 1933, 1934 

Investigation,  charge  in  report  that  Stephenson’s  managers  used  every 
means  at  their  command  to  prevent  one,  of  manner  in  which  he  obtained 
primary  nomination,  and  for  the  purpose  of  putting  an  end  to  it  injunc- 
tion proceedings  were  begun;  injunction  denied  by  supreme  court...  1915 
Investigation,  have  taken  a decided  interest  in  one  before  this  com- 
mittee  1950,1951 

Investigation  of  primary  campaign  based  upon  charge  of  fraud  in  Stephen- 
son campaign  and  on  account  of  making  new  legislation  and  on  account 
of  testing  legality  of  Stephenson  nomination  and  question  of  Senatorship 
generally;  we  were  directed  under  the  resolution  calling  for  to  suggest 
legislation,  which  we  did,  and  the  corrupt  practices  act  was  passed 1920 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


LX  VII 


Husting,  Paul  O.,  member  of  Wisconsin  Senate,  testimony  of — Continued.  Page. 

James,  N.  L.,  charge  he  received  money  from  Stephenson  campaign  fund, 
part  of  which  was  used  in  hiring  Democrats  to  work  among  the  Demo- 
crats, is  under  bribery  clause  of  statute 1911 

Joint  investigating  committee,  I think,  ceased  its  work  some  time  in  April, 

1909 ; think  they  had  a session  afterwards  for  purpose  of  formulating  re- 


port; house  members  of  did  not  meet  with  senate  members  of;  do  not 
think  house  and  senate  members  met  together  at  any  time  after  joint 

committee  ceased  its  work y.  1951 

Jones,  J.  R.,  witness  before  joint  committee,  do  not  remember  anything 

that  would  vary  his  testimony  from  that  of  a great  many  others 1922 

Kohl,  William  H.,  witness  before  Wisconsin  senate  committee;  denied 
that  he  had  been  promised  some  post  offices  by  Stephenson;  his  recom- 
mendations for  post  offices  have  been  carried  out  since  that  time  . . . 1922, 1923 
Lehr,  J.  Elmer,  witness  before  Wisconsin  senate  committee,  do  not  think 

his  presence  before  this  committee  would  add  to  its  enlightenment 1935 

Lehr,  State  senator,  witness  before  Wisconsin  senate  committee,  made  some 
legal  arguments  before  the  Wisconsin  Senate  as  a member;  testified  he 
had  received  some  money  from  State  central  committee;  do  not  think  it 
was  claimed  he  had  received  money  from  Stephenson  or  any  other  can- 
dates  during  primary  campaign;  was  an  open  supporter  of  Stephenson 

throughout  contest 1937, 1938 

McCordic,  conversation  within  his  office  in  Rookery  Building,  Chicago, 
told  us  Cook  had  heard  that  Hines  sent  somebody  to  Madison  (I  think 
Shields)  to  aid  in  heading  off  Stephenson’s  immediate  election;  this 
agent  told  some  men  who  were  voting  for  Stephenson  that  they  were  fools 
and  if  they  would  hold  off  there  might  be  something  in  it  for  them;  that 
this  agent  was  successful  at  Madison;  whereupon  Hines  told  Stephenson 
he  could  procure  his  election  for  $115,000;  that  Stephenson  demurred, 
but  afterwards  paid  half  the  money,  or  rather  $55,000;  then  Hines  dis- 
patched Shields  down  to  Madison  to  do  the  job,  and  he  did  it. . 1940, 1956, 1958 
McCordic  said  Cook  was  in  Chicago  on  his  way  home  from  the  Helm  com- 
mittee, and  he  thought  Cook  would  agree  to  talk  to  us,  providing  we 
would  agree  to  hold  the  matter  confidential;  we  told  him  we  would  treat 
it  as  confidential,  whereupon  he  called  up  Cook  and  within  10  minutes 

Cook  appeared  there  at  his  office 1940 

Member  of  senate  committee  that  signed  report  in  conjunction  with  S.  M. 

Marsh  and  Thomas  Morris 1903 

Money  disbursed  in  campaign,  charge  in  report  that  probably  a sum  in 
excess  of  $50,000  was  used  by  Stephenson ’s  managers  to  unlawfully  and 
corruptly  procure  his  nomination  and  election,  is  general;  based  on 

whole  record 1916 

Morgan,  Earl  J.,  son-in-law  of  Stephenson,  charge  in  report  that  Stephenson 
paid  him  and  others  large  sums  of  money,  which  were  used  by  them  to 
induce  other  persons  to  assist  in  procuring  the  election  of  Stephenson,  is 

under  the  bribery  clause 1911, 1912 

Morris,  heard  him  testify  in  regard  to  conference  in  Chicago  and  in  relation 
to  his  inability  to  remember  name  of  attorney  in  whose  office  it  was  held; 
think  when  he  was  being  examined  here  either  he  or  some  one  came  to 
me  and  asked  me  what  the  name  was  and  I told  him  momentarily  it  had 
escaped  me;  before  that  session  concluded  I gave  the  attorney’s  name  to 

committee 1957 

Myrick,  Harry  T.,  witness  before  Wisconsin  senate  committee,  was  editor  of 
Milwaukee  Free  Press;  think  he  might  give  additional  evidence  to  show 
connection  of  Stephenson  through  his  newspaper  with  an  endeavor  to 

stifle  investigation 1935, 1936 

Names  of  witnesses,  have  none  in  mind  who,  in  my  judgment,  would  throw 

additional  light  upon  charges  under  investigation 1947, 1948 

Noyes,  editor  of  Marinette  Eagle  and  Star,  charge  in  report  that  Stephenson 
knew  Van  Cleve  paid  hinpi  for  purpose  of  stimulating  him  and  his  paper  to 

further  editorial  activity;  violated  bribery  statute 1911,1955 

Raisler,  A.  A.,  witness  before  the  Wisconsin  senate  committee  who  testified 
Stephenson  contributed  $2,000  toward  expense  of  Republican  State 
central  committee;  do  not  know  of  any  reasons  why  that  was  an  improper 
contribution  except  that  Stephenson  may  lave  had  a string  on  it 1936 


LXYin 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Husting,  Paul  O.,  member  of  Wisconsin  Senate,  testimony  of — Continued.  Page- 

Ramsey,  was  one  of  members  who  voted  for  investigation;  one  of  inexplica- 
ble things  about  investigation  was  fact  that  he  at  a crucial  moment  should 
pair  with  a man  who  had  not  been  in  attendance  during  entire  session; 
fact  that  man  he  paired  with  (Fenelon)  was  there  and  voted  for  Stephen- 
son four  times,  I was  not  advised  of,  but  it  does  not  change  my  opinion 

in  matter;  why  his  being  paired  was  unusual 1917 

Report  dated  January  10,  1911,  had  under  consideration  not  quite  two 
years;  not  constantly  at  work  on  during  that  time;  prepared  and.  con- 
cluded between  December,  1910,  and  January,  1911;  only  one  of  those 
who  signed  it  was  actually  a member  of  committee  or  senate  at  time 
it  was  signed  and  filed;  not  made  to  legislature  that  authorized  investiga- 
tion; filed  with  governor  before  noon  and  half  hour  before  new  session  of 

legislature  convened;  certified  to  United  States  Senate 1903, 

1904, 1905, 1906, 1920, 1951, 1952 

Resolution  and  report  of  Wisconsin  senate  committee,  both  houses  of  the 
legislature  passed  the  resolution  and  adopted  the  report  in  the  words  of 

the  resolution 1920 

Reynolds,  in  paying  $80  to,  as  charged  in  report,  Stephenson  violated 
statute  which  prohibits  anyone  from  contributing  money  to  assist  a can- 
didate for  legislature  residing  outside  of  district  in  which  contributor 

resides 1910 

Reynolds,  Thomas  F.,  witness  before  joint  investigation  committee,  do  not 

believe  his  testimony  would  be  anything  but  cumulative 1936 

Senate  committee,  finding  of  in  report  that  the  nomination  in  the  primary 
and  election  to  Senate  by  the  legislature  of  Stephenson  is  null  and  void; 
on  account  of  briberies  and  corrupt  practices  by  himself  and  agents  and 

violations  of  the  laws  of  Wisconsin 1920 

Shields,  do  not  know  of  any  testimony  that  would  throw  further  light  upon 
story  of  Stephenson’s  payment  to  Hines  to  fix  legislature,  unless  through 

him;  lines  on  which  I think  he  ought  to  be  further  examined 1941, 

1942, 1943, 1944 

Shields,  have  no  information  as  to  where  he  obtained  $700  which  he  claims 

to  have  expended  while  at  Madison  during  session  of  legislature 1946, 1947 

Shields,  heard  from  Senator  Marsh  subpoenas  were  issued  for  him  and 
placed  in  hands  of  some  officer  and  reports  we  got  back  were  that  he  did 
not  show  himself  within  the  city  of  Superior;  papers  of  Madison  and  Mil- 
waukee published  fact  that  he  was  wanted;  committee  wanted  him 
after  4th  of  March;  did  not  know  of  his  being  in  Madison  during  time  of 
investigation;  to  my  knowledge  never  appeared  before  committee;  did 

not  learn  at  any  time  he  was  at  West  Baden  during  hearings 1945, 

1946, 1948, 1949 

Statement  that  Stephenson  furnished  Hines  or  Shields  any  money  for  pur- 
pose of  corrupting  any  member  of  legislature,  I do  not  know  whether  it  has 

any  foundation 1962 

Stephenson,  Senator: 

Agreement  of,  with  managers  to  keep  secret  disbursements  of  cam- 
paign, as  charged  in  report,  violates  no  specific  law  of  Wisconsin,  but 
is  based  upon  statute  which  provides  for  publication  of  campaign 

accounts 1907, 1908 

Charge  in  report  that  he  kept  in -touch  with  managers  and  campaign; 
that  he  traveled  through  the  State  and  was  in  his  home  in  Marinette 
throughout  the  campaign  except  when  at  Milwaukee  headquarters 
or  traveling  about  State,  is  a statement  of  facts  that  appear  from  the 

record 1912 

Charge  in  report  that  he  was  elected  by  the  legislature  to  the  United 
States  Senate,  by  a majority  of  three  votes,  while  charges  of  cor- 
ruption against  him  were  being  investigated  by  legislature,  I do  not 

think  committee  or  United  States  Senate  care  to  pass  upon 1916 

Conclusion  in  report  that  he  was  only  candidate  before  legislature  and 
those  who  opposed  him  did  so  only  because  they  considered  that  the 
charges  that  had  been  made  should  be  thoroughly  investigated  before 
electing  a United  States  Senator;  considered  in  that  connection 

charges  relative  to  other  candidates  before  the  primary 1919, 1920 

In  paying  money  to  State  Game  Warden  Stone  and  L.  B.  Dresser, 
then  president  of  State  board  of  control,  as  charged  in  report,  violated 
section  of  statutes  udder  the  head  of  “Political  assessments  prohib- 
ited ” and  bribery  statute 1910, 1911, 1915 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


t>Xit 


Husting,  Paul  0.,  member  of  Wisconsin  Senate,  testimony  of — Continued.  I'age. 

Stevens,  L.  H.,  arrangement  between  Stephenson’s  managers  and  him  to 
have  Lancaster  bank  made  one  of  the  State  depositories,  charged  in  report 

as  a clear  violation  of  law,  refers  to  bribery  law 1915 

Stone,  charge  in  report  that  he  and  several  of  deputy  game  wardens  entered 
into  an  agreement  whereby  Stone  was  to  and  did  testify  falsely  in  the 
investigation  with  reference  to  disbursement  of  $2,500  received  from 


Stephenson  campaign  fund,  came  under  violation  of  bribery  and  perjury 
statutes;  he  was  never  prosecuted;  committee  recommended  prosecution 

of  those  who  committed  perjury 1915 

Testimony,  concluded  taking  in  May,  1909,  I think 1904 

Titus,  do  not  know  where  he  is  now;  have  not  seen  him  since  legislature 

adjourned  some  time  in  July,  1911 1956 

Trunk,  think  witnesses  should  be  examined  to  explain  whether  there  was 
an  opportunity  to  remove  papers  that  should  have  come  before  Wiscon- 
sin senate  committee . 1944, 1945 

Tuttle,  E.  W.,  witness  before  joint  committee,  think  his  testimony  would  be 

cumulative 1937 

Wagner,  do  not  believe  his  testimony  in  regard  to  the  “frame-up”,  pur- 
suant to  which  three  Democrats  were  met  at  Plankinton  House  and 
bribed  to  remain  away  from  legislature;  we  stated  we  did  not  believe  it 
and  a statement  to  that  effect  was  published  within  36  hours  after  the 
testimony  was  taken;  as  far  as  testimony  before  our  committee  was  con- 
cerned there  was  no  evidence  of  facts  testified  to  by  him 1918, 1919 

Wagner,  Frank  T.,  former  witness,  do  not  think  it  would  add  to  enlighten- 
ment of  this  committee  to  reexamine  him 1937 

Wells,  J.  H.,  witness  before  Wisconsin  senate  committee,  know  of  nothing 
outside  of  what  he  testified  that  would  shed  further  light  on  questions 

under  consideration 1937 

Wisconsin  Legislature,  tenure  of  members  and  session  of 1905, 1906 

WTyseman,  Arthur  J.,  witness  before  joint  committee,  have  no  intimation 

as  to  any  further  facts  to  which  he  might  testify 1937 

Husting,  Paul  O.,  telephone  message  sent  to,  about  Hines  appearing  before 

committee 2084 

Hyzer,  E.  M.,  attorney  of  record  before  joint  investigating  committee  of  Legis- 
lature of  Wisconsin,  testimony  of 1018 

Blaine’s  specific  charge  No.  13  wholly  without  foundation  of  any  kind . 1019, 1020 
Chicago  & North  Western  Railroad,  was  attorney  for,  in  1908;  I never 
heard  of  any  concerted  effort  among  its  officials  to  aid  Stephenson 

campaign 1019, 1021 

Nelson,  E.  F.,  former  assemblyman,  prior  to  primary  election  of  1908  I did 
not  contribute  or  agree  to  contribute  free  services,  as  an  employee  of  the 
Chicago  & North  Western  Railway  Co.,  for  the  purpose  of  defeating  his 
candidacy  for  nomination  for  assemblyman,  as  charged  in  specific  charge 
No.  13;  I never  could  imagine  why  that  charge  was  made;  I do  not  think 
I ever  heard  of  him  or  his  campaign;  I never  had  any  correspondence 

or  conversation  with  anybody  on  subject 1019, 1020 

Sells,  Max,  attorney,  who  lives  in  Florence,  was  not  associated  in  any  way 
with  me  in  practice  of  law;  some  years  before  that  he  had  been  local 
attorney  for  North  Western  Road  at  Florence;  did  not  have  any  con- 
versation or  correspondence  with  him  on  subject  of  Nelson’s  candidacy.  1019 
Specific  charges  by  Blaine,  I have  no  information  that  can  throw  any  light 

on  them 1021 

Stephenson,  I appeared  for  him  before  joint  investigating  committee;  - 
presume  T made  an  opening  statement  in  his  behalf  before  committee. . 1018 

Stephenson’s  campaign,  had  very  little  to  do  with  it;  I was  one  of  Ste- 
phenson’s attorneys  at  that  time — a member  of  the  firm  of  Cary,  Ilpham 
& Black;  had  recently  become  a member;  he  was  frequently  at  the 
office,  and  I was  thrown  much  in  contact  with  him;  many  people  from 
various  parts  of  the  State  came  to  office  to  see  him,  and  I heard  more  or 
less  talk  about  campaign;  that  is  all  I had  to  do  with  it,  and  that  is  strictly 
nothing;  never  received  a dollar  for  services  in  connection  with  his 
campaign;  had  nothing  to  do  with  expenditures  of  campaign 1020, 1021 


LXX 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


J. 


Page. 


James,  David,  State  senator  of  Wisconsin  in  1909,  Richland  Center,  Wis., 

testimony  of 1755 

Absentees,  knew  of  none  except  Mr.  Scott 1757 

Grand  Army  of  the  Republic,  am  member  of 1756 

Pairs,  was  paired  with  Mr.  Scott  on  4th  of  March;  he  was  an  anti-Stephen- 
son Republican;  was  paired  only  on  the  question  of  the  vote  for  Senator 

Stephenson 1755, 1756 

Scott,  paired  with,  on  4th  of  March,  1909;  he  had  to  go  home  on  account 
of  sickness  in  his  family,  and  I had  to  be  away  two  or  three  days;  was 
paired  with  merely  on  the  vote  on  Senator  Stephenson,  not  on  the  ques- 
tion of  a quorum 1755, 1756 

Voted  for  Senator  Stephenson  consistently;  did  not  support  him  in  the 

primary 1757 

James,  Norman  L.,  lumbering  and  agriculture  business,  Richland  Center, 

Wis.,  testimony  of 884 

Brother  was  candidate  for  office  of  State  senator  in  1908  campaign;  I did  not 

campaign  in  his  interests  particularly ; he  was  elected 884 

Edmonds,  called  me  up  on  phone  and  said  that  McMahon  had  told  him  I 
was  using  my  own  funds  and  that  he  would  send  me  a check  for  $300; 
asked  me  how  much  money  I had  expended  and  I said,  “I  think  about 

$360  ” 886 

McMahon,  came  into  my  office  a stranger  and  represented  that  Edmonds 
had  sent  him  down  to  look  the  situation  over;  while  he  was  there  men 
drove  up  with  teams  and  I gave  them  instructions  and  money,  and  he 
found  out  I was  using  my  own  money;  he  said  be  was  going  back  to 

Milwaukee  and  tell  Edmonds  he  ought  to  send  me  some  money 886 

Money,  how  expended;  I spent  it  to  hire  teams  to  canvass  in  the  interest 
of  Stephenson,  to  put  up  posters  and  lithographs,  and  for  buttons  and 

other  printed  matter 885 

Money,  I did  not  expect  Edmonds  or  Puelicher  to  send  me  a dollar,  and  I 
do  not  think  they  would  have  if  Mr.  McMahon  had  not  come  in  just  as  I 

was  arranging  with  parties  to  help  me  run  campaign 888 

Money,  I did  not  receive  any  until  after  I had  expended  money  of  my 
own;  received  $500  and  expended  between  $600  and  $700;  received 
$300  from  Edmonds  August  26  and  $200  from  Puelicher  September  10.  885,  887 
Money,  none  spent  by  me  or  others,  within  my  knowledge,  for  bribing  or 

corruptly  influencing  electors 889 

Public  office  held,  was  member  of  assembly  in  1873  and  1875  and  I was  in 

the  State  senate  in  1885  and  1887 884 

Puelicher,  called  me  to  phone  and  asked  me  if  Edmonds  had  sent  me  a 
check ; I told  him  he  had ; asked  me  how  much  it  would  take  and  I told 
him  I was  working  in  counties  where  I was  well  acquainted  and  I did  not 
think  it  would  take  over  $500  for  the  limit;  he  said,  “Then,  all  you  need 
will  be  $200  more?”  and  I said,  “That  is  all  I will  take;  what  more  it 
takes  I will  put  up  myself”;  after  the  election  he  sent  me  a check  for 

$200 886,887 

Stephenson,  Senator: 

Conversation  with  on  fishing  trip,  addressed  to  Van  Cleve,  Puelicher, 
and  me;  he  said,  “I  am  willing  and  expect  to  pay  legitimate  ex- 
penses; I do  not  want  my  friends  to  run  a saloon  campaign;  I do  not 
like  the  idea  of  having  a whole  lot  of  heelers  around  the  polls;  what 
I want  is  to  have  my  friends  work,  so  that  at  my  age,  I will  not  be 

criticized  ” 887,  888 

Have  known  him  intimately  and  he  has  always  talked  to  me  without 
reserve;  have  known  him  since  1873  and  intimately  since  1880. . . 888,  889 

I campaigned  for  him  in  1908 884, 885 

I have  been  his  friend  for  a great  many  years,  and  we  had  a conversa- 
tion about  his  candidacy,  and  I told  him  I would  do  what  I could  for 
him;  there  was  no  arrangement  made  to  pay  me  any  funds;  I did 

not  get  any  funds  directly  from  him 886 

I thought  he  would  take  my  word,  and  if  I should  say  some  day  to  him: 

“I  have  expended  money  and  I guess  you  better  give  me  a check  for 
about  $500,”  I thought  he  would  take  my  word  for  it  without  any 
question;  if  he  had  not  sent  me  a check  I would  not  have  com- 
plained  888 

Wisconsin,  have  resided  in  State  since  1855 888 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


LXXI 


Page. 

Johnson,  Neils,  deputy  game  warden  during  summer  of  1908,  testimony  of 909 

Meeting  at  Stone’s  house  during  session  of  joint  legislative  committee,  he 
asked  me  to  come  there  that  evening  at  9 or  10  o’clock,  and  I went,  and 
there  were  several  game  wardens  present — S.  P.  Richtman,  from  Fountain 
City;  George  Kingsley,  from  La  Crosse;  Frank  Tuttle,  from  Oconomowoc; 
and  Harry  Bowman,  from  Genesee;  J.  E.  Thomas,  a member  of  the  legis- 
lature at  that  time,  was  there 910,  911,  912 

Stone,  J.  W.,  did  not  give  me  any  money  out  of  $2,500,  as  he  testified  before 

joint  legislative  committee 910 

Journals  of  the  Senate  of  Wisconsin  for  January  26,  and  the  joint  convention 
from  January  until  March  4,  inclusive,  to  be  incorporated  into  the  record. . 861,  2024 

K. 


Kates,  C.  W.,  superintendent  of  Escanaba  & Lake  Superior  Railroad,  Wells, 

Mich.,  testimony  of 1861 

Box,  saw  papers  and  everything  taken  out  of,  and  put  in  gunny  sacks 1861 

Gunny  sacks,  taken  to  Wells  and  put  in  shed  in  rear  of  my  house;  think 
there  were  four;  were  well  filled;  remained  in  shed  from  some  time  in 
May,  1909,  to  October,  1911;  noticed  they  were  there  in  same  place,  one 

time  when  looking  for  some  storm  windows 1861, 1862, 1863 

MacLean,  went  with,  on  trip  from  Escanaba  to  Marinette,  some  time  in 
spring  of  1909;  only  one  that  spoke  to  me  about  going;  intended  to  drive 
down  during  day,  but  something  interfered,  so  went  down  at  night;  was 

not  requested  to  take  papers  to 1861, 1863 

Papers,  no  one  told  me  was  important  for  them  to  be  gotten  to  Wells  quickly; 
knew  something  of  nature  of,  after  seeing  them,  but  not  before;  learned 
from  MacLean  what  were  about;  no  one  disturbed  after  being  put  in  shed; 

no  one  knew  they  were  there 1862 

Russell,  helped  to  remove  papers  from  shed 1863 

Stephenson,  Senator,  president  of  Escanaba  & Lake  Superior  Railroad 1861 

Keller,  Ulysses  G.,  Baraboo,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1058 

Blaine,  John  J.,  fourth  specific  charge  by  him  is  absolutely  false 1059 

Edmonds,  after  I had  sent  him  list  of  names  of  Stephenson  men,  I got  a 
letter  or  telephone  message  from  him  asking  me  to  come  to  Milwaukee; 

I came  down  and  he  wanted  to  know  about  conditions  in  Sauk  County; 
asked  me  if  I could  not  go  up  and  put  out  the  literature  and  I told  him  I 

could;  nothing  was  said  about  payment  while  I was  there 1060 

Edmonds,  after  my  trip  through  Sauk  County  telephoned  me  to  come 
back  to  Milwaukee;  asked  me  how  much  trip  had  cost  me;  I had  been 
out  a week  or  nine  days  and  told  him  probably  around  $40  or  $50;  asked 
me  if  I had  got  the  check  he  sent  me;  I told  him  I had  not  received  any; 
had  not  gone  to  Baraboo  where  my  mail  was;  asked  me  to  take  charge  of 
Sauk  County  campaign;  told  him  I could  not  carry  it  for  Stephenson 
but  that  I could  bring  him  in  second;  told  him  cost  would  not  exceed 

$300;  he  told  me  to  go  ahead 1060, 1061 

Edmonds,  I wrote  him  myself  and  told  him  about  conditions  in  Sauk 
County  and  that  Stephenson  literature  was  not  up;  gave  him  a list  of 
Stephenson  men  and  said  that  if  he  would  send  literature  to  them  they 

would  see  it  was  put  up;  did  not  ask  him  to  send  me  a dollar 1060 

Expenses  of,  items  given 1062 

Game  warden,  I was  one  for  a couple  of  months  without  any  compensation 
in  September  and  October,  I think,  1908,  after  primary  campaign;  I 
might  have  been  appointed  sometime  in  August,  but  it  had  nothing  to 

do  with  the  campaign 1059 

Keyes,  ran  across  him  in  a hotel  in  Baraboo;  introduced  him  to  the  railroad 
men;  asked  me  if  I was  one  of  Stephenson’s  local  managers;  I told  him  I 
was  not,  but  was  a supporter;  told  him  I had  been  over  Sauk  County 
on  a business  trip  and  that  I knew  there  was  very  little  work  being  done; 
asked  him  if  he  had  any  posters,  that  I was  around  and  would  like  to  put 

them  up 1059 

Money,  I received  $50  first;  and  when  the  campaign  was  practically  over 
I told  Edmonds  what  I had  expended  and  it  amounted  to  $150;  I received 

$200  in  all 1061 

Money,  I spent  none,  and  so  far  as  I know  persons  I employed  spent  none 
for  purpose  of  directly  or  indirectly  bribing  or  corruptly  influencing 
voters 1063 


LX  XII 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page. 

Keller,  Ulysses  G.,  Baraboo,  Wis.,  testimony  of — Continued. 

Offices  held,  was  clerk  of  the  court  for  six  years  and  deputy  sheriff  for  two 

terms 1058 

Posters,  I had  never  heard  from  Edmonds  or  Sacket  or  anyone  connected 
with  campaign,  but  there  had  been  a bunch  of  posters  sent  me;  put 


Saloons,  I did  not  spend  a nickel  of  Stephenson’s  money  in;  if  I spent  any 

in  a saloon  I spent  my  own;  none  spent  that  way  in  Sauk  County 1061 

Sauk  County,  have  resided  there  practically  all  of  my  life 1058 

Sauk  County,  I took  a pair  of  horses  and  drove  right  through  the  county, 
and  I would  get  some  fellow  and  give  him  50  cents  or  a dollar  to  post  and 
distribute  literature  and  I would  stay  there  until  he  had  done  it;  I 
would  talk  in  behalf  of  Stephenson  and  find  out  who  was  for  him  and 
who  against;  and  I reported  to  Edmonds  every  night,  giving  the  names 

of  the  people 1060 

Stephenson,  I have  always  been  for  him 1059 

Towne,  was  not  in  my  district;  I think  I did  support  him  a little  for  the 
assembly;  I was  over  in  his  district  a day  or  two;  it  was  only  for  personal 

reasons;  lie  was  not  a Stephenson  man ; I did  it  of  my  own  accord 1061,1062 

Workers  at  polls,  how  employed,  some  of  them  got  a box  of  cigars,  and  a 
whole  lot  of  them  did  not  get  anything;  they  were  personal  friends  of 

mine 1062 

Kelly,  John  T.,  member  of  the  bar,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of 2036 

Edmonds,  after  election,  when  headquarters  were  closed  in  Plankington 
House,  met  him  day  he  was  going  away  from  Milwaukee  to  his  home  in 
Appleton;  spoke  to  him  about  returning  money  he  gave  me;  said  to 

never  mind;  would  talk  about  it  later;  never  saw  him  after  that 2037 

Edmonds,  at  close  of  primary  spoke  to  him;  it  seemed  our  arrangement 
concerning  meetings  had  fallen  through,  and  I felt  I had  not  given  value 
for  the  money  received;  he  said,  “That  is  all  right;  we  shall  need  some 

more  meetings  during  the  campaign  for  the  election” 2037 

Edmonds,  mailed  check  for  $500  to  him,  think  on  11th  of  February,  1909; 
came  back  to  me;  stated  his  accounts  had  been  turned  in  and  it  was  all 

right 2037 

Edmonds,  sent  for  by  on  6th  of  August,  1908  who  desired  me  to  make  some 
addresses  for  Stephenson  in  the  campaign ; willing  to  make  few  speeches 
without  any  compensation ; said  he  would  like  to  have  all  the  time  I could 
give;  figured  it  out  then,  it  was  only  about  15  or  18  days;  gave  me  check 
for  $500  without  stating  anything  concerning  amount  of  compensation  I 

was  to  have  for  these  addresses 2036 

Free  Press,  wrote  a communication  after  Stephenson  announced  his  can- 
didacy in  June,  that  was  published  in,  on  the  29th  of  June,  1908,  announc- 
ing my  support  of  Stephenson 2036 

Meetings,  during  campaign  for  the  election  made  three  addresses;  one  at 
Chilton,  one  at  Marshfield,  and  one  at  Marinette;  paid  my  own  expenses.  2037 
Meetings,  two  held  in  the  primary  campaign  at  which  I was  present;  one 
in  West  Allis;  well  attended,  at  which  I made  an  address;  another  at 
North  Milwaukee,  poorly  attended;  meetings  turned  out  to  be  a failure, 

and  no  more  were  held 2036 

Milwaukee,  resided  in  about  25  or  30  years 2036 

Overbeck,  during  campaign  for  the  election  Edmonds  told  me  to  report  to 

him,  who  would  have  charge  of  the  speakers 2037 

Kelpinski,  Leo  S.,  inspector  of  election  in  1908,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of.  1899 
Boden,  Frank  H.,  told  me  that  Senator  Stephenson  is  too  old  to  be  in  the 


Cook,  Boden  told  me  I should  support  him  and  I hired  a man  named  Louis 


Cook,  worked  for,  in  the  primary  of  1908;  think  my  former  testimony  in 

regard  to  his  carrying  the  ward  was  incorrectly  reported 1900, 1901, 1902 

Inspector  of  election,  acted  as  such  in  the  primary  election  of  1908. 1899 

Money,  received  $55  from  Richard  White  to  go  out  to  a church  picnic  and 
spend  it;  went  from  bar  to  bar  and  to  ice  cream  stands  and  told  every- 
body to  come  on  and  have  a drink  on  Senator  Stephenson;  this  was 
about  two  weeks  before  the  primary;  distributed  cards  and  literature ....  1899, 

1900, 1901, 1902, 1903 

White,  Richard,  received  $55  from,  to  spend  at  church  picnic 1899, 1900, 1901 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


LXXIII 


Page. 

Keyes,  Jerry  F.,  railway  conductor,  Madison,  Wis.,  affidavit  of 2005 

Age,  48  years 2005 

Campaign  committee,  received  from,  $276.20,  exhausted  in  compensation 
for  services,  amounting  to  $200,  and  in  payment  of  personal  expenses, 

for  transportation,  hotel  accommodations,  and  incidental  expenses 2005 

Campaign  work  done  at  request  of  campaign  committee  at  Milwaukee;  de- 
voted about  two  months,  prior  to  primary  day,  and  traveled  into  vari- 
ous parts  of  State,  circulating  nomination  papers  and  interviewing  his 
friends  in  different  cities  and  presenting  to  them  the  merits  of  Stephen- 
son and  reasons  why  he  should  be  nominated;  part  of  work  was  to  put 
up  lithographs,  to  circulate  campaign  material,  cards,  buttons,  etc.; 

paid  expenses  when  assistance  was  required 2005 

Compensation  by  agreement  was  $25  per  week  for  services,  and  in  addi- 
tion was  to  receive  legitimate  traveling  and  hotel  expenses,  which  were 

paid  to  him  from  time  to  time  as  work  progressed 2005 

Madison,  resided  in,  past  48  years 2005 

Money  not  disbursed  for  the  purpose  of  corruptly  or  unlawfully  influencing 

or  bribing  any  person 2005 

Statement  of  expenses,  never  called  upon  to  furnish  itemized 2005 

Kingsley,  G.  L.,  manager  of  a branch  of  the  John  Glenn  Brewing  Co.,  Albert 

Lea,  Minn.,  testimony  of 571 

Brown,  Frank,  paid  him  $50  for  a campaign  fund  for  Gov.  Davidson 578 

Deputy  game  warden  of  Wisconsin  from  June,  1908,  until  January,  1909; 
paid  per  diem  with  expenses  in  addition;  lived  at  La  Crosse  at  the 

time 571,  589 

False  statement  of  Stone,  did  not  intend  to  let  it  stand  before  committee; 
did  not  volunteer  to  go  before  committee;  think  I would  have  gone  be- 
fore committee  voluntarily,  if  I had  not  been  subpoenaed,  because  I 
would  not  want  anyone  to  state  that  he  gave  me  that  money  when  he 
did  not;  can  not  remember  about  facts  of  agreement,  in  advance,  that 

he  might  state  it. . . 581 

“Frame  up,”  did  not  disclose  it  to  anyone  before  I went  on  witness  stand; 
testimony  I gave  and  acts  I performed  in  connection  with,  all  done  in 

city  of  Madison 589,  590,  591 

Legislative  committee,  I was  anxious  they  should  have  the  knowledge  in 
relation  to  the  frame  up;  did  not  tell  because  it  had  already  been  told;  I 
was  told  by  Senator  Morris  that  they  knew  all  about  it;  I did  not  tell 

him  one  way  or  the  other  what  I knew  about  it 590,  591 

Meeting  at  Mr.  Stone’s  house,  held  somewhere  around  midnight,  during 
investigation  of  joint  legislative  committee;  attended  by  Mr.  Stone, 
myself,  Mr.  Bowman,  Mr.  Richtman.  Mr.  Johnson,  Mr.  Tuttle,  and  Mr. 

Thomas,  who  was  an  assemblyman;  held  at  Madison 573,  581 

Perjury,  I have  never  been  prosecuted  for  conspiring  to  commit;  do  not 
know  of  anyone  present  during  “frame  up  ” who  has  been  prosecuted  for; 
do  not  know  who  was  district  attorney  of  county  in  January  and  Febru- 
ary, 1909 591 

Statement  of  Stone  that  he  had  paid  me  $200  or  $250  was  talked  abuur; 
you  could  hear  it  on  the  streets  everywhere;  I was  approached  by  friends 
who  asked  about  it;  I told  them  I did  not  get  it;  did  not  tell  them  any- 
thing about  the  agreement;  do  not  remember  anybody  in  particular  to 

whom  I talked 586,  587 

Stephenson,  not  engaged  to  do  political  work  for  during  time  I was  deputy 
game  warden;  did  not  receive  any  money  to  be  spent  in  his  behalf  during 
that  time;  did  not  work  for  him  for  the  Senate  or  for  his  nomination ; did 

not  assist  in  raising  or  contribute  to  a fund  to  promote  his  nomination 572,  578 

Subpoena  served  upon  me  to  appear  before  joint  committee,  do  not  remem- 
ber whether  I know  about  it  before  it  was  served;  I think  I had  heard  it 
was  going  to  be  issued  a day  or  two  before;  do  not  remember  from  whom 

heard 586 

Stone,  did  not  tell  him  I would  not  stand  for  the  arrangement  because  I do 
not  think  I fully  realized  at  that  time  just  what  it  meant,  until  after  it 

was  over  with 588 

Stone,  J.  W.,  State  game  warden,  testimony  of,  before  joint  committee  of 
legislature  that  I received  a part  of  a fund  of  $2,500  given  him  for  political 
work  for  Stephenson  is  not  true;  he  did  not  give  or  authorize  anyone  to 
give  me  money  at  any  time  for  any  purpose 572,  577,  578 


LX  XIV 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page. 

Kingsley,  G.  L.,  manager  of  a branch  of  the  John  Glenn  Brewing  Co.,  Albert 
Lea,  Minn.,  testimony  of — Continued. 

Talk  at  meeting  at  Mr.  Stone’s  house  was  about  the  fact  that  he  had  to 
account  for  a sum  of  money  and  he  wanted  me  to  assume  $200  or  $250  and 
Mr.  Johnson  the  same  amount  and  Mr.  Richtman  about  $150;  he  wanted 
to  testify  that  he  had  given  it  to  us,  but  the  understanding  was  that  we 
would  not  be  put  on  the  stand  to  testify  to  that  fact;  I think  he  said  he 
had  to  testify  what  he  had  done  with  this  money;  I think  we  agreed  to 

do  it  with  understanding  we  need  not  testify 573, 

576,  578,  579,  580,  582,  583,  584,  585 

Testimony  given  by  me  before  legislative  committee,  as  read,  is  true 592 

Testimony  of  Stone  before  joint  legislative  committee,  as  read  by  chairman, 
not  true  in  any  part;  I mean  in  regard  to  money;  I did  not  notice  about 

the  circular  letter-  do  not  know  anything  about  that . . 577,  585,  586 

Testimony  of  Stone  before  the  committee,  did  not  pay  any  attention  to  it; 
saw  in  newspaper  that  he  testified  he  gave  me  that  money;  I went  before 
the  committee  when  they  subpoenaed  me  and  testified  that  he  did  not; 

denounced  it  as  untrue 580,  587,  589,  590 

Time,  between  date  of  conference  with  Stone  and  date  when  I was  called 

upon  to  testify  before  committee,  can  not  tell  how  much  intervened 582 

Klumb,  H.  A.,  reason  for  his  not  appearing  as  witness 1932, 1933, 1963 

Knell,  William  R.,  manager  of  Stephenson  primary  campaign  in  Milwaukee 

County  in  1908,  testimony  of 1757, 1962 

Account,  all  I got  was  a check  book;  do  not  know  how  amounts  were  de- 
posited to  my  credit;  did  not  get  a pass  book;  understand  they  opened 
it,  but  I did  not  get  it;  believe  first  credit  was  $500,  just  to  pay  rent  and 


for  a few  little  printin 
Account,  I kept  on  leai 


bills. 


1780 


pencil  memorandum  slips;  after  my  report  was 
made  to  Stephenson  and  O.  K’d  by  his  managers,  paying  me  the  differ- 
ence between  what  I had  been  allowed  and  what  I had  spent,  I destroyed 

the  slips,  because  I thought  I was  through  with  the  matter 1759 

Age,  just  passed  51 . . . 1784 

Bills,  receipted  ones  filed  with  report  to  Sacket;  believe  joint  committee 
had  them;  those  found  in  box  produced  are  the  ones;  think  they  are  all 
there;  pertain  to  printing  and  some  to  automobile  hire  and  livery;  think 
they  cover  all  items  on  first  sheet  of  statement  I gave.  1762, 1763, 1777, 1782, 1783 

Campaigns,  engaged  in  work  of  carrying  on,  since  1888 1787 

Cleary,  Morris,  paid  him  and  another  man  by  the  name  of  Klumb  together 
$450  in  sixteenth  ward  and  adjoining  railroad  sections  for  organizing,  by 
hiring  precinct  men  and  primary  day  workers,  distributing  literature,  and 
in  a general  way  enhancing  interests  of  Stephenson;  did  not  have  an 
accounting  from  them;  they  estimated  what  it  would  take  before  I gave 

them  the  money 1962, 1963, 1964 

Compensation,  received  none  for  services  in  campaign s 1784 

Delegate  from  fifth  congressional  district  to  last  Republican  national  con- 
vention  1787 

Disbursements,  total,  $12,103.21;  credited  back  $216.60;  leaving  actual 

amount  of  disbursements,  $11,886.61 1765 

Edmonds:  had  nothing  to  do  with  in  regard  to  campaign  except  social  calls.  1757 
Election  inspectors;  safest  record  of  their  appointment  is  return  to  county 
clerk,  in  his  office;  have  to  sign  their  names  there  night  of  primary,  as  I 

remember;  how  appointed 1761, 1762 

“Expense  on  account  of  organizing,”  how  incurred;  was  the  daily  expense; 
when  I would  invite  parties  out  for  dinner  or  luncheon,  that  was  included 
there;  were  all  expenditures  of  less  than  $5  and  would  not 'have  to  be 
accounted  for  under  law;  made  entry  of  at  end  of  every  day;  should  not 
estimate  money  spent  for  drink  and  cigars  at  over  10  per  cent  of  amounts 

thus  classed 1763,1764 

Former  testimony,  by  my  statement  that  I could  have  accomplished  as 
much  if  I hadn’t  put  the  $11,000  into  Milwaukee,  if  the  other  candidates 
hadn’t  put  any  in,  I meant  I had  to  meet  the  fight  of  other  candidates. . 1774 

Hamilton,  Archie,  work  that  he  did  was  in  twelfth  ward,  and  I had  no 

knowledge  that  he  was  an  election  inspector 1761, 1762 

Kelpinski,  Leo  F.,  did  not  know  he  was  an  election  inspector;  he  did  not 
not  say  so  to  me;  brought  to  me  as  man  who  would  do  efficient  work 
among  Polish  people;  when  I heard  he  had  been  accepting  compensa- 
tion from  Cook  people,  severed  connection  with  him  immediately;  that 
was  probably  four  or  five  weeks  before  the  primary 1761, 1762, 1786 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


IjXXV 


Page. 

Knell,  William  R.,  manager  of  Stephenson  primary  campaign  in  Milwaukee 
County  in  1908,  testimony  of — Continued. 

Klumb,  paid  him,  together  with  Cleary,  $450  in  sixteenth  ward  and  adjoin- 
ing railroad  sections  for  organizing 1962, 1963, 1964 

Men  employed,  how  paid,  did  not  ask  any  of  them  for  statement  of  expendi- 
tures; about  75  per  cent  of  were  personal  followers;  employed  none  who 
I did  not  feel  satisfied  was  a Stephenson  supporter;  think  I employed 
some  who  were  indifferent;  instructions  to;  kept  close  tab  on;  never 

heard  of  their  using  money  corruptly 1766, 1778, 1780, 1781, 1787, 1964 

Men  employed,  instructed  them  to  “never  mention  opponents,  because 

every  time  you  do  you  advertise  them” 1774 

Milwaukee  County,  organized  as  I never  organized  it  before;  did  not  over- 
look any  wire  that  I could  get  a hold  of  and  pull 1765 

Milwaukee  County  campaign,  had  complete  charge  of  management  of 1757 

Money,  all  paid  out  in  primary  election;  after  that  was  over  I was  through.  1765 
Money,  none  spent  in  county  of  Milwaukee  for  purpose  of  bribing  or  corrupt- 
ing any  elector  to  vote  for  Stephenson 1767, 1787 

Money,  received  total  of  $11,886.  61  from  Stephenson’s  representatives  in 
that  campaign;  disbursements  in  excess  of  amount  received,  $11,600, 
were  $286.61;  got  a check  for  that  some  time  along  in  October,  I think  it 

was,  from  Puelicher 1758, 1765 

Novotny,  Tom,  item  of  $150  paid  to,  as  ward  manager  in  eighth  ward;  did 

not  ask  him  for  a statement  of  expenditure 1765, 1766 

O’Connor,  William,  gave  him  $500  to  look  after  fourth  ward,  in  particular 
the  colored  vote  and  the  railroad  vote  adjoining  in  eighth  ward;  think 
greater  part  of  money  was  spent  for  that  purpose;  suppose  he  paid  himself 

out  of  it 1963 

Pay  roll,  started  with  less  than  $100  a week  and  ran  up  in  the  last  week,  I 
think,  to  about  $170;  had  some  10  or  12  people  working  there;  names  of 
some  given;  do  not  remember  names  of  stenographers;  all  got  from  $6 

to  $20  a week 1764,1785,1786 

Postage  stamps,  bought  in  post  office  in  this  city 1763 

Public  positions  held  in  Milwaukee,  in  detail 1784 

Puelicher,  by  arrangement  with  him  had  charge  of  campaign;  he  was  the 

money  end  of  it 1757, 1758 

Puelicher,  conversation  with,  when  he  asked  me  to  take  charge  of  campaign; 

I said:  “From  experience  I have  had  it  may  cost  anywhere  from  $7,500  to 
$15,000;”  he  said:  “$15,000  is  a good  deal  of  money;  I wish  you  would 
run  it  for  less  than  that;”  I said:  “I  will  if  I can;”  he  said:  “We  will  agree 
on  an  account  for  $10,  000,  and  if  that  should  be  exhausted  before  the 
campaign  is  over,  come  over  and  see  me;  I will  open  an  account  for 

you” 1779,1780 

Rosenhein,  A.,  saloon  keeper,  paid  $345  to,  for  ward  work;  covered  seven  or 

eight  precincts. 1766 

Sacket,  had  nolhing  to  do  with  my  campaign 1758 

Saloon  campaign,  never  made  one  and  did  not  permit  it  in  this  instance, 

explained 1779 

Saloon  keepers  hired  because  they  were  men  who  had  been  active  in  city 

politics  and  had  influence 1766, 1767 

Sarrass,  Greek  manager,  why  given  more  than  Hebrew  manager 1765, 1786 

Sheriff  of  Milwaukee  County  during  1908  campaign;  how  I handled  cam- 
paign with  reference  to  office  of  sheriff;  received  salary  of  $5,000  a year 


of  mine;  none  of  them 

1780, 1784, 1785 


as;  had  about  40  deputies  who  were  appointees 
did  any  active  work  in  interest  of  Stephenson . . . 

Statement  of  Milwaukee  County  expenses  in  Stephenson  primary  cam- 
paign, 1908;  with  explanation  concerning  ward  workers  attached,  giving 
names,  addresses,  occupation,  and  amounts  of  money  paid  to  each;  also 

number  of  voting  precincts  in  Milwaukee  County 1767-1774 

Stephenson,  did  not  know  him  in  campaign  at  all;  had  no  dealings  with  him; 

was  directly  representing  him 1758 

Stephenson,  it  was  necessary  to  spend  $11,000  to  get  up  the  organization  I 
got  up,  and  get  as  many  votes  as  we  possibly  could;  judging  from  vote  he 
got,  I should  say  the  money  did  not  have  a great  deal  of  influence;  I ex- 
pected three  times  the  vote  he  got;  got  about  one-fifth  of  vote  of  Mil- 
waukee County;  cost  him  $2  a vote 1775, 1776, 1777 


LXXVI 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page. 

Knell,  William  R.,  manager  of  Stephenson  primary  campaign  in  Milwaukee 
County  in  1908,  testimony  of — Continued. 

Stephenson,  was  my  personal  choice  for  Senator  before  I saw  Puelicher;  felt 
like  a lot  of  others  felt,  that  it  was  a base  ingratitude  when  he  wanted 
something  for  himself  he  should  be  denied  it,  when  he  had  contributed 
so  liberally  to  put  others  in  possession  of  what  they  wanted ; was  a half- 
breed  myself;  do  not  take  orders;  that  is  main  reason  why  I supported 
him;  met  him  a number  of  times  and  every  day  at  Chicago  convention  in 

1908,  to  which  he  was  delegate  at  large  from  Wisconsin 1781 

Ward  workers,  item  of  $5,833  for,  in  original  statement  to  Stephenson,  legis- 
lative committee  wanted  itemized;  asked  them  for  time  to  sit  down  and 
itemize  the  amount,  and  did  so  by  sitting  down  and  taking  ward  after 
ward  and  consulting  with  the  manager  I had  in  that  ward ; why  marked 
“Knell”  on  back  in  lead  pencil;  is  attached  to  account  of  expendi- 
tures  1760, 1765, 1786, 1787 

Wauwatosa,  town  of,  paid  farmers  $10  and  $15  apiece  there  to  furnish  con- 
veyances primary  day  and  get  farmers  to  booths 1767 

Wilcox,  Arthur,  says  he  got  only  $50;  I have  got  him  down  for  $100;  I may 
be  mistaken  on  amount;  take  his  word  for  it;  was  introduced  to  me  by 
chairman  of  third  ward;  had  no  idea  he  was  an  election  inspector  and  do 

not  think  he  was;  tells  me  he  was  not 1760, 1761, 1762 

Wilson  Detective  Agency,  had  them  watching  mails  because  we  had  80,000 
or  90,000  letters  with  the  stamps  on  them,  and  I thought  it  might  be  a 
good  idea  to  see  that  they  got  into  the  post  office  and  were  not  destroyed 

before  they  got  there 1765 

Witness  before  joint  committee,  but  not  before  Wisconsin  senate  committee.  1758 
Workers,  all  wanted  to  be  paid  for  the  work  they  did,  not  for  their  votes; 
would  say  “Why  should  we  work  for  nothing  for  a man  reported  to  be 
worth  $30,000,000?  ” had  about  400  in  county;  do  not  know  whether  they 
all  voted  for  Stephenson;  heard  some  reports  that  men  who  got  money 


from  me  did  not  vote  for  Stephenson 1776 

Kolb,  Gustave  C.,  Hillsboro,  Wis.,  testimony  of 970 

Account,  I did  not  keep  one 972 

Business,  I was  in  saloon  business  at  Hillsboro  when  I was  traveling  around 
as  a game  warden;  did  not  spend  any  of  the  money  in  my  own  saloon. . . 971 

Custom  for  me  to  treat  whenever  I was  out  campaigning  or  otherwise;  usual 

and  ordinary  custom  in  that  part  of  the  country 973 

Money,  I did  not  use  any  of  it  for  purpose  of  directly  or  indirectly  bribing 
or  corruptly  influencing  electors;  did  not  pay  any  to  other  people  except 

for  treats — 974 

Money  spent  for  cigars  and  treats;  whenever  I would  drop  into  a drug  store 
I would  buy  cigars,  and  whenever  I would  drop  into  a saloon  I would  buy 
beer,  for  instance ; my  testimony  given  on  former  examination  that  I spent 
it  with  the  boys  around  the  saloons  is  correct;  spent  in  towns  through  that 


territory;  all  spent  that  way .. . 970,  971,  972,  973 

Stephenson,  when  I was  spending  his  money  with  the  boys,  I simply  said 
‘ ‘ Have  a drink  on  Mr.  Stephenson  ” ; would  pay  for  it  out  of  the  $50 ; I did 

not  contribute  toward  any  funds  for  him 972 

Stone,  J.  W.,  paid  me  $50  about  three  or  four  weeks  before  the  primary  when 
I was  working  as  deputy  game  warden  to  spend  in  interests  of  Stephen- 
son’s campaign 970 

L. 

Lambeck,  Arthur  H.,  connected  with  Stephenson  headquarters  in  1908,  testi- 
mony of 1822, 1876 

Box,  in  which  papers  were  put;  about  2 feet  high  and  3 or  4 feet  long;  do 
not  know  who  brought  it  in  office;  was  in  general  charge  of  packing, 
helped  by  office  boy;  shipped  by  express  to  Hon.  I.  Stephenson,  Mari- 
nette, Wis 1822, 1823, 1824, 1826, 1827, 1830 

Box,  saw  again  in  warehouse  in  Marinette;  did  not  see  contents;  do  not 

know  whether  it  had  been  opened 1825, 1826 

Edmunds,  of  Stephenson  committee,  occupied  offices  at  headquarters 1823 

Files,  letter,  in  offices,  large  case  used  by  all;  about  half  dozen  regular- 
letter  books;  did  not  take  any  letters  from;  did  not  see  anyone  take  out 
certain  letters  for  Mr.  Edmunds 1827, 1830 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


LXXVII 


Page. 


testi- 


1827 


Lambeck,  Arthur  H.,  connected  with  Stephenson  headquarters  in  1908, 
mony  of — Continued. 

McMahon,  was  in  and  out  of  office;  do  not  remember  of  helping  to  pack  box.. 
Materials,  put  in  box;  from  outer  and  inner  offices;  anything  that  could  be 
used;  letter  scale;  wire  baskets;  do  not  remember  any  loose  correspond- 
ence going  in 1823, 1829, 1830 

Memoranda,  containing  data  pertaining  to  campaign  or  statements  of 
accounts  of  expenditures  or  disbursements,  do  not  remember  of  putting 
any  in  box;  unless  was  in  letter  files  or  in  some  package  thrown  in..  1826, 1827 

Office,  had  desk  in  outer,  at  headquarters;  would  be  in,  most  of  day 1832, 

1876, 1877 

Papers,  around  headquarters,  after  primaries;  gathered  up  and  sold  as  junk; 
did  not  destroy  or  sell  any  correspondence,  records,  cards,  or  see  any 

destroyed  or  hear  any  instructions  about  destroying 1831, 

Plankinton  House,  headquarters  of  State  central  committee;  two  cases 

containing  cards  sent  from  Marinette  here . 1826, 

Puls,  in  outer  office,  where  I had  my  desk 1832 

Sacket,  occupied  offices  at  headquarters;  all  letter  files  kept  in  his  office; 
frequently  in  and  out  during  day;  had  nothing  to  do  with  expense  mem- 
oranda he  kept;  worked  in  office  with,  not  more  than  one  hour  a day; 

could  have  destroyed  cards  without  my  knowledge 1823, 1832, 1876, 1877 

Stephenson,  Senator,  telephone  conversation  with,  about  sending  lists  of 

workers,  poll  lists,  and  county  and  city  directories  to 1828, 1829 

Stephenson  campaign  committee,  about  headquarters  of;  assisted  in  gath- 
ering up  papers,  letters,  documents,  and  placing  them  in  box,  without 

anyone’s  instructions  to  do  so  the  week  after  primaries 1822, 1824, 1826 

Legislature  of  Wisconsin: 

Findings  of,  not  in  evidence;  are  the  status  of  an  indictment 296,2025 


1832 


1828 


Law  requiring  each  house  to  keep  a journal  of  proceedings. 


863 

Report  submitted  to,  on  March  18,  came  with  papers  from  governor  of 

Wisconsin  to  the  United  States  Senate 322,323 

Resolution  No.  58,  relating  to  investigation  of  the  primary  and  general 

election  of  1908  and  the  election  of  United  States  Senator  in  1909 2,  3 

Letters  transmitting  money  to  workers,  etc 2100,  2101 

Letters  turned  over  to  the  committee  by  W.  E.  Black 2098,  2099,  2100 

Leuch,  Peter  F.,  member  of  the  Legislature  of  Wisconsin  in  1909,  Milwau- 
kee, Wis.,  testimony  of 1417 

Business,  attorney;  admitted  to  the  bar  in  1908 1417, 1423, 1424 

Candidates,  can  not  give  the  names  of  all  I voted  for;  perhaps  8 or  10; 
voted  for  McGovern,  Scott,  Estabrook,  Hoffman,  Stephenson,  and  In- 
gram  1431,1432 

Davies,  David,  asked  me  to  vote  for  Stephenson 1419 

Davies,  on  the  1st  of  March,  1909,  when  the  majority  of  the  Republican 
members  and  Democratic  members  stayed  out  of  the  joint  committee, 
about  10  o’clock,  Mr.  Davies  asked  me  to  come  out  of  the  chamber;  and 
he  then  told  me  that  there  was  a plan  on  foot  to  stay  out  of  the  joint  con- 
vention  1417, 1418, 1422, 1423, 1425, 1426, 1427, 1430, 1431, 1439, 1440 

Davies  said,  “I  have  authority  to  tell  you  that  you  can  have  anything  you 
want  if  you  will  stay  in  there  and  vote.  You  don’t  have  to  vote  for 
Mr.  Stephenson,  but  just  simply  stay  in  there  and  vote.  ” I told  him  that 
was  equivalent  to  voting  for  Stephenson,  and  I would  not  do  that;  voted 

for  a friend  of  mine,  Mr.  Hoffman 1418 

Davies,  testimony  of,  to  the  effect  that  he  had  no  conversation  with  me 
with  reference  to  my  remaining  in  the  session  or  leaving  the  session,  is 

not  true 1421 

Do  not  know,  except  from  members  and  newspapers,  about  the  occurrence 
of  three  Democratic  members  of  the  legislature  absenting  themselves  at 

the  time  of  the  election  of  Senator  Stephenson 1418, 1419 

Educated  in  the  Milwaukee  public  schools,  the  high  school,  and  in  Mar- 
quette College;  went  to  law  school 1425 

Ingram,  do  not  know  that  he  was  leading  a filibuster  against  the  election 
of  Senator  Stephenson;  never  talked  to  me  about  obstructive  tactics  to 

prevent  election  of  Senator  Stephenson 1427, 1428 

Kleczka,  Senator,  told  him  about  my  conversation  with  Davies,  probably 
the  next  day,  or  the  day  after  that;  was  the  first  man  I stated  it  to 1440 


LXXVIII 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page. 

Leuch,  Peter  F.,  member  of  the  Legislature  of  Wisconsin  in  1909,  Milwau- 
kee, Wis.,  testimony  of — Continued. 

Kleczka,  walking  with  me  when  I met  Davies;  heard  Davies  say  to  me,  “I 

want  to  talk  to  you  a minute” 1428, 1429 

Stephenson,  was  not  engaged  in  a filibuster  to  prevent  the  election  of;  my 
desire  was  to  prevent  his  election  until  the  committee  authorized  to 

investigate  the  charges  preferred  against  him  could  report 1419, 

1420, 1421, 1422, 1423, 1424 

Stephenson,  voted  for,  on  third  or  fourth  ballot  in  joint  convention,  after 

Blaine  charges  had  been  preferred;  reasons 1432-1439 

Zimmerman,  a member  of  the  house,  told  him  about  my  conversation  with 

Davies 1440 

Lewis,  Hugh,  messenger  in  House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C.; 

resides  Madison,  Wis. ; testimony  of 912 

Ames,  I never  paid  him  any  money 914 

Columbia  and  Dodge  Counties,  my  first  work  was  to  get  men  to  circulate 
nomination  papers  and  find  out  who  were  Stephenson  men,  the  promi- 
nent men  there,  and  advise  with  them  how  to  get  up  the  papers;  I made 
four  trips  to  two  counties  at  different  times  and  made  a week’s  travel 
with  an  automobile  and  took  Morgan  with  me  part  of  the  time,  and  then 
my  back  gave  way  and  I let  Ames  take  the  auto  for  the  balance  of  the 

time  I had  agreed  to  take  it 1 914,  915 

Dane  County,  Sacket  and  Puelicher  wanted  me  to  take  hold  of  it;  my  health 
was  not  good  and  I said  I could  not  assume  the  responsibility;  they 
asked  me  if  I could  name  anybody;  I said:  “I  will  go  back  home  and 
come  back  here  after  I consult  with  Stephenson  men  in  Madison,”  and 
the  result  was  I recommended  Mr.  Morgan  and  Mr.  Ames,  and  they  were 

selected  to  take  charge  of  Dane  County 914 

Employed  men,  only  on  election  day;  at  12  precincts  in  city  of  Madison; 
to  be  at  polls,  pass  sample  ballots,  solicit  votes  for  Stephenson,  and  bring 
voters  in;  probably  paid  them  $130;  paid  some  men  $5,  none  less  than 
that,  and  some  $10;  paid  one  man  more;  generally  got  them  to  act  for 
both  Stephenson  and  Russell;  expense  equalized  between  the  two.  916,  917,  918 
Expenses,  personal,  I made  six  trips  to  Milwaukee  at  invitation  of  com- 
mittee; $75  or  $80  would  cover  expenses  for  railroad  fare,  hotel  bills,  and 

such  things 914,  915,  916 

Johnson,  mechanic  at  Madison,  I had  to  pay  him  more  than  $10  to  work 
at  polls  election  day,  because  he  is  a good  worker 917 


Literature,  I had  a pr 
some  stamps  and  rnailec 


915 


914 


^ood  list  from  previous  campaigns,  and  I bought 
matter  I had  brought  home  with  me;  did  not 
spend  more  than  $25  for  stamps;  they  sent  me  by  express  a lot  of  litera- 
ture, pictures,  streamers,  buttons,  etc.,  and  when  we  were  out  in  auto- 
mobile in  a little  place,  I could  not  mail  them  myself,  and  I had  to  pay 

a couple  of  dollars  or  so  for  that 916 

Madison,  resident  of  40  years,  when  not  at  Washington  performing  duties; 

family  lives  there 913 

Money,  received  from  Stephenson  fund,  not  spent  in  a saloon  campaign; 
did  not  pay  one  nickle  to  any  person  to  secure  his  vote;  never  paid  any 
to  any  other  person  to  be  used  by  him  for  the  purchase  or  corruption  of 

votes 

Money,  received  none  for  my  own  services;  received  $360 — first  time  $100, 

next  time  $60,  and  the  next  time,  I think,  $200 913, 

Palmyra,  my  best  recollection  is  I paid  $5  for  a hall,  but  the  speaker  did 
not  speak  because  the  opposition  stood  at  the  door  and  said  there  was 

not  going  to  be  any  meeting 916 

Puelicher,  I am  sure  I got  all  the  money  from  him 914 

Russell,  was  an  old  comrade  and  a candidate  for  Congress;  I had  charge  of 
his  interests  as  far  as  Madison  and  Dane  County  were  concerned;  we 
hired  men  jointly  that  would  take  an  interest  in  Russell  and  Stephenson 
campaign;  I was  paying  his  bills  for  him  with  money  separate  from  Ste- 
phenson bills — money  of  which  I kept  an  account — and  looking  after 

his  interests;  I had  more  than  $150  to  use  for  him 915,  917,  918 

Sacket,  bought  me  a satchel,  which  I took  from  headquarters  and  which 

he  paid  for  out  of  the#funds,  to  take  literature  home  with  me 916 

Soldier  during  War  of  Rebellion  in  Second  Wisconsin  Infantry;  served 
until  I lost  my  arm  in  that  capacity;  continued  in  service  until  end  of 
war 


913 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


LXXIX 


Page. 

Lewis,  Hugh,  messenger  in  House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C., 
resides  Madison,  Wis,  testimony  of — Continued. 

Stephenson  campaign,  took  part  in  in  1908 

Stoughton,  paid  for  a meeting  there;  paid  $31.55  for  a hall  and  band  and 

the  bill  posting;  in  addition  there  was  expense  of  speaker 

Littlefield,  E.  C.,  argument  before  full  committee 

Blaine  charges  made  after  election,  January  26,  of  Senator  Stephenson. . . 
Certificate  under  which  Stephenson  took  his  seat  in  the  United  States 
Senate  not  based  on  proceedings  of  two  houses  separately;  based  upon 

what  was  alleged  to  be  a subsequent  election  on  4th  of  March,  1909 

Counsel  for  Senator  Stephenson,  statement  of 

Election,  result  not  declared  by  presiding  officer  of  joint  session  January 

29,  1909 . 

Governor  of  State  of  Wisconsin,  certified  fact  of  vote  but  not  of  election... 
Investigation  of  election  not  authorized  by  Senate  resolution  to  go  beyond 
election  by  legislature;  unconstitutional  to  investigate  primary  election; 

ruled  upon 

9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,  20,  21,  22,  23, 32,  33,  34,  35, 36 


Nomination  and  election,  Wisconsin  statutes  recognize  differentiation  be- 
tween  15 

Stephenson,  elected  by  the  Wisconsin  Legislature  to  be  a Senator  of  the 
United  States  January  26,  1909;  objects  to  introduction  of  testimony  in 

relation  to,  subsequent  to  January  26,  1909 8, 44 

Lyons,  E.  H.,  member  of  Illinois  State  Senate,  Fond  du  Lac,  Wis.,  testi- 
mony of 1387 

Direct  primary,  not  in  favor  of 1389 

First  elected  in  1908;  first  time  I served  as  senator;  at  present  senator;  rep- 


Haight,  did  not  receive  $100  from,  during  time  I was  in  legislature 1388 

Stephenson,  campaigned  and  voted  for 1389 

Stephenson,  did  not  receive  money  from  managers  of,  or  any  one  represent- 
ing him 1388 


Thayer,  L.  W.,  did  receive  $100  from,  during  campaign;  handed  it  to  me 
in  person;  was  a check  issued  by  State  central  committee;  do  not  remem- 
ber who  signed  check;  received  it  about  two  weeks  before  election;  think 
I made  statement  on  floor  of  senate  that  I received  $100  “to  be  good”; 
Zimmerman  testified  that  such  statement  was  made;  money  was  for  own 

personal  use 1388, 1389 

Thayer,  want  to  correct  senatorial  committee’s  report  wherein  I am  quoted 

as  saying  Thayer  opposed  me 1389, 1390 

Thayer,  said  committee  could  afford  to  give  me  $100.  I said  “I  do  not 

want  your  money.”  Was  not  paid  $100  for  “being  good” 1390 

Vote  of,  no  money  ever  paid  me  had  any  effect  on 1390 

M. 

MacLean,  R.  E.,  lumberman,  Wells,  Mich.,  testimony  of 1848 

Box,  first  knew  of,  in  spring  of  1909,  when  went  to  Marinette  to  get;  found 
too  cumbersome,  so  put  contents  in  gunny  sacks  and  took  away  in  auto- 
mobile to  Wells;  did  not  examine  contents  at  that  time;  saw  there  were 
some  letter  cases  and  papers;  size  of  a shoe  box.  1848, 1849, 1850, 1854, 1855, 1857 
Box,  when  found  in  warehouse,  was  nailed  up;  went  after  at  night,  simply 

to  save  time - 1855, 1856 

Files,  took  letters  out  of,  and  left  on  shelf;  later  on  put  letters  back  in  and 

put  them  where  I had  found  them  on  shelf  in  outer  office 1851, 1854 

Gunny  sacks,  contained  lot  of  papers,  letter  files,  cards,  etc.;  put  in  loft  of 
Mr.  Kates’s  shed,  same  night  we  got  them;  knew  contents  were  documents 

of  some  kind,  relating  to  campaign,  but  did  not  know  value  of 1849, 

1851, 1855, 1856, 1857 

Hornibrook,  superintendent  of  the  Ludington  Co.,  at  Marinette;  showed 
me  box  to  take;  was  in  charge  of  warehouse  that  night,  was  only  person  I 
saw  there;  told  had  returned  suit  case  of  papers  to  Stephenson’s  office. . 1849, 

1850, 1854 

Kates,  superintendent  of  Escanaba  & Lake  Superior  Railroad;  connected 
with  Senator  Stephenson  in  business  way;  my  next-door  neighbor;  asked 
to  take  me  down  to  Marinette  in  automobile,  to  save  time 

15235°— 11 vi 


913 

916 

2166 

8 


9 

6 

8 

9 


7,  8, 


1857 


LXXX 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page. 


1855 


MacLean,  R.  E.,  lumberman,  Wells,  Mich.,  testimony  of — Continued. 

Letters  and  letter  files  from  Stephenson’s  office  put  in  box  at  warehouse,  I 

think,  could  not  swear  to 1854, 

Russell,  phoned  me  again  to  come  down  to  Marinette  for  box  of  papers;  to 
meet  him  at  Menominee;  had  packages  for  me  to  bring  home;  met  at 
hotel  about  11  o’clock;  wanted  me  to  go  over  to  Marinette  next  morning 
and  get  papers  and  take  to  Wells;  said  someone  would  be  at  office  to  give 

me  papers;  followed  instructions  of 1848, 1851, 1852, 1856, 1857 

Russell,  showed  where  letters  were  in  suit  case;  did  not  see  what  he  did 
with  reference  to  examining,  sorting,  or  separating;  did  not  give  any 

separate  bundle  of  papers 1853 

Stephenson,  Senator,  am  representative  for  in  business  at  this  place;  presi- 
dent of  Escanaba  & Lake  Superior  Railroad 1848, 1857 

Stringham,  Miss,  did  not  see  when  went  for  box;  at  office  when  went  for 
papers,  showed  me  which  to  take;  was  away  on  vacation  when  I took 

papers  back  again 1850, 1854 

Suit  case,  brought  full  of  letters  and  papers  from  Marinette;  could  not  bring 
files  in;  belonged  to  me;  this  episode  came  first;  took  home  and  put  in 
window  seat;  left  there  until  took  back  again  to  Stephenson’s  office; 

papers  put  in  just  as  they  came  out  of  files 1851, 1852, 1853, 1854 

Time,  elapsed  between  getting  suit  case  of  letters  and  contents  of  box,  about 

a month;  could  not  fix  date  positively,  some  time  in  spiing  of  1909 1851, 

1852, 1855 

Transportation,  between  Wells  and  Marinette,  medium  of,  good  State  road, 
about  60  miles;  direct  railroad  connecting;  by  water  but  in  roundabout 

way 1849,1850 

Trunk,  have  not  seen  contents  of;  did  not  help  to  pack 1855 

McCordic,  as  to  his  appearing  before  committee 1993, 1994 

McCordic,  telegram  received  by  committee  saying  that  in  interview  about  con- 
versation in  his  office  with  Cook  and  Wisconsin  men  he  made  no  statement 
indicating  a personal  knowledge  on  part  of  Cook  of  any  of  matters  discussed; 
his  (Cook’s)  entire  statement  was  a hearsay  one  and  so  understood  by  all 

present 1941 

McGill,  Leroy  E.,  lawyer,  Ladysmith,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1274 

Account,  did  not  render  one;  was  not  requested  to  at  any  time 1278 

Arrowsmith,  Fred,  said  he  had  expended  for  teams  and  day’s  work  some.- 
thing  like  $20,  as  I remember  it;  paid  him  after  the  primary  was  over  by 

check 1275 

Dresser,  L.  B.,  received  $25  from 1274 

Edmonds,  received  $200  from  him  at  one  time  and  $250  at  another  time,  I 

believe 1274 

Fee,  as  an  attorney,  retained  $175 1276 

Memorandum  of  disbursements,  did  not  keep  one,  although  at  the  close  I 

could  have  given  a pretty  close  account 

Money,  all  except  the  $175  retained  spent  for  purposes  of  organization  and 
legitimately  getting  out  vote;  none  spent  by  me  or  as  far  as  I know  by 
those  to  whom  I intrusted  it,  for  purpose  of  bribing  or  corruptly  influenc- 


1277 


mj 

Rusl 


1277 


electors 

County,  procured  poll  list  of;  employed  some  one  to  do  it;  do  not 
remember  name  of;  recollect  I paid  $5  to;  traveled  through  county  and 
made  a campaign  for  Stephenson  just  as  I would  for  myself;  expense 
items  incurred;  employed  workers  at  polls;  estimate  $5  as  expense  per 

precinct . 1274, 1275, 1276, 1277 

Stephenson  campaign  of  1908,  received  $475  to  be  used  in;  used  partly  for 
expenditures  and  partly  for  services;  devoted  nearly  entire  month  of 

August  to  it 1274, 1277 

Stephenson  nomination  papers,  gave  some  directions  at  time  they  were 

being  circulated  and  from  that  time  on 1275, 1276 

McGillivray,  Jam.es  J.,  mayor  of  Black  River  Falls,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1249" 

Account,  did  not  render  one  to  committee;  they  did  not  ask  for  one 125$ 

Black  River  Falls,  recently  destroyed  by  flood;  my  own  place  of  business 

wrecked ]254 

Business,  I am  a lumber  manufacturer 1250 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


LXXXI 


Page. 

Mc&illivray,  James  J.,  mayor  of  Black  River  Falls,  Wis.,  testimony  of — Contd. 
Campaign,  as  carried  on  by  me,  took  teams  and  visited  farmeis  in  country 
and  talked  for  Stephenson;  carried  buttons,  banners,  and  literature  with 
me  and  enlisted  other  men  to  work  when  I found  they  were  willing  to 

support  him;  made  speeches 1250, 1251 

Edmonds,  called  me  to  Milwaukee,  I think,  and  something  happened  so  he 
had  to  go  to  Appleton  and  I talked  to  Puelicher  and  some  other  gentlemen.  1253 
Edmonds,  sent  me  $600  at  one  time  in  check,  accompanied  by  letter;  have 
not  the  letter;  it  said  to  use  money  as  I saw  fit  in  Jackson  County,  as  I 

remember 1249, 1250 

% Election  law  of  Wisconsin,  I do  not  think  it  requires  in  detail  statement 
of  persons  to  whom  campaign  money  is  paid,  purpose  for  which  paid, 

and  amount  paid 1251 

Jackson  County  Bank,  Black  River  Falls,  deposited  money  from  Edmonds 

in  my  general  account  there 1250 

Memorandum  of  money  spent;  every  night  when  I came  in,  I would  put 
down  the  money  spent;  have  no  names  and  dates  attached;  items  of 
given;  total  of  $599.65;  that  leaves  35  cents,  which  I returned  to  Steph- 
enson by  check  or  draft,  to  make  up  $600 1251, 1252, 1253 

Money,  not  paid  by  me,  or  as  far  as  I know  by  men  to  whom  I paid  it,  for 

bribing  or  corruptly  influencing  voters 1254 

Offices  held,  member  of  legislature  4 years  and  member  of  senate  12  years; 

have  not  been  a member  of  either  house  since  1905 1249 

Poll  workers,  employed  them  and  hired  some  to  get  their  teams  and  take 

men  to  polls;  did  not  pay  any  to  go  to  polls  and  vote 1253 

Stephenson,  supported  him  in  primary  contest  of  1908 1249 

Testimony  before  joint  legislative  committee,  mistake  made  in  small 
amounts  given  men;  I called  up  men  and  asked  them  if  amounts  given 
were  correct;  found  a few  mistakes  and  immediately  came  down  before 

senate  end  of  committee  and  corrected  it 1252, 1253 

Treating,  I did  not  buy  liquor  or  beer,  but  we  did  not  want  to  feel  we  were 
too  big  to  treat  a man  to  a cigar  or  meal;  treated  thrashing  crews  to  cigars 

and  pie 1252 

McMahon,  Edward  M.,  general  agent  for  the  Northwestern  Mutual  Life  Insur- 
ance Co.,  Madison,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1023, 1795 

Account,  I filed  an  account  of  everything;  kept  an  itemized  account  of  my 

expenses  and  turned  them  over  to  office  at  end  of  campaign 1026 

Age,  27 1023,1024 

Box,  containing  campaign  correspondence  and  records,  I do  not  know  what 
was  done  with  it;  last  time  I saw  it  was  in  vault  at  headquarters  in  Wells 
Building  on  September  5,  I believe;  I do  not  remember  whether  it  was 
nailed  up;  I was  asked  about  it  by  legislative  committee;  I have  not 

heard  what  became  of  contents 1045, 

1046, 1047, 1796, 1797, 1799, 1802, 1803, 1804 

Cigars,  I spent  some  money  for;  probably  close  to  $20 1026, 1027 

Correspondence,  I was  present  at  headquarters  when  it  was  disposed  of; 
it  was  classified  and  boxed  up;  by  office  boys  and  myself;  Edmonds 
and  Sacket  were  in  and  out  while  we  were  doing  it;  Lambeck  and  I were 
asked  to  classify  it;  when  campaign  closed  there  was  a raft  of  material, 
poll  lists,  nomination  papers,  and  correspondence  and  a lot  that  was 
simply  wastebasket  stuff;  Edmonds  retained  his  personal  correspond- 
ence; it  did  not  go  into  box;  campaign  letters  and  carbon  replies  put  in 

box 1042, 1043, 1044, 1045, 1046, 1047, 1795, 1796, 1800, 1801, 1802 

Correspondence  in  relation  to  State  depository  for  Stevens’s  bank  with 

headquarters,  I do  not  know  what  became  of  it 1042 

Dart,  George,  Montello,  Marquette  County,  I made  arrangement  with  him.  1050 
Edmonds,  E.  A.: 

Kept  a small  file,  a box  of  cards;  contained  a list  of  names  of  managers; 
think  they  were  put  in  the  large  box  with  campaign  records;  some 
of  papers  on  his  desk  retained  by  him  and  some  put  in  this  box;  do 

not  know  whether  his  memoranda  of  expenses  was  put  into  box 1054, 

1056, 1800, 1801 

Reported  to  him  I thought  I had  convinced  Stevens  he  should  sup- 
port Stephenson 1037 


lxxxii 


DIGEST  INJJEX. 


Page. 


McMahon,  Edward  M.,  general  agent  for  the  Northwestern  Mutual  Life  Insur- 
ance Co.,  Madison,  Wis.,  testimony  of — Continued. 

Edmonds,  E.  A. — Continued. 

Started  to  pack  correspondence  in  box  by  his  direction;  told  me  to 
separate  his  own  private  correspondence  of  any  kind  that  he  con- 
ducted with  his  friends  throughout  the  State;  he  said  “Take  out  the 
correspondence  with  these  certain  men;”  I do  not  remember  the 
names  of  the  men;  told  Lambeck  and  me  box  was  to  be  shipped  to 
Marinette  according  to  instructions  he  received  from  Stephenson..  1045, 

1046, 1797, 1798, 1799 

Think  he  took  up  matter  of  State  depository  for  Stevens  with  James 
Frear,  secretary  of  State;  I do  not  remember  his  having  telephoned 
Frear  from  headquarters;  conversation  took  four  or  five  minutes; 
matter  talked  over  generally;  I remember  only  one  incident  of 
telephoning,  but  I have  a faint  recollection  of  some  correspondence 
between  them;  saw  letters;  do  not  know  where  they  are 1041, 1042 

Told  me  he  had  taken  up  the  matter  of  making  Stevens’s  bank  a State 
depository  with  Frear  and  Gilbert  and  others  who  had  giving  out 
of  favor;  I do  not  think  I reported  my  conversation  with  Stevens 
about  State  depository  when  I came  to  headquarters  first  time 
after  having  talk;  I do  not  think  he  actually  did  anything  about  it 
until  about  the  middle  of  the  campaign,  when  he  mentioned  it  to 

me 1028,1030,1039 

Expenses,  I think  I got  less  than  $300  for  traveling  expenses;  had  about 
$20  left 1025,1026 


Financial  connection  with  campaign,  received  about  $200  expense  money — 
four  items  of  $50  each — and  $300  for  compensation;  at  end  of  campaign 
there  was  a small  amount  of  expense  money  that  I had  not  used  out  of  the 
$50  advanced;  I took  it  up  with  Sacket;  it  was  less  than  $10  or  $15; 

whether  I retained  that  in  adidtion  to  $300  I am  not  sure 

Frear,  James,  secretary  of  State,  I understood  he  was  opposed  to  Stephen- 
son’s nomination;  was  a La  Follette  man 1042, 

Headquarters,  understanding  was  I was  to  work  there,  when  first  engaged; 

I was  there  doing  general  office  work  all  the  time  I was  not  out  in  the 
State;  I was  a little  over  a month  traveling  and  a month  at  headquarters; 

first  month  I was  traveling  more  than  at  headquarters 1024, 1037, 

James,  Norman,  I made  arrangement  with  him  to  look  after  work  of  get- 
ting our  votes  and  crystallizing  sentiment  in  Richland  County;  he  was  not 

to  receive  compensation  for  his  time 1049, 

Lambeck,  Arthur,  lived  in  Milwaukee  at  that  time;  do  not  know  where  he 
is  now;  had  been  assistant  private  secretary  to  Stephenson,  as  I under- 
stand it;  was  asked,  with  me,  to  classify  correspondence.  1043, 1044, 1796, 
Lancaster,  I think  I was  there  either  two  or  three  times  during  the  cam- 
paign; it  was  all  during  the  first  month  of  the  campaign;  I do  not  know 

whether  it  was  in  July;  it  might  have  gone  into  August 

Larson,  C.  O.,  got  him  to  take  charge  at  Port  Washington;  did  not  pay  him 
any  money;  agreed  with  him  that  he  was  to  make  arrangements  at  head- 
quarters  1025, 

Larson,  Dodgeville,  Iowa  County,  I made  arrangement  with  him 

Managers  employed,  my  arrangements  with,  we  figured  out  what  it  would 
cost  to  get  nomination  papers  circulated,  to  advertise  Stephenson  through- 
out the  vicinity  and  to  get  the  vote  out  primary  day ; I talked  matter  of 
compensation  over  with  them,  got  their  idea  of  it,  and  reported  it  to 
Edmonds;  average  paid  to  $100  a month  in  addition  to  expense  money 
for  organizing;  we  figured  on  $5  a team  for  carrying;  all  arrangements 

with  closed  by  Edmonds 1047, 1048, 1049, 1050, 

Money,  not  spent  by  me,  or  as  far  as  I know,  by  men  with  whom  I made 
arrangements,  for  purpose  of  bribing  or  corruptly  influencing  voters.. 
Port  Washington,  Ozaukee  County,  went  there  to  find  out  whether  there 
was  any  Stephenson  sentiment;  interviewed  several  leaders;  got  Mr. 

Larson  to  take  charge 

Puelicher,  I made  preliminary  arrangement  with  him;  I happened  to  be 
the  Marshall  & Illsley  Bank  and  he  asked  me  what  I was  to  do  in  the  sum- 
mer time;  told  me  he  thought  he  would  want  to  see  me  again.  When  he 

did  after  a con  versa  tionhe  sent  me  to  Sacket 1023, 1024, 

Puelicher,  I received  first  $50  from  him,  I believe;  it  was  for  expenses  on 
a trip  out  into  the  State 


1053 

1052 

1017 

1050 

1800 

1035 

1049 

1049 


1051 
1053 

1025 

1052 
1024 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


LXXXIII 


Page. 

McMahon,  Edward  M.,  general  agent  for  the  Northwestern  Mutual  Life  Insur- 
ance Co.,  Madison,  Wis,  testimony  of — Continued. 

Sacket,  I do  not  know  anything  about  cards  on  which  he  kept  accounts; 
never  had  occasion  to  overlook  details  of  work  he  was  doing;  knew 

nothing  about  his  desk  or  records 1053, 1054, 1055, 1056, 1057, 1058, 1799 

Sacket,  I turned  over  my  account  books  to  him;  spoke  to  him  about  them, 
and  he  was  of  the  opinion  they  had  been  turned  over  to  the  Wisconsin 

legislative  committee 1026, 1027 

Salary,  I think  I was  employed  two  months  at  $150  a month;  did  not  receive 
it  until  after  the  primary,  September  5;  I went  to  work  in  office  at  $75  a 
month ; went  out  through  State  after  that  and  my  salary  was  increased  to 

amount  that  made  $300  for  two  months’  work 1026, 1027, 1036, 1053 

State  depositories,  I knew  the  method  of  having  them  granted;  that  there 
was  a commission  for  that  purpose;  never  discussed  law  in  regard  to, 

with  Edmonds,  Puelicher,  or  Sacket 1030, 1031, 1038 

Stephenson,  I do  not  remember  to  have  ever  reported  to  him  or  anyone 
representing  him,  that  I had  a talk  with  Stevens  about  getting  him  the 

State  deposits,  before  he  agreed  to  support  Stephenson 

Stephenson  campaign,  connected  with  in  summer  of  1908 

Stevens,  L.  H.: 

After  he  commenced  working  for  Stephenson,  I ran  across  him  on  a 
train  down  in  that  section  of  the  State  when  he  was  doing  his  work. . 

At  time  of  first  conversation  with,  I understood  he  had  been  a strong 
“half-breed”;  that  was  early  in  the  campaign  and  at  that  time  a 
“half-breed”  to  my  mind  was  a Stephenson  man;  said  then  he  had 
not  taken  any  stand;  when  I left  there  I did  not  know  whether  he 
would  associate  himself  with  Stephenson  campaign  or  not;  I do  not 
believe  he  hesitated  very  long  as  to  stand  he  would  take;  I was  of 

the  opinion  he  thought  Stephenson  should  be  the  choice 1031, 

1032, 1034, 1035, 1051, 1052 

Banker,  first  conversation  with,  at  Lancaster;  I knew  his  family  well; 
went  to  his  bank  and  we  talked  about  general  business  conditions 
and  I suggested  with  no  idea  of  his  connecting  it  with  Stephenson 
campaign,  that  he  try  to  secure  a State  depository;  I said  when  I 
went  back  to  Milwaukee  I would  try  to  procure  the  influence  of 
Edmonds;  but  it  was  not  his  influence  as  chairman  of  Stephenson 

committee;  can  not  fix  date  of  conversation 1027, 

1028, 1029, 1030, 1031, 1032, 1033, 1034, 1038 
I do  not  remember  the  exact  amount  of  money  placed  in  his  hands  by 

the  campaign  committee 1029, 1048, 1049 

Letter  from,  to  headquarters  asked  what  progress  Edmonds  was  mak- 
ing along  line  of  securing  State  depository;  that  was  after  he  had 
agreed  to  take  up  Stephenson  interests;  I think  Edmonds  at  that 
time  took  up  the  matter  and  advised  him  he  was  doing  what  he 
could;  through  fact  that  currency  was  short  he  had  to  stay  in  bank 
instead  of  getting  out  over  the  territory  and  that  was  chief  thing  he 
was  hammering  on  and  taking  up  with  Edmonds;  amount  of  deposit 

never  mentioned 1039, 1040 

Second  conversation  with,  I went  back  a week  or  10  days  after  first 
visit;  I think  he  told  me  then  for  first  time,  that  he  would  make  an 
arrangement  to  support  Stephenson ; told  him  I had  mentioned  mat- 
ter of  securing  him  a State  deposit  to  Edmonds;  told  him  that  with 
the  friends  that  Edmonds  had  and  the  friends  of  the  people  who 
were  interested  in  Stephenson’s  campaign,  they  ought  to  be  able  to 

get  it  for  him 1034, 1035, 1036, 1037 

Stevens’s  bank,  I did  not  know  it  had  been  made  a State  depository  until 
I happened  to  see  it  in  the  testimony  that  the  committee  forwarded  to 

the  United  States  Senate  with  their  report 1038, 1039 

University  of  Wisconsin,  I was  finishing  my  course  there  in  spring  of  1908; 

attended  law  school  there  in  fall  of  1908 1023 

Voght,  Ed.,  Sheboygan,  arranged  with  him  to  work  for  Stephenson 1049 

Vote,  my  first  one,  I think,  was  in  local  spring  election  of  1908 1024 

Wiseman,  Arthur  J.,  Manitowoc,  arranged  with  him  to  work  for  Stephen- 
son   


1029 

1023 

1037 


1049 


LX  XX IV 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page. 

Marsh,  Spencer  M.,  chairman  of  both  State  senate  investigating  committee 
and  joint  investigating  committee  at  time  of  investigation  of  election  of  Senator 

Stephenson,  testimony  of 1101 

Advertising,  I would  not  think  insertions  in  interest  of  Stephenson  paid 

for  at  regular  advertising  rates  would  be  bribery 1106 

Blaine,  John  J.,  I was  present  as  a member  of  joint  committee  when  he 

filed  the  specific  charges  against  Stephenson 1103 

Bribery  and  corruption,  I think  it  was  a corrupt  expenditure  to  place  a 
hundred  thousand  dollars  in  the  hands  of  managers  and  to  permit  them 
to  distribute  it  without  any  instruction  as  to  how  it  was  to  be  spent  and 
as  to  keeping  of  accounts;  the  fact  that  numerous  witnesses  came  upon 
the  stand  who  had  spent  hundreds  of  dollars  in  campaign  and  were  un- 
able to  tell  us  to  whom  they  paid  that  money  indicated  they  did  not 

want  to  tell 1106, 1107, 1128 

Campaign  of  1908,  took  an  active  part  in;  made  a very  few  campaign 

speeches 1101 

Dee,  George,  Chippewa  Falls,  my  recollection  is  that  $375  was  paid  him; 
we  examined  him  a long  while  and  did  not  find  out  for  what  purpose;  but 
before  he  received  the  money  he  was  opposing  Stephenson  and  after  he 
received  it  he  was  favoring  him;  think  that  was  shown  by  copies  of 
editorials  he  published;  his  testimony  was  that  it  was  for  advertising 
purposes;  he  gave  us  his  rates  and,  figuring  liberally,  at  his  regular  rates 
I think  there  was  about  $60  worth  done;  think  Ring  paid  him  part  of 

it 1104, 1105, 1106, 1124, 1125, 1126 

Election  of  Stephenson  by  legislature  at  Madison,  I was  present  when  vote 
was  taken;  know  Ramsey  and  other  members  were  absent;  do  not  know 
why  they  were  except  what  I learned  from  testimony;  there  would  have 
been  no  election  if  they  had  been  present  and  had  voted  for  their  party 

candidate;  they  were  Democrats 1119 

Election  of  United  States  Senator  by  legislature  in  1909,  I did  not  vote  for 
anybody  in  ballot  in  senate;  voted  for  various  people  in  the  joint  assem- 
bly in  March;  can  not  recollect  how  vote  stood  in  separate  session  of 

senate 1101, 1102 

Failure  to  file  an  expense  account  as  required  by  statute,  we  considered 
that  as  one  little  circumstance  indicating  that  there  was  not  a frank  and 
open  attitude  on  the  part  of  candidate  and  his  managers  so  that  the  people 
might  know  how  the  money  was  spent;  did  not  consider  it  one  of  strong 

reasons  why  election  was  invalid 1106 

First  specific  charge,  my  opinion  is  and  was  that  it  was  sustained  as  to 
manner  in  which  money  was  spent;  there  was  no  finding  that  he  spent 

$250,000 1104,1127 

French,  of  Lake  Geneva,  I think  was  paid  $800;  I think  was  supporter  of 

Cook  earlier  in  campaign 1118 

Hatton,  supported  him  at  the  primary 1102 

Investigation,  efforts  of  Stephenson  and  his  managers  and  newspaper,  the 

Free  Press,  to  prevent,  taken  into  consideration 1128 

Lancaster  Bank,  illustrating  testimony  relating  to  promises,  we  took  into 

consideration 1128 

McGillivray,  ex-Senator,  committee  took  into  consideration  his  testimony 

with  regard  to  employing  men  to  go  to  the  polls 1118 

Member  of  State  senate  in  1909;  elected  in  1906 1101 

Milwaukee  expenditures,  recollect  it  was  something  like  $11,000;  we  chal- 
lenged all  of  it  so  far  as  it  was  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  manager  without 
any  directions  as  to  how  it  was  to  be  expended  and  because  of  the  manner 
in  which  it  was  expended,  to  which  Knell  testified,  as  to  employment  of 

men  to  go  to  polls  and  work 1118 

Money,  I considered  it  spent  corruptly  when  it  resulted  in  influencing 
voters  so  that  they  voted  differently  from  the  way  they  would  have  voted 

if  the  money  had  not  been  spent 1104 

Report  of  senate  committee,  comprised  of  three  members,  not  completed 
until  January,  1911;  my  term  of  office  expired  before  it  was  adopted,  but 
not  before  it  was  made;  I think  it  was  made  to  the  governor  and  to  the 
legislature;  understood  it  was  the  basis  of  the  governor’s  communication 
to  the  United  States  Senate 1117, 1122 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


LXXXV 


Page. 

Marsh,  Spencer  M.,  chairman  of  both  State  senate  investigating  committee 
and  joint  investigating  committee  at  time  of  investigation  of  election  of  Senator 
Stephenson,  testimony  of — Continued. 

Report  of  senate  committee,  written  by  Senators  Morris,  Husting,  and  my- 
self; we  divided  up  the  work  and  each  of  us  wrote  some  of  it;  I could  not 
tell  what  part  I wrote;  do  not  remember  what  parts  were  alloted  to  Morris 
or  Husting;  last  saw  it  in  capitol  at  Madison;  I signed  it  and  left  it  in 
hands  of  Morris  and  Husting  with  understanding  that  it  was  to  be  pre- 
sented to  governor  immediately;  think  McGovern  was  governor 1120, 

1121, 1122, 1123 

Resolutidh  under  which  we  were  acting  required  investigation  of  whole 
senatorial  campaign  in  the  primary;  think  campaign  conduct  of  other 

candidates  was  not  same  kind  as  Stephenson’s 1128, 1129 

Specific  charges,  entered  into  an  investigation  to  determine  whether  or  not 
they  would  be  sustained  by  testimony;  my  opinion  was  and  is  that  some 

of  them  were  sustained  and  some  of  them  were  not 1103 

Stephenson,  felt  it  our  duty  to  investigate  his  whole  campaign  and  deter- 
mine whether  money  had  been  spent  corruptly  or  for  purpose  of  influenc- 
ing voters;  we  did  not  confine  ourselves  in  the  examination  to  the  Blaine 

charges 1104 

Stone,  James  A.,  Reedsburg,  Wis.,  I recall  my  letter  to;  think  it  was 

offered  in  evidence  at  the  examination  before  the  joint  committee 1102 

Vote,  withdrawn  day  preceding  election  of  Stephenson  by  legislature,  I 
do  not  remember  that  distinctly;  I know  there  were  situations  like  that 
arising  along  there,  but  I wouid  not  be  able  to  testify  about  that  par- 
ticular matter 1123, 1124 

Wagner,  who  testified  before  committee  that  he  saw  a transaction  in  which 
certain  members  of  legislature  received  money,  at  which  Puelicher  was 
present,  my  information  is  that  he  testified  falsely  and  was  prosecuted 
for  perjury  and  paid  the  penalty;  as  a member  of  committee  I did  not 
attach  any  importance  to  his  testimony,  independent  of  the  criminal 
prosecution;  all  the  members  of  the  committee  considered  it  false. . 1119, 1120 
Wellensgard,  in  testimony  before  joint  committee  said  he  paid  men  $3 
or  $4  for  going  to  vote;  was  a member  of  assembly;  I do  not  know  whether 
our  recommendations  were  broad  enough  to  call  him  to  account  for  it; 

so  far  as  I know  prosecuting  officers  never  took  any  steps  for  that 1107, 

1115, 1116, 1117 

Meloy,  F.  C.,  dentist,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1884 

White,  Richard,  said  to  me,  “I  did  get  some  money;  I have  got  to  have 
money  to  go  oilt  and  tell  the  good  qualities  of  the  old  gentleman,  and 
he  had  many” 1884,1885 

Meyer,  Richard,  jr.,  banker,  Lancaster,  Wis.,  affidavit  of 2005 

Age,  54  years 2005 

Campaign  committee  at  Milwaukee,  received  from,  $500;  $300  expended 
in  procuring  assistants  in  the  south  assembly  district  of  Grant  County 
to  look  after  the  posting  of  lithographs,  circulating  literature,  and  travel- 
ing of  assistants;  poll  workers  procured  by  assistants;  also  livery  hire  and 

conveyances 2006 

Campaign  work  done  for  a considerable  period  prior  to  primary  day  and 
on  primary  day  in  circulating  and  causing  to  be  circulated  literature, 
and  the  posting  of  lithographs,  and  traveling  in  and  about  the  county 
visiting  his  friends  and  generally  advocating  the  cause  of  Stephenson . 2005,  2006 

Lancaster,  resided  at  during  all  his  life 2005 

Money  not  disbursed  for  the  purpose  of  corruptly  or  unlawfully  influencing 

or  bribing  any  person 2006 

Personal  expenses,  $50  retained  to  cover 2006 

Persons,  employed  none  unless  they  were  Stephenson  supporters 2006 

Phillipson,  Leo,  $150  given  to,  for  traveling  about  north  assembly  districts 
of  Grant  County  circulating  literature,  putting  up  posters,  and  inter- 
viewing voters  and  providing  poll  workers 2006 

Services,  received  practically  nothing  for 2006 

Stephenson , at  all  times  a supporter  of,  and  personally  anxious  to  see  him 
nominated 2006 


LXXXVI 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page. 


Miner,  Grant  L.,  Richland  Center,  Wis.,  testimony  of 

Cigars,  spent  $2  or  $3  for 

Men  employed,  names  of  given ; money  paid  to  between  time  it  was  sent  me 
three  days  before  the  primaries,  I think,  and  primary  day;  not  original 

memorandum;  jotted  down  coming  here  on  train 1285, 

Miner,  E.  S.,  candidate  at  that  time  for  nomination  to  Congress,  is  another 

man 

Money,  none  spent  by  me,  or  as  far  as  I know  by  men  to  whom  I intrusted 

it,  for  purpose  of  bribing  or  corruptly  influencing  voters 

Richland  County,  paid  money  out  there  principally  for  men  at  the  polls 
and  teams  to  get  voters  to  polls;  some  paid  for  auto  hire  and  livefy  hire; 

$15  or  $20  average  paid  out  per  precinct 1284, 

Statement  of  expenses,  did  not  render  one;  not  asked  for  one 1284, 

Stephenson,  did  not  pay  any  person  for  supporting  or  voting  for 

Stephenson  campaign  in  1908,  received  $300  or  $350  to  be  expended  in; 
do  not  recollect  just  the  amount;  paid  out  all  but  $15  or  $20;  I have 
that;  did  not  keep  it  for  my  services;  did  not  render  services  to  amount 
to  anything;  they  sent  me  this  money  and  I did  not  commence  to  work 
until  two  or  three  days  before  the  primary;  money  paid  out  in  sums 

from  $5  to  $20 1284, 

Witness,  did  not  testify  as,  in  this  investigation  before  either  Wisconsin 

committee 

Morgan,  Earl  J.,  son-in-law  of  Senator  Stephenson,  Oshkosh,  Wis.,  testimony 
of 


Advertising  and  printing,  item  of  $550  fer,  was  a total  sum;  had  bills  for 
between  $400  and  $500  of  it;  made  up  balance  from  memory;  included 

item  of  $150  for  postage 

Baseball  association,  donated  either  $100  or  $125  to;  was  to  create  good 

feeling 1742, 

Batke,  Emil,  Oshkosh,  paid  $20;  put  in  considerable  time  putting  up 

advertising  matter  and  worked  at  polls 

Benedict,  Ernest,  made  a trip  along  the  Wolf  River  towns  in  Stephenson’s 
behalf  and  was  paid  a per  diem  for  his  services  and  his  hotel  expenses; 

aggregated  $87.15 1744, 

Bolter,  Herman,  Oshkosh,  paid  $15  for  a special  trip  to  a small  place,  I 
think  it  was  Boyce  city  to  put  up  advertising  matter;  paid  $5  a day  for 

his  time  and  expenses 

Boyson,  paid  $15  to  cover  expenses  of  his  boat  and  taking  electors  to 

polls . 1746, 

Campaign  committee  had  nothing  directly  to  do  with  work  I had  in  hand; 

did  not  report  to  them  in  detail 

Chase,  John,  paid  him  $45  for  a per  diem  of  $3  and  expenses  for  canvassing 

for  Stephenson  and  putting  up  lithographs;  lives  at  Oshkosh 

Chautauqua  grounds,  gave  $100  for  a fountain  in;  never  have  seen  it;  there 

wa$  one  put  in  at  the  time. 

Cigars,  $200;  they  were  handed  out  to  workers  to  be  distributed;  used  as 
advertising  matter;  each  one  wrapped  in  paper  by  itself  on  which  was 
printed:  “Never  swap  horses  in  middle  of  the  stream”  and  “Vote  for 
Uncle  Ike;”  think  we  were  asked  for  fully  as  many  cigars  as  we  dis- 
tributed voluntarily 1743,1747, 

Crawford,  E.  G,.,  my  brother-in-law;  paid  him  $125  to  cover  his  expenses 
to  Ripon  and  for  putting  up  advertising  matter  there  and  for  engaging 
workers  in  different  precincts  there;  paid  $50  additional  to  cover  his 
personal  expenses  during  two  months  prior  to  the  primary  election  and 
for  advertising  that  was  put  up  and  work  for  Stephenson. . 1743, 1744, 1747, 
Daily  Northwestern,  Oshkosh,  paid  $125  for  paid  advertising  space;  it 

was  page  or  half-page  advertsing  with  a picture  of  Stephenson 

Davis,  George,  $40  paid  to  was  for  a special  trip  into  one  of  the  neighboring 
counties,  putting  up  advertising  and  advancing  Stephenson’s  candidacy. 
Derber,  E.  J.,  Black  Wolf,  paid  $5  to  cover  his  expenses  on  primary  elec- 
tion day . 

Edmonds,  telephoned  several  different  times  in  reference  to  campaign; 

item  of  $25  for  that 

Edwards,  R.  H.,  Oshkosh,  paid  $100;  was  at  that  time  connected  with  our 
company,  Morgan  & Go.„  in  lumber  business;  made  several  trips  through 
the  county  and  adjacent  counties  and  put  up  advertising  matter  and  that 
was  to  cover  his  expenses. .. 1750, 


1283 

1284 

1286 

1284 

1286 


1285 

1285 

1284 


1285 

1284 

1734 

1741 

1743 

1750 

1748 

1750 

1749 
1747 
1749 
1743 


1748 


1751 

1742 

1749 

1749 

1748 

175] 


DIGEST  INDEX, 


LXXXVH 


Page. 

Morgan,  Earle  J.,  son-in-law  of  Senator  Stephenson,  Oshkosh,  Wis.,  testimony 
of — Continued. 

General  organization  work,  $1*,100,  that  took  in  all  other  expenses  aside  from 
those  that  came  under  the  head  of  general  advertising  and  public  dona- 
tions and  two  or  three  hundred  dollars  spent  for  workers  primary  election 
day,  expended  for  different  workers  to  carry  on  Stephenson  campaign; 

out  of  that  sum  I personally  gave  money  to  at  least  25  men 1744, 1746 

German  newspaper,  paid  about  $20  or  $25  to 1741, 1742 

Gruenewald,  town  of  Clayton,  $15  paid  to,  for  team  and  work  at  polls 1750 

Items  of  which  I kept  an  account  amounted  to  $2,300 1740 

Johnson,  Rice  Lake,  sent  him  $25  to  pay  for  his  services  in  putting  up  some 

advertising  matter 1747 

Johnson,  Winchester,  $10  paid  him  for  use  of  his  team,  as  I remember,  on 

primary  election  day  and  for  his  services  at  the  polls 1750 

Kane,  August,  paid  $125  to  cover  his  services  during  July  and  August 1744 

McDonald,  William,  Oshkosh,  paid  $25  for  work  for  Stephenson 1750 

Manning,  F.  M.,  paid  $44.25  for  canvassing;  connected  with  insurance 

company  at  Oshkosh 1748, 1749 

Manzer,  William,  Oshkosh,  paid  $25  to  put  up  some  advertising  matter  and 
he  put  in  considerable  time  prior  to  1st  of  September  in  Stephenson’s 

behalf . . 1750 

Memorandum  book  of  certain  portions  of  disbursements,  after  having  read 
from  it  before  joint  committee,  I tore  it  up  and  threw  it  in  waste-paper 
basket  in  my  office  at  Oshkosh;  can  not  give  date  I destroyed  it;  was  not 

original  memoranda,  but  tabulation  of  items  on  slips  of  paper 1735, 

1736, 1737, 1738, 1740, 1745 

Mershwa,  George,  Oshkosh,  paid  $20  for  work  for  Stephenson 1750 

Money,  did  not  spend  any,  for  purpose  of  bribing  or  corrupting  any  elector; 
so  far  as  I know  none  spent  that  way  by  men  to  whom  I intrusted 

funds... 1745,1751 

Organization  work  explained;  men  paid  for  time  at  polls  and  for  teams 

and  to  haul  voters  to  polls;  not  for  their  time  in  going  to  polls 1746 

Oshkosh  “home-coming  day,”  donation  of  $200  to,  think  I was  actuated  in 
making  that  contribution  by  fact  they  had  received  a similar  contribution, 

as  I was  given  to  understand,  by  Cook 1742, 1743 

Peterson,  Chris.,  Oshkosh,  paid  $15  for  work  for  Stephenson 1751 

Slips  of  paper,  on  which  I kept  memorandum  of  different  amounts  I spent, 
kept  in  a drawer  in  my  desk;  copied  them  into  the  book  after  I was 
called  to  testify  before  investigating  committee  at  Madison;  kept  adver- 
tising items  on  and  some  bills  that  had  been  rendered  from  time  to  time; 
slips  not  made  at  time  I made  payments;  destroyed  after  campaign  was 

finished .*1 1739, 1740, 1741 

Stephenson,  matter  of  my  having  spent  any  money  on  his  behalf  was 
entirely  voluntary  on  my  part;  there  was  no  thought  of  my  asking  him 
to  reimburse  me  at  any  time  and  I did  not  expect  it  at  the  time  I was 
expending  the  money  ; it  was  only  after  he  stated  to  me  very  emphatically 
that  every  cent  that  had  been  expended  during  his  campaign  was  to  be 
put  into,  his  expense  account,  that  report  was  made'  to  him  of  what  I had 

spent.  r . 1745,1747 

Stephenson,  received  $2,550  from  him  first  part  of  November,  after  cam-  *’  ’ 
paign  was  over;  had  expended  it  in  his  behalf  during  primary  campaign; 
did  not  render  him  an  account;  merely  told  him,  in  answer  to  a request 

which  he  made,  the  total  amount  that  I had  expended 1734, 1735, 1739 

Traveling  expenses,  $125,  money  was  spent  in  traveling  in  connection 

with  campaign 1743 

Williamson,  town  of  Nekimi,  $15  paid  to,  for  team  and  work  at  polls 1750 

Winnebago  County,  expenditures  distributed  largely  over;  Oshkosh  is 

dounty  seat  of 1746 

Winneconne,  paid  $10  to  a man  in  town  of;  can  not  recall  his  name ; rhe 
was  to  put  up  some  advertising  there  and  work  on  primary  election 

day . 1749, 1750 

Witness  before  joint  legislative  committee t 1734 

Workers  on  primary  election  day,  did  not  keep  an  accurate  account  of 
money  paid  to;  estimated  that  expense  as  closely  as  I could  in  makinh 
up  my  total  report,  largely  upon  memory;  think  those  items  amounted 
to  from  $200  to  $300;  names  of  five  at  Oshkosh  who  received  $5  each 
given 1740,1744,1751 


LXX  XVIII 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page. 

Morgan,  H.  H.,  assistant  United  States  attorney  for  the  western  district  of 

Wisconsin,  Madison,  Wis.,  testimony  of 925 

Ames,  A.  R.,  was  in  charge  of  the  county;  he  gave  me  $50;  how  I expended 

it  in  detail 929,  930, 931 

Democrats,  would  vote  at  Republipan  primaries,  explained 928 

Edmonds,  asked  him  for  $226,  giving  him  detailed  requisition;  copy  of 
letter  written  him  August  7,  1908,  telling  specific  purposes  for  which 
money  was  required;  amount  asked  for  in  letter,  $164,  came  up  to  $226; 
when  in  conference  with  him  it  was  decided  to  send  literature  in  Dane 

County  out  in  2-cent  instead  of  1-cent  envelopes 926,  927,  928 

Gordon,  George,  I am  assistant  in  same  district  where  he  is  United  States 

attorney .-***. 933 

Keyes,  E.  W.,  postmaster  at  Madison,  my  recollection  is  that  both  the 
check  for  $226  and  for  $73  were  indorsed  by  me  to  him,  inasmuch  as  a 

large  part  of  sum  was  was  taken  to  purchase  stamps  at  that  time 928 

Money,  I received  $299  from  Edmonds,  by  Puelieher’s  checks;  received 
draft  for  $266  from  Puelicher,  August  20;  at  a later  time  I received  $73; 

received  $50  from  A.  R.  Ames 925,  926,  928,  929,  932 

Money,  none  used  by  me  or,  so  far  as  I know,  by  those  to  whom  I disbursed 

it  for  directly  or  indirectly  bribing  or  corruptly  influencing  voters 933 

Stephenson,  I participated  in  his  campaign  in  1908 925 

Testimony  before  Senate  committee  that  I was  charged  with  receiving 
$2,555  is  a falsehood;  my  recollection  is  that  the  testimony  given  before 
the  Wisconsin  Senate  committee  by  some  witness  was  to  the  effect  that 
I had  received  $255,  and  by  moving  that  up  one  decimal  point  you 
would  have  $2,550;  that  is  the  explanation  I made  to  my  friends;  it  was 

not  verified,  though,  before  being  printed  and  sent  to  the  senate 931,  932 

Wisconsin  Senate  committee,  I was  subpoenaed  and  answered  promptly; 

the  senators  failed  to  call  me 932 

Morley,  Calvin  E.,  as  to  taking  original  memorandum  book  from  the  affida- 
vit of 1646 

Morley,  Calvin  E.,  ex-Assistant  Sergeant  at  Arms,  House  of  Representatives, 

Washington,  D.  C.,  resides  Viroqua,  Wis.,  affidavit  of 2006 

Age,  68  years 2006 

Book  containing  original  entries  of  expenditures  marked  “Exhibit  A”...  2007 

Boyle,  Lewis  C.,  handled  campaign  and  campaign  fund  with  him;  gave 

him  $125.80 2007 

Campaign  headquarters  at  Milwaukee,  received  from,  $500;  $200  sent  back 

after  primary  campaign  closed 2007 

Campaign  work  for  Stephenson  in  Viroqua  and  Vernon  County  during  pri- 
mary contest,  at  request  of  Edmonds,  who  gave  no  particular  instructions, 
except  told  to  use  own  judgment,  and  they  wanted  to  carry  on  a clean 
campaign  and  make  the  expenditures  as  judicious  as  possible  and  not  to 
expend  any  unnecessary  moneys,  and  no  moneys  should  be  expended 

excepting  for  legitimate  purposes 2006 

Disbursements  of  $174.20,  itemized;  kept  in  memorandum  book,  which 

contains  originals  entries;  submitted  for  inspection 2007 

Madison  investigation,  did  not  appear  as  witness  at 2007 

Money  not  disbursed  for  the  purpose  of  corruptly  or  unlawfully  influencing 

or  bribing  any  person 2007,  2008 

Precinct  workers,  instructions  given  to;  none  employed  unless  they  were 

supporters  of  Stephenson  at  the  time  of  employment 2007 

Statement  of  disbursements,  never  called  upon  for  itemized 2007 

Services,  made  no  charge  for 2007 

Stephenson,  supporter  of,  at  all  times  and  prior  to  work  in  campaign 2006 

Viroqua,  resided  in',  about  past  52  years 2006 

Morris,  Thomas,  lieutenant  governor  of  Wisconsin,  testimony  of 1129 

Blaine  resolution,  I testified  before  joint  investigating  committee,  I voted 
for  it  because  specific  facts  had  been  set  up;  I considered  it,  and  not  the 
charges,  started  investigation;  charges  were  filed  and  resulted  in-  the 

adoption  of  the  resolution 1130, 1131 

Caucus  and  primary  election  law,  I testified  before  joint  committee  I con- 
sidered both  binding,  if  fairly  and  honestly  conducted 1130 

Chicago,  Titus,  Husting,  and  myself  went  separately  to;  met  there,  I think, 
at  Great.  Northern  Hotel  in  the  morning  about  10  o’clock;  I think  I went 
down  on  the  Milwaukee  line;  do  not  remember  whether  we  discussed 
object  of  trip  in  lobby  of  hotel;  from  there  went  to  McCordic’s  office  in 
Rookery  Building 1145, 1146, 1147 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


LXXXIX 


Page. 

Morris,  Thomas,  lieutenant  governor  of  Wisconsin,  testimony  of — Continued. 
Committees,  senate  and  joint,  continued  sessions  at  Madison  after  election 
of  Stephenson;  being  in  possession  of  information  that  Shields  came  from 
Washington  with  money  to  influence  election  of  Stephenson,  record 
shows  no  evidence  of  effort  to  run  it  down,  but  members  of  senate  com- 
mittee tried  to  get  witnesses  and  could  not;  do  not  know  whether  members 
of  senate  committee  communicated  Shields  matter  to  house  committee; 

I know  I did  not 1169, 1170, 1171, 1172 

Conversations,  before  I went  on  errand  to  Chicago,  held,  I think,  with 
Senator  Husting,  Senator  Owen,  Senator  Sanborn,  and  I think  I talked 
with  Mr.  Van  der  Cook,  reporter  on  a Milwaukee  paper,  but  whether  it 
was  before  I went  or  after  I came  back  I am  not  certain;  talked  with 

Blaine;  may  have  talked  it  over  with  several  other  senators 1145 

Cook,  W.  H.: 

Asked  us  to  withhold  information  given  us  until  such  time  as  he  gave 
us  permission  to  disclose  it;  feel  it  my  duty  to  disclose  it  now,  irre- 

, spective  of  that  agreement;  his  reasons  for  keeping  it  secret 1136, 

1153, 1154, 1155, 1156 

Conversation  with,,  about  1st  of  June,  1911,  was  between  time  com- 
mittee had  filed  its  report  and  the  time  when  legislature  adopted  the 
resolution  recommending  that  the  United  States  Senate  investigate 

the  matter 1136,1140,1142 

Conversation  with,  in  Chicago,  occurred  a very  short  time  after  he  was 
a witness  before  Helm  committee;  I do  not  know  whether  he  had 
testified  before  the  Lorimer  committee  of  the  United  States  Senate 

then 1150,1175,1176 

Discussed  the  disappearance  of  Shields  when  he  was  subpoenaed  by 
the  joint  committee  and  claimed  to  know  where  he  was,  in  fact,  at 
that  time — hidden  in  a Chicago  hotel;  I do  not  remember  if  he  stated 

where  he  got  that  information 1157 

Had  conversation  with  on  train  when  I was  going  home  from  Chicago 
and  he  was  going  to  Duluth;  Senator  Husting  present;  do  not  think 

I had  a conversation  alone  with  him 1138 

Hines’s  partner  in  lumber  business,  conversation  with  about  1st  of  June 
in  McCordic’s  law  office  in  Rookery  Building,  Chicago,  at  which 
Senator  Husting  and  Assistant  Attorney  General  Titus,  of  Wisconsin, 
were  present,  about  deal  between  Stephenson  and  Hines,  whereby 
he  said  approximately  a hundred  thousand  dollars  was  raised  for 
purpose  of  securing  Stephenson’s  election  in  the  legislature;  and  that 
Shields  knew  all  about  it;  said  sum  was  used  to  keep  Democrats 
away  from  joint  session  and  for  special  train  that  brought  Reader  out . . 1133, 
1134, 1135, 1136, 1137, 1142, 1153, 1159, 1160, 1176 
Promised  to  use  his  influence  with  Shields  and  to  get  him  to  come  for- 
ward and  tell  about  the  whole  thing;  I have  never  seen  him  since; 
he  agreed  to  write  to  McCordic  and  McCordic  was  to  write  to  Titus 
and  let  him  know  result  of  interview  with  Shields;  recollect  I heard 
from  Titus  that  he  did  write  McCordic  saying  Shields  had  gone  to 

Canada . 1138,1179 

To  whom  McCordic  referred  is  same  one  over  whom  controversy  took 

place  in  Lorimer  case 1151 

Crownhart,  C.  H.,  chairman  of  industrial  commission,  Madison,  was  asked, 
as  I understand  it,  by  Saunderson  how  much  the  progressives  would  be 
willing  to  pay  to  have  charge  that  three  Democrats  received  money  to 
absent  themselves  from  legislature  worked  out  by  a detective,  claiming 
information  was  here  in  Milwaukee  and  that  he  knew  who  had  it;  re- 
fused to  pay  for  services  of  a detective;  have  talked  with  him  since 

United  States  Senate  committee  was  appointed 1134, 1135, 1163 

Crownhart,  first  heard  from  him  that  Shields  had  been  to  Washington  to 

see  Stephenson  and  probably  come  back  with  money 1169 

Hambrecht,  was  one  of  the  assembly  members  of  joint  committee 1130 

Hatton,  I expended  no  money  for  him  among  voters;  testified  before  joint 
committee  with  reference  to  spending  senatorial  candidate’s  money;  I 
thought  it  wrong,  and  that  if  I had  it  to  do  over  again  I wouldn’t  spend 
that  $25  for  him;  I think  it  is  wrong  now,  but  the  record  shows  that  the 

money  was  spent  for  printing  bill  and  postage 1167, 1168 

Hatton  supported  him  m campaign,  but  not  in  senate 1131 

Husting,  have  discussed  incident  of  trip  to  Chicago  with,  to-day 1146 


xc 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page. 

Morris,  Thomas,  lieutenant  governor  of  Wisconsin,  testimony  of — Continued. 

Husting,  I have  discussed  conversation  at  Chicago  with  him  several  times; 
we  discussed  what  to  do  about  it;  we  were  anxious  to  get  it  before  the 

legislature  if  we  could 

Husting,  Senator,  was  my  associate  on  investigating  committee 

Husting  resolution,  testimony  before  joint  committee  that  I voted  against 

it  because  no  specific  cases  of  fraud  wore  set  up 

Kittle,  William,  of  Madison,  conveyed  to  me  same  information  that  Saun- 
derson  gave  Crownhart,  and  I refused  to  pay  for  services  of  a detective; 

I talked  with  him  several  times  at  Madison  and  at  my  home  in  La 

Crosse 1135,1163 

Lieutenant  governor,  I preside  over  senate  as;  journal  would  show  my 

absence,  but  not  where  I was 1145 

Marsh,  chairman  of  senate  committee,  I concur  with  his  statements  as  to 
the  reasons  for  the  findings;  but  I have  other  reasons  for  concurring  with 

findings 1131,1132 

Marsh,  Senator,  I think  he  knew  about  conversation  in  Chicago  with  Cook 
and  rumors  with  reference  to  Shields  bringing  blank  check  from  Washing- 
ton ; I do  not  know  whether  I talked  it  over  with  him  at  time  investigat- 
ing committee  was  in  session 1177, 1178, 1179 

Member  of  Senate  of  State  of  Wisconsin  in  1908  from  thirty-second  district.  1130 
Memorandum  book  of  expenses,  I always  carry  one;  I do  not  remember 

whether  I made  any  entry  of  my  expenses  on  this  trip  to  Chicago 1143, 1144 

New  information,  I have  had  some  since  the  investigation  which  would  tend 

to  throw  new  light  on  the  matter 1132 

Report  made  by  committee  of  three  senators,  I joined  in  it 1131 

Saunderson,  assistant  sergeant  at  arms  of  senate  at  time  Stephenson  was 
elected;  have  not  talked  with  him  personally,  understand  that  he  was 
informed  by  another  party  here  in  Milwaukee,  whose  name  I do  not 
know,  that  part  of  money  went  to  three  Democrats  who  walked  out  of 
joint  session;  is  an  attorney;  informed  that  he  had  this  information  by 

Kittle 1134,1139,1173,1175  . 

Shields,  Cook  said  he  went  to  Chicago  and  insisted  on  being  paid  $15,000 
by  Hines  for  his  services  at  Madison;  that  there  was  a dispute  about  it; 
that  he  returned  to  Duluth  to  talk  matter  over  with  Cook’s  partner;  that 
partner  went  with  him  to  Chicago  and  it  was  settled  by  Hines  giving 
him,  I think,  $7,500  and  a certain  line  of  fire  insurance;  I have  never 
seen  him;  Cook  got  this  information  from  his  partner  and,  I think,  from 

Shields 1137, 1138, 1157, 1168, 1176, 1177 

Shields,  Robert,  Superior;  informed  he  went  to  Washington  just  before 
election  in  legislature  and  saw  Stephenson  and  came  back  with  money, 
which  I understand  was  in  the  form  of  a blank  check;  our  committee  sub- 
poenaed him  and  he  disappeared;  left  the  State;  we  were  never  able  to 
obtain  his  testimony;  got  information  concerning  blank  check  first  in 
letter  from  Kittle;  information  reached  me  since  matter  has  been  with 


United  States  Senate;  I did  not  know  it  when  I went  to  Chicago 1134, 

1159, 1160, 1161, 1162, 1163, 1164, 1165, 1166, 1167, 1168, 1169, 1172 
Stephenson,  I withheld  my  vote  from  him  while  the  charges  were  being 
investigated,  intending  to  vote  for  him  if  it  showed  he  received  the 

nomination  fairly;  never  did  vote  for  him 1131 

Stephenson,  senate  committee  tried  to  subpoena  him  and  he  would  not 

come 1172 

Titus,  came  to  me  and  said  he  had  a friend  in  Chicago,  McCordic,  an  attor- 
ney, who  had  talked  with  Cook,  and  that  Cook  had  some  information 
with  reference  to  election  of  Stephenson  by  legislature;  introduced 

Husting  and  me,  in  Chicago,  to  McCordic,  who  sent  for  Cook 1137, 

1141, 1144, 1147, 1148, 1149, 1150, 1151, 1152 
Titus,  his  physical  and  mental  condition  extremely  poor  during  last  year 

and  a half 1179 

Wagner,  man  indicted  and  convicted  of  perjury;  this  man  that  Saunder- 
son is  supposed  to  have  talked  with  claims  that  that  transaction  to  which 
he  testified  really  took  place,  as  I understand  it;  personally  I never 
attached  any  weight  to  that  testimony 1139 


1156 

1140 

1130 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


XCI 


Page. 

Morse,  Roy  L.,  attorney,  Fond  du  Lac,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1204, 1215 

Account  of  my  expenditures,  did  not  render  one  to  anyone  connected  with 

campaign 1211 

Blaine,  John  J.,  sixth  specific  charge  by;  statement  therein  that  Stephen- 
son or  his  representatives  paid  me  sum  of  $1 ,000  is  not  true;  only  possible 
foundation  of  charge  is  receipt  and  expenditure  of  the  $700  to  which  I 

have  testified 1204, 1207 

Check  of  $450,  never  got  one;  can  not  account  for  statement  that  I did, 
except  as  I inquired  from  Mr.  Black  in  regard  to  it  down  before  the  inves- 
tigating committee  at  Madison,  and  I think  he  told  me  that  the  check 
showed  it  was  not  $450  but  $250,  and  that  the  $200  charged  up  at  that 

time  went  to  Edmonds  for  some  other  purpose 1205, 1206, 1207 

Downey,  James,  North  Fond  du  Lac;  paid  him  $90  to  organize  his  village 
in  interest  of  Stephenson;  did  not  report  to  me  he  spent  it  that  way;  I 
know  certain  men  that  he  employed ; do  not  know  what  he  paid  them . 1208, 1209 

Drankus,  James,  paid  him  $15  to  be  used  in  the  fourth  ward 1209 

Edmonds,  second  payment  of  $250  came  from  Milwaukee  with  a note 

signed  by  him;  can  not  give  date 1205, 1206 

Fond  du  Lac,  have  been  resident  of,  for  10  years 1204, 1218 

Green  Lake  County,  made  two  trips  in  east  end  of 1208 

Kinney,  John,  paid  him  $10  to  do  work  in  city  of  Fond  du  Lac  in  interest 

of  Stephenson 1209 

List  of  names  of  men  to  whom  I paid  money  left  at  Madison  with  some  one 
connected  with  investigating  committee;  asked  me  to  do  so  by  vote; 

in  absence  of,  small  items  paid  a few  workers  given  from  memory 1212, 

1215, 1216, 1217 

Memorandum  of  my  expenses  during  campaign,  I was  not  able  to  find  that; 

I had  a tablet  upon  my  desk  in  my  office,  in  which  I put  down  the  amount 

of  money  I had  spent,  when  I came  back  from  a trip 1207 

Men  to  whom  I gave  money  did  not  render  any  account  to  me  as  to  method 
of  their  expenditures;  presume  they  spent  part  of  it  in  treating,  although 

I have  no  personal  knowledge  as  to  that 1210 

Money,  all  paid  out  except  what  I kept  for  my  own  services;  paid  to  differ- 
ent people  for  their  services  and  to  distribute  to  others  in  working  for 
Stephenson  in  Fond  du  Lac  County;  partly  for  workers  at  polls  and  when 
I found  a man  of  some  influence  was  in  favor  of  Stephenson  I got  him  to 
put  in  some  time  and  I paid  him  for  that  time;  do  not  think  any  was 

spent  in  paying  men  to  go  to  polls : 1210 

Money,  how  expended,  paid  $200  to  men  outside  of  the  city  of  Fond  du  Lac 
in  the  county  and  about  $200  in  the  city  of  Fond  du  Lac;  I paid  $50  for 
advertising,  stamps,  putting  up  posters,  and  distributing  literature;  and 
$150  for  my  personal  expenses  in  going  around  the  city  and  county  in  the 

interest  of  Stephenson 1207, 1208 

Money,  I received  in  all  $700  from  Stephenson  fund 1205 

Money,  none  used  by  me  and  to  my  knowledge  none  used  by  those  to  whom 

I paid  it  for  purpose  of  bribing  or  corruptly  influencing  electors 1217 

Morgan,  Earle,  Oshkosh,  son-in-law  of  Stephenson,  had  first  talk  with  in 
reference  to  campaign;  either  had  a telephone  message  or  letter  from  him 
stating  he  heard  I was  working  for  Stephenson;  telephoned  later  and 
asked  me  to  organize  down  there;  told  him  I could  not;  gave  him  some 

names;  next  thing  I knew  Overbeck  came  down 1211 

Moriarity,  Pat,  paid  him  $15  to  do  work  in  city  of  Fond  du  Lac  in  interest  of 

Stephenson 1209 

Morse,  E.  A.,  Antigo,  I do  not  know  anything  about  sums  of  money  received 

by  him  in  campaign;  is  Congressman  from  that  district  now 1217 

Murray,  George,  paid  him  $60;  went  around  through  the  southern  and 
eastern  towns  and  carried  literature  with  him  and  employed  poll  workers 

there 1209 

Murray,  James,  paid  him  $20  to  use  in  the  north  wards  of  the  city  of  Waupun, 

Fond  du  Lac  County;  do  not  know  whether  he  used  it  in  interest  of 

Stephenson 1 1209 

Offices  held,  district  attorney  for  Fond  du  Lac  County  from  1901  to  1905; 

city  attorney  of  Ripon 1204 

Organise,  defined,  to  so  arrange  matters  that  votes  can  be  gotten  out  for  the 
candidates — to  advertise  the  candidate  and  advertise  what  he  stands  for.  1209 


xcn 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page. 


Morse,  Roy  L.,  attorney,  Fond  du  Lac,  Wis.,  testimony  of — Continued. 

Overbeck,  first  had  a conversation  with,  at  Fond  du  Lac  in  my  office;  asked 
me  to  organize  Fond  du  Lac  County;  talked  over  amount  required;  said 
that  committee  or  somebody  had  decided  that  $700  could  be  sent  up  to 

me 1211 

Practicing  attorney,  have  been  since  1896 1218 

Puelicher,  received  first  $200  from  him  in  city  of  Milwaukee  to  organize 
Fond  du  Lac  County  in  interest  of  Stephenson  primary  campaign;  paid 
out  all  of  that  to  others;  did  not  render  an  account  of  it;  received  it  on 

second  Saturday  before  the  primary;  in  cash 1205 

Saloons,  I presume  I stopped  at  them  on  my  way  around  the  county  and 
bought  for  the  different  ones  who  were  there;  out  of  $150  expense  money 
I spent  in  going  around  the  county  should  not  say  more  than  $25  alto- 
gether was  spent  that  way 1210 

Services,  I arranged  with  Overbeck  or  Puelicher,  I think  Puelicher,  to 


receive  $25  a day  for  my  services  in  that  campaign;  they  said  they 
should  not  spend  in  Fond  du  Lac  County  more  than  $700,  and  I could 
take  my  $25  a day  out  of  that;  I did  not  deduct  that  much,  because  the 
campaign  required  more  than  would  be  left;  I had,  when  I got  through, 

about  $90  for  my  own  services 1207, 1208 

Third  payment  of  $250  received  two  or  three  days  before  the  primary 1206 

Williams,  D.  O.,  my  law  partner,  gave  him  $15;  think  he  spent  most  of  that 

in  work  he  had  done  while  I was  out  of  the  city 1209 

Murphy,  Lawrence,  broker,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1965 

Bribery,  did  not  think  Vandersee’s  proposition  as  to  securing  services  of 

Pestalozzi  was  in  the  nature  of 1965, 1966, 1967 

McGovern,  Postalozzi  said  he  was  identified  with  his  campaign;  I did  not 
suggest  that  he  drop  him  (McGovern);  Pestalozzi  did  not  say  he  was  em- 
ployed by 1965, 1969, 1971 

Money,  Vandersee  mentioned  $1,500  or  $2,000  as  being  the  sum  to  be  paid  to 
Pestalozzi  if  he  should  secure  the  Italian  vote  in  the  interest  of  Senator 

Stephenson 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970 

Pestalozzi,  talked  with  him  about  trying  to  organize  the  Italian  voters  in  the 
State  in  the  interest  of  Senator  Stephenson;  never  offered  him  any 
money  with  the  intention  of  bribing  him  to  support  Senator  Stephenson; 

did  not  consider  the  proposition  of  Vandersee  in  tee  nature  of  a bribe 1965, 

1966, 1967, 1968, 1969 

Pestalozzi  told  me  he  was  identified  with  tee  McGovern  campaign;  did  not 

suggest  to  him  that  he  drop  McGovern 1965, 1969, 1971 

Vandersee,  Frank,  asked  me  to  try  to  interest  Pestalozzi  in  the  Stephenson 
campaign;  said  he  (Pestalozzi)  would  be  paid  for  it;  did  not  consider  his 
proposition  in  the  nature  of  a bribe;  think  tee  sum  mentioned  was 

$1,500  or  $2,000 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969 

Vandersee,  gave  me  impression  that  he  had  authority  to  make  the  proposi- 
tion which  he  did  as  to  securing  tee  services  of  Pestalozzi 1970, 1971, 1972 

N. 

Newspaper  advertising  or  purchase  of  editorial  influence,  as  to  statute  on  the  sub- 
ject of 356,  357 


O. 


Objections  by  counsel  for  Stephenson,  notice  taken  of,  bv  subcommittee 575, 

576, 1103, 1118, 1127, 1128, 1131, 1132, 1133, 1140, 1525 

O’Connor,  D.  J.,  practicing  physician,  Appleton,  Wis.,  tesimony  of 817 

Account,  I made  it  out  myself;  it  was  written  with  a pencil;  I do  not  know 
where  the  statement  is;  do  not  remember  whether  or  not  I left  it  in  Way- 
land’s  office;  I can  remember  there  were  items  of  expense  for  cigars  and 
liquor  and  automobile  hire  and  moneys  expended  on  an  auto  trip  through- 
out the  county 818,  819 

Automobile  trip  through  county  one  afternoon,  spent  $15  for  auto  hire;  did 
not  pay  any  money  to  persons;  spent  $135  that  afternoon  for  drinks  and 
cigars;  I did  not  drink  on  trip;  did  not  see  anyone  drunk;  character  of  trip 
in  detail;  was  gone  about  12  hours;  covered  150  or  160  miles;  visited 
about  80  saloons 820,  821,  824, 825,  826,  827, 828,  829,  830 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


XCIII 


Page. 

O’Connor,  D.  J.,  practicing  physician,  Appleton,  Wis.,  testimony  of — Continued. 

Cigar  bill  of  $52  or  $62,  purchased  immediately  after  returning  from  Mil- 
waukee before  receiving  Edmonds’s  letter;  I think  it  was  latter  part  of 
July;  I gave  them  around  to  men  in  that  county;  some  of  them  distributed 
in  my  office;  there  were  about  a thousand  cigars,  and  I returned  either  350 
or  450  to  drugstore  where  I bought  them;  testimony  before  joint  legislative 

committee,  as  read,  is  correct 819,  820,  821,  826,  827 

Edmonds,  arranged  with  him  six  or  seven  weeks  before  the  primary  in  Mil- 
waukee; I received  a letter  from  him  previous  to  my  visit;  I was  to  go 
around  the  county,  interest  the  different  people  in  Stephenson’s  campaign, 
and  put  up  some  literature;  I was  to  have  $500;  after  I returned  home  I re- 
ceived a letter  from  him  “ to  call  the  deal  off  ” ; I do  not  know  why  he  can- 
celed agreement 817,  818, 819,  825,  827 

Edmonds,  asked  me  the  day  I was  there  what  I thought  it  would  cost  to 
make  a thorough  campaign  of  Outagamie  County;  I told  him  a great  deal 
more  than  $500;  he  thought  $500  would  be  about  enough  to  spend  up 
there  with  what  they  were  going  to  spend  through  Way  land;  he  limited 

me  to  that  amount  and  I said  I would  do  what  I could  with  it 826 

Money,  how  expended,  read  from  testimony  before  joint  legislative  commit- 
tee; testimony  correct 820,  821,  822, 823, 824, 825 

Money,  I did  not  use  any  for  purpose  of  bribing  or  corruptly  influencing 

voters;  no  one  expended  any  for  me 829 

Outagamie  County,  I made  a canvass  of  it  for  Stephenson  in  primary  cam- 
paign of  1908 817 

Sherman  House,  at  Appleton,  I bought  some  cigars  in  addition  to  $62  worth; 
bought  some  liquor  there;  it  was  just  treating  as  I would  go  in  there  and 
find  somebody  there;  town  people  drank  with  me;  that  was  during  time 
of  this  primary;  bought  a supper  costing  about  $1.60  there  for  driver 

and  myself  day  of  auto  trip 823,  824,  826,  827 

Stephenson,  stood  for  him  as  candidate  on  automobile  trip;  not  because  I 
received  money  from  Wayland;  I had  supported  him  before;  had  always 

known  his  family 822,823 

Sum  of  $307,  I spent  about  $1.60  of  it  for  food  and  $305.40  for  an  automobile 

and  for  whisky  and  cigars 826,  827 

Sum  of  $307.30,  I received  it  some  time  after  the  primary;  I had  expended 
that  sum  out  of  my  own  pocket  on  account  of  Stephenson  campaign;  I 
rendered  an  account  and  the  account  was  paid;  think  it  was  a check 

signed  by  Edmonds 818,  825 

Wayland,  I brought  my  account  to  his  office  and  he  asked  me  what  the 
amount  was;  I told  him,  and  I had  down  what  it  was  for;  he  said  he 

would  take  it  up  with  Edmonds  and  I would  get  paid 818,  819 

Wayland,  renewed  arrangements  with  him;  he  stated  he  was  representing 
Stephenson;  he  told  me  to  continue  to  do  what  I could  for  Stephenson’s 
election,  and  when  I got  through  he  would  pay  me  what  money  was 

expended 818 

Orton,  Robert  E.,  banking  business,  Darlington,  Wis.,  affidavit  of 2008 

Edmonds,  E.  A.,  under  date  of  August  13,  1908,  received  check  for  $1.50 
from,  reimbursement  for  expenses  in  having  banners  posted  in  the  inter- 
ests of  Stephenson 2009 

Edmonds,  under  date  of  August  27, 1908,  received  sum  of  $300  from,  accord- 
ing to  agreement  previously  made  with,  the  money  to  be  used  in  organiz- 
ing the  various  voting  precincts  in  Lafayette  County  in  the  interests  of 

Stephenson 2008 

Money  disbursed,  with  the  exception  of  payment  of  $100  to  William  Wilson, 
believes  none  disbursed  in  the  nature  of  a bribe  or  for  unlawful  purposes; 
as  to  money  paid  to  Wilson,  has  no  knowledge  as  to  what  purpose  it  was 

put  by  Wilson 2009 

Statement  of  expenditures  in  detail;  made  from  memorandum  book  kept 
during  primary  campaign;  book  now  in  his  possession;  items  explained; 
never  rendered  any  statement  to  any  representatives  of  Stephenson; 
has  no  recollection  of  having  been  asked  for  any;  in  all  cases  in  the  past 
where  he  has  handled  money  for  others  for  campaign  purposes  an  account- 
ing has  always  been  made 2008,2009 


xcrv 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page. 

Overbeck,  Henry,  real  estate  business,  Sturgeon  Bay,  Wis.,  testimony  of. . 830,  2091 
Campaign,  I was  at  work  during  practically  all  of  the  campaign;  was  in 
Milwaukee  part  of  the  time  and  part  of  the  time  throughout  the  western 

part  of  the  State 833 

Crandall,  paid  him  $20  or  $30  for  distributing  literature  in  Door  County. . 831 

Democratic  members  who  absented  themselves  from  joint  session  of  legis- 
lature March  4,  so  far  as  I know  no  consideration  was  paid  them  or  any 

promise  or  agreement  made  them  to  procure  their  absence 2094 

Door  County,  I sent  three  or  four  poll  workers  from  three  to  five  dollars 
apiece  in  different  towns  at  different  times,  but  the  names  I can  not  recall. . 832 

Edmonds,  assisted  him  in  general  campaign  of  1908  throughout  State;  knew 
that  he  sent  out  circular  letters  to  candidates  for  assembly  and  senate  to 
find  if  they  needed  assistance ; knew  he  received  a great  many  responses ; 

do  not  know  to  how  many  he  sent  aid 2092,  2093 

Edmonds,  left  Madison  some  time  before  1909;  left  matter  in  my  charge; 
think  he  went  to  Washington  on  some  tariff  matters;  furnished  me  with 
funds  I disbursed  during  that  time,  $513;  after  campaign  was  over,  some 
time  about  middle  of  March,  gave  me  $300  as  compensation. . 2093,  2094,  2095 
Edmonds,  recollect  that  during  progress  of  general  campaign  when  he  was 
chairman  of  State  central  committee,  he  received  a communication  from 
chairman  of  Door  County  committee  requesting  a contribution  and  say- 
ing that  Reynolds  had  serious  opposition  and  they  needed  help ; inquired 
of  me  what  I thought  about  it;  advised  him  to  send  it  directly  to  Reynolds 

instead  of  chairman 2092 

Game  warden,  I was  formerly  the  State  warden;  not  at  time  of  1908  primary.  832 
Haney,  John  L.,  manufacturer  of  veneer,  Kewaunee,  I paid  him  $110  to 
be  used  in  hiring  teams  to  bring  people  to  the  polls  and  to  hire  men  to 
check  up  and  see  who  go  to  the  polls  and  to  call  their  attention  to  voting 

for  Stephenson 831,  833 

Jesson,  on  Washington  Isle,  I sent  him  $10  for  looking  after  that  polling 

place 831,832 

Legislature  of  1909,  was  in  attendance  upon  in  the  interest  of  Stephen- 
son; kept  tab  upon  members  and  kept  track  of  their  presence  and  ab- 
sence and  things  of  that  kind 2091,  2093 

Members  of  legislature,  a usual  thing  for  them  to  pair  during  Stephenson 

contest 2092 

Miner,  E.  S.,  Sturgeon  Bay,  I paid  him  $100;  was  then  a candidate  for 
Congress;  was  not  nominated;  was  a former  member;  paid  him  to  get 
men  and  teams  for  poll  work;  looked  after  portions  of  Door  County  that 
he  was  visiting;  defeated  by  Kiistermann  in  primary;  as  he  made  can- 
vass throughout  the  county  the  agreement  was  to  divide  the  expense; 
he  was  to  hire  workers  and  he  was  to  pay  a part  of  it  and  we  were  to  pay  a 

part  of  it 831,834 

Money,  I did  not  spend  any  to  pay  or  compensate  electors  to  vote  for 
Stephenson;  did  not  use  any  for  purpose  of  bribing  or  corruptly  influ- 
encing electors;  to  my  knowledge  none  used  for  that  purpose  by  people 

to  whom  I gave  money 

Money,  none  paid  or  agreed  to  be  paid  by  me,  or  to  my  knowledge  by 
anyone,  to  any  member  of  assembly  or  senate  for  influencing  his  vote 

in  interest  of  Stephenson 

Money  was  to  be  expended  in  Kewaunee  and  Door  Counties  and  in  pay- 
ing my  personal  expenses;  no  part  of  it  for  salary  for  me 

Morse,  Roy,  I had  a talk  with  him;  he  was  not  a game  warden  or  deputy; 

I selected  him,  and  he  made  arrangement  to  look  after  campaign  work 

with  Edmonds;  was  located  at  Fond  du  Lac;  I gave  him  no  money 

Pair  between  Assemblymen  Ramsey  and  Fenelon,  I arranged  it  through 

Mr.  Reed 

Pair’  between  Senator  Randolph  and  Assemblyman  Daub;  I did  not 
arrange  it;  in  talking  over  list  of  absentees,  I learned  that  both  were 

absent  and  had  arranged  a pair  between  themselves 2091,  2092 

Perry,  M.  W.,  in  manufacturing,  business  at  Kewaunee,  paid  him  money 

for  work  in  Kewaunee  County 831,  833 

Political  promises  or  agreements,  none  made  by  me  or  by  anyone,  to  my 
knowledge,  to  any  member  of  assembly  or  senate  as  a consideration  or 
for  purpose  of  influencing  any  vote  in  interest  of  Stephenson 2094 


832 

2094 

831 

833 
2093 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


XCV 


Page. 

Overbeck,  Henry,  real  estate  business,  Sturgeon  Bay,  Wis.,  testimony  of — Con. 

Reed,  called  him  up  morning  of  March  4 and  asked  him  to  see  Fenelon 
and  try  to  arrange  a pair  or  to  have  Fenelon  telegraph  Ramsey  and  ask 
him  to  pair  with  Fenelon;  called  him  up  later  to  ascertain  if  telegram 

had  been  sent  Ramsey  and  he  informed  me  that  it  had  been 2093 

Stephenson,  after  general  assembly  convened,  did  not  render  him  an 
account  directly  for  services  or  expenditures  made  during  that  session 

in  his  behalf;  did  not  pay  any  money  to  me  directly 2895,  2096 

Stephenson,  I had  always  been  his  supporter 832 

Sum  of  $300,  unaccounted  for,  used  by  me  in  paying  my  personal  expenses 

in  traveling  in  eastern  part  of  State 832 

Sum  of  $513,  how  disbursed  by  me  at  Madison  during  legislative  campaign; 
paid  I).  H.  Davies,  whom  Edmonds  had  employed,  $145;  paid  Young, 
who  came  from  Milwaukee,  expenses  for  two  or  three  days,  which 
amounted  to  $18;  near  as  I can  divide  rest  up,  paid  $35  for  railroad  fare, 
about  $125  for  hotels,  means,  and  incidentals,  and  $195  for  telegraph  and 

telephoning 2094 

Sum  of  $771  received  by  me  to  be  used  in  Stephenson  campaign;  $71  of 
it  was  paid  out  by  me  before  I received  any  money  from  Edmonds;  $100 
of  it  was  received  early  in  the  campaign,  and  then  I received  $500;  I 
would  not  even  approximate  the  date;  all  disbursed  to  parties  named 
and  a few  whose  names  I can  not  remember,  with  balance  used  for  my 

personal  expenses 830,  832,  2095 

White,  T.  M.,  paid  him  $100  to  get  teams  and  men  at  polls;  he  was  partner 
in  manufacturing  business  with  John  L.  Haney,  Kewaunee 831,  833 

P. 


Pairs,  motion  of  counsel  for  Stephenson  to  strike  out  all  expressions  of  opinion 

in  testimony  of  Zimmerman  in  relation  to,  and  the  effect  of 1525 

Patrick,  L.  S.,  testimony  of 1294 

Stephenson,  was  once  his  private  secretary;  not  recently;  not  in  1908;  think 
check  he  gave  me  for  $190.99  was  a settlement  for  expenditures  I made 
during  the  entire  year;  think  part  of  it  had  some  connection  with  his  cam- 
paign; I paid  some,  I think,  for  postage  and  some  for  traveling  expenses; 
could  not  tell  how  much;  have  no  memorandum  of  it;  did  not  receive  any 

other  money  from  him  or  his  managers  for  campaign  purposes 1295 

Pearson,  C.  L.,  State  senator  of  Wisconsin  in  1909,  farmer,  testimony  of 1582 

Domachowski  told  me  on  the  day  of  election  he  had  been  offered  $1,500  to 
stay  out  of  sesssion  while  vote  was  being  taken;  about  a week  later  told 
me  that  it  was  a joke;  impressed  me  when  he  first  told  me  the  story  that  he 

was  in  earnest 1582 

Penalties:  Caucus  and  general  election  laws  applicable,  from  election  laws  of 

Wisconsin 371 

Perrin,  Solon  L.,  attorney  at  law,  Superior,  Wis.,  testimony  of 652,  698 

Account  of  expenditures;  did  not  occur  to  me  duiing  campaign  I ought  to 
keep  one;  never  asked  to,  and  did  not  make  one  to  Stephenson,  Edmonds, 
or  Sacket;  never  attempted  to  make  one  until  I prepared  one  for  legisla- 
tive committee 683,  684,  685,  689,  690 

Advertising  material,  all  sent  out  of  Milwaukee;  I think  I gave  the  names  of 
the  local  men  to  Mr.  Edmonds,  and  the  matter  was  sent  direct  to  them; 
matter  included  posters  and  lithographs;  four  counties  quite  generally 

covered  with 694 

Bank  account,  only  have  one;  paid  everything  out  of  it;  paid  my  family 

expenses  out  of  it 684,  686 

Bayfield  Press,  paid  $25  cash  September  15  for  printing  in  connection  with 

Stephenson  campaign;  I do  not  remember  what  printing 666 

Bribery  statute;  I do  not  agree  with  interpretation  that  it  means  the  very 
giving  of  anything  to  an  elector  to  procure  an  act  to  be  done  irrespective  of 

whether  act  is  lawful  or  unlawful 676,  677 

Business;  no  one  has  any  interest  in  mine  but  myself;  did  not  enter  any  of 
campaign  sums  in  my  books;  Stephenson  matter  tieated  entirely  inde- 
pendent of  the  business  of  the  office 700 

15235°— 11 vii 


XCV1 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Perrin,  Solon  L.,  attorney  at  law,  Superior,  Wis.,  testimony  of — Continued.  Page. 

Campaign;  I was  asked  to  take  charge  of  Stephenson’s  interests  in  Bayfield, 
Douglas,  Sawyer,  and  Washburn  Counties;  there  were  four  candidates, 
three  of  them  trained  politicians;  Stephenson’s  candidacy  was  announced 
very  late;  the  work  that  had  to  be  done  for  him  was  in  the  enemy’s 
country;  the  people  in  those  counties  did  not  know  Stephenson;  in  order 
to  get  his  claim  before  voters,  it  was  necesaary  to  engage  as  many  people  as 
it  was  possible  for  us  to  get;  his  candidacy  put  forward,  so  far  as  I know. 


within  the  law 674,  675,  676,  693,  694 

Campaigns;  I had  been  intimately  connected  with  others  prior  to  this  one; 
no  methods  used  in  Stephenson  campaign  other  than  those  used  in  prior 

campaigns;  I have  taken  part  in  16  campaigns  in  that  section 691 

Candidates  for  legislature  before  the  primaries  from  four  counties  in  my 
charge;  my  talk  with  them  before  primal ies  was  to  whether  or  not  they 
would  support  the  nominee  for  United  States  Senator  in  the  primary;  I 


Canvass ; unable  to  make  one  complete  enough  to  get  poll  and  mailing  lists 
with  money  turned  over  to  me;  the  territory  was  too  large  and  the  time  too 
short;  we  did  not  have  a canvass  that  made  it  possible  to  watch  men  at 


Cash  item  of  July  17,  $100,  was  my  own  money  that  I expended  before  I 

received  any  check  from  Mr.  Edmonds,  if  I remember  correctly 655 

Cash  item  of  July  30,  $25,  in  account;  I can  not  recollect  for  what  money 

was  paid 655,  656 

Cash  item  of  August  1,  $25,  indorsed  by  Columbia  Clothing  Co.;  it  did  not 
go  to  them;  was  cashed  in  their  store;  it  was  presumably  given  out  of 

hours 658 

Cash  item  of  August  1,  $125;  I have  no  recollection  for  what  it  was  ex- 
pended; it  represents  money  paid  out  by  me;  no  part  of  it  was  compen- 
sation to  me;  I can  not  name  anyone  to  whom  I paid  it 657 

Cash  item  of  August  4,  $15,  indorsed  by  H.  R.  Grochau,  agent  of  Omaha 
Railroad;  I do  not  know  what  it  was  for;  Grochau  did  not  get  the  money; 

it  was  cashed  in  his  office 658 

Cash  item  of  August  14,  $250;  I have  no  recollection  who  got  the  money; 
there  is  no  source  to  which  I could  appeal  to  refresh  my  memory  in 

regard  to  it;  can  not  account  for  cash  item  of  $25  on  same  date 659,  660 

Cash  item  of  August  18,  $50;  can  not  account  for  it;  all  of  $5,000  was  avail- 
able then 661 

Cash  item  of  August  21,  $40,  indorsed  by  L.  D.  Balmat  & Co.;  they  did  not 


Cash  item  of  August  29,  $150;  I do  not  remember  it 665 

Cash  item  of  August  31,  $300  and  one  for  $25;  I do  not  remember  them 665 

Cash  item  of  September  10,  $150;  I do  not  remember  what  it  was  paid  for. . 666 

Cash  item  of  September  12,  $25;  I do  not  remember  what  it  was  for 666 

Cash  items,  checks  were  drawn  payable  to  “cash”  and  the  money  paid  to 
me ; not  a cent  of  the  money  indicated  by  them  or  the  checks  remained 


Cash  items  of  August  5 for  $200  and  $25,  I have  no  recollection  for  what  ex- 
pended  658 

Cash  items  of  August  7,  aggregating  $225 ; I have  no  recollection  for  what  that 

was  used  for 659 

Cash  items  of  August  8,  aggregating  $250,  I have  no  recollection  for  what  it 
was  expended;  item  of  $50  on  that  date  indorsed  by  James  Glynn  was 
cashed  in  his  saloon;  he  did  not  get  the  money  on  it;  money  was  not 

expended  in  the  saloon ; 659 

Cash  items  of  August  21  of  $200,  $100,  and  $40;  I do  not  recollect  them 661 

Cash  items  of  August  22  for  $100  and  $25;  do  not  recollect  them 662 

Cash  items  of  August  26,  three  for  $50  each;  one  indorsed  by  R.  J.  Agen; 

he  did  not  have  the  money 664 

Cash  items  of  August  28,  two  for  $50  each;  I can  not  account  for  them 664 

Compensation,  I kept  a little  less  than  $500  for  my  own;  I paid  up  all  the 


bills  and  I had  that  much  in  the  bank  when  I got  through 672,  686 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


xcvn 


Perrin,  Solon  L.,  attorney  at  law,  Superior,  Wis.,  testimony  of — Continued.  Page. 

Counties,  four  in  which  money  was  expended — Douglas,  Bayfield,  Sawyer, 
and  Washburn;  are  most  northern  counties  of  State;  Superior  located  in 
one  of  them;  only  other  large  city  in  them  is  Washburn,  city  of  about 
6,000  inhabitants,  in  Bayfield  County;  I spent  almost  all  my  time  from 
August  1 to  21  in  those  counties  and  more  than  half  of  it  in  Superior;  vote 

in  the  four  counties;  newspapers  circulated  in 661,  662,  674,  675,  692,  693 

Dresser,  H.  L.,  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  campaign  and  does  not  live  in 
the  State;  I was  in  Duluth  and  somebody  made  application  to  me  for 
money  and  I had  to  go  to  him  and  borrow  it  and  gave  him  check  of  $10, 
August  18,  to  reimburse  him;  it  was  money  expended  in  the  campaign; 

I can  not  say  to  whom  I paid  it 661 

Duluth  News-Tribune,  paid  item  of  $40,  August  28,  for  advertising;  has  a 
Superior  department  and  page  and  is  circulated  very  generally  through- 
out Superior 665 

Edmonds,  E.  A.: 

Did  not  say  that  I should  keep  an  account  of  expenditures;  I did  not 
not  say  anything  to  him  on  subject;  nothing  said  to  effect  it  was 

necessary 688 

I do  not  think  any  correspondence  passed  between  us;  there  was  no 

telephoning  between  us  as  to  subject  of  money 689 

I talked  with  him  first  about  my  employment  in  campaign;  in  Mil- 
waukee; recollect  that  he  sent  for  me  to  come  down  and  talk  it  over; 
asked  me  what  could  be  done  for  Stephenson  in  eleventh  congres- 
sional district;  he  spoke  about  me  taking  charge;  I did  not  want  to 
do  it;  we  tried  to  figure  out  who  could  handle  it;  I think  I was  here 
three  times,  when  he  finally  decided  he  would  ask  me  to  look  after 

those  four  counties 687 

Paid  me  first  sum  of  $1,000  to  electioneer  for  Stephenson;  I procured 
assistance  to  disseminate  information  in  regard  to  the  reasons  why 
we  thought  he  should  be  returned  to  the  Senate;  I paid  out  all  of 

first  $1,000 654 

Said  in  first  conversation  early  in  July  they  would  provide  the  money 
for  campaign  in  my  four  counties;  I said  I thought  it  would  take 
$5,000;  he  said  he  did  not  know  whether  he  could  get  that  much 
money;  he  did  not  know  at  that  time  how  vigorous  and  careful  a 
campaign  Stephenson  would  put  up;  in  next  conversation,  10  days 
after,  nothing  definite  was  said  about  amount  to  be  expended;  when 
I received  first  $1,000  it  was  not  determined  $5,000  should  be  ex- 
pended  687,  688 

Electioneering,  defined;  to  electioneer  is  to  further  the  interests  of  a candi- 
date; includes  treating 673,  679 

Eleventh  congressional  district,  includes  four  counties  under  my  control 
in  campaign  and  eight  others;  was  district  in  which  Judge  John  J.  Jen- 
kins was  defeated  by  Lenroot  for  Congress  in  that  primary  campaign; 
Stephenson,  largely  supported  by  stalwarts,  had  a plurality  in  four  coun- 
ties carried  by  Lenroot,  a “half-breed;”  section  was  rather  strongly 

“half-breed” 698,699 

Expenditures,  I had  no  purpose  in  concealing  them  in  failing  to  keep  a 

memorandum  of  the  detailed  work  done  by  me  or  those  under  me 691 

First  sum  of  $1,000,  I planned  that  we  would  take  it  and  get  a hold  of  as 
many  of  the  men  who  were  accustomed  to  doing  political  work  in  that 
territory  as  we  could  get  hold  of  with  that  money,  laying  the  foundation 
for  a further  and  more  extensive  electioneering  organization  if  the  money 

was  forthcoming 689 

Fridley,  C.  R.,  items  of  $300,  August  1,  and  $50,  August  14,  paid  to  him  for 
electioneering  in  Superior  and  Douglas  Counties;  he  did  not  render  a state- 
ment to  me;  I do  not  know,  in  specific  terms,  how  he  expended  the 
money;  was  an  attorney  and  old  resident  of  Superior;  he  received  cash 
item  of  $50,  August  26;  think  he  received  more  of  cash  items  than  appear 
to  have  been  given  him  upon  checks  drawn  to  his  order;  I should  think 

I gave  him  $1,000;  I can  not  swear  to  any  definite  amount 656, 

660,  661,  664,  671,  672,  683,  686,  690 

Funds,  I always  kept  personal  funds  in  my  pocket,  separate  from  campaign 
funds  in  my  pocket;  I would  have  my  money  for  my  own  use  in  one 
pocket  and  Mr.  Stephenson’s  in  another 687 


XCVIII 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Perrin,  Solon  L.,  attorney  at  law,  Superior,  Wis.,  testimony  of — Continued.  page. 

Inglis,  Robert,  paid  item  of  $10,  August  27,  to  be  expended  in  campaign; 
worked  in  Bayfield  County;  did  not  account  to  me  for  expenditures 

made 664,  690 

Instructions  with  regard  to  disbursements,  I do  not  recollect  I gave  any  as 
to  use  to  be  made  of  money;  it  did  not  occur  to  me  that  I should  have 
done  so;  I do  not  recall  that  I gave  specific  instructions  to  men  em- 
ployed  678,681 

Kirk,  G.  H.,  item  of  $10,  August  29,  indorsed  by  him;  he  never  had  the 
money;  he  was  agent  of  one  of  the  railroad  companies  and  cashed  that 

check  for  some  of  us 665 

Lamere  & Hamilton,  item  of  August  22  was  paid  them  for  bill  posting  in 

Washburn,  Bayfield  County;  I sent  them  my  check,  I think 662 

McManus,  T.  W.,  item  of  $45  paid  him  August  29  for  advertisement  of 
Stephenson’s  candidacy  in  a program  that  he  was  in  charge  of,  gotten  out, 

I think,  for  use  on  Labor  Day 665 

Maxcy,  D.  M.,  Bayfield  County,  paid  item  of  $25  August  28,  to  be  paid  to  the 
men  who  attended  the  polling  places  primary  day,  to  disseminate  informa- 
tion in  regard  to  Stephenson’s  qualifications;  I was  not  present  when 
they  did  it;  do  not  know  the  manner  in  which  they  did  it;  paid  item  of 
$25  September  9,  to  keep  my  arrangement  for  payment  to  workers  at 

polls;  did  not  account  to  me  for  expenditures 664,  665,  666,  690 

Mead,  L.  H.,  paid  item  of  $10  August  27,  to  be  expended  in  campaign; 
worked  in  Washburn  County;  did  not  account  for  any  expenditures 

made 664,690 

Memorandum,  did  not  keep  one,  as  I would  expend  money  from  campaign 
pocket;  I did  not  keep  one  of  the  names  of  the  individuals  I had  working 
in  each  of  the  several  voting  precincts;  have  no  recollection  of  keeping 

an  account  with  Stephenson 689,  690,  700 

Men,  I did  not  think  it  was  necessary  to  tell  them  that  they  should  not  buy 
a vote.  I had  no  idea  that  one  of  them  would  try  to,  and  I do  not  believe 

he  did 678 

Men  employed,  should  think  there  were  less  than  100  to  whom  I paid  money; 
paid  them  from  amounts  ranging  from  $5  to  $150,  depending  on  what  I 
expected  the  man  to  do,  where  he  could  work,  and  what  he  could  accom- 
plish; how  money  to  them  was  paid;  I did  not  pay  a man  unless  I was 
satisfied  he  was  worth  it;  I always  ascertained  before  paying  whether  he 

was  friendly  to  Stephenson 681,  682 

Money,  I did  not  check  up  after  campaign  was  over  to  see  what  I had 
expended;  I checked  up  when  I was  subpoenaed  before  the  joint  com- 
mittee at  Madison 686 

Money,  I did  not  pay  out  any  received  from  Stephenson  for  any  corrupt 
purpose;  within  my  knowledge,  none  that  was  placed  in  my  hands  for 
use  in  the  campaign  was  expended  in  bribing  or  corruptly  or  improperly 

influencing  voters 678,  699,  700 

Money,  paid  to  a great  many  people  I knew  personally;  can  not  recall  the 
names  new;  when  this  thing  was  over  I dropped  the  entire  subject  and 
went  about  something  else;  do  not  remember  any  man  to  whom  I paid 

money  outside  of  those  given  in  statement 683,  686 

Nelson,  Nels,  paid  item  of  $27  September  9,  to  pay  for  workers  at  polls. . . 666 

Obtaining  votes  corruptly,  I should  think  it  would  arise  where  there  is  money 
or  something  of  value  paid  to  an  elector*  to  vote  for  a candidate  to  whom 
he  is  opposed;  would  not  think  it  included  treating  an  elector  for  purpose 
of  making  him  friendly;  would  not  think  entertaining  a person  antago- 
nistic to  my  candidate  with  meals,  drinks,  and  carriage  rides  would  be 

corrupt  practice 678,679 

Primary  campaign  of  1908, 1 took  an  active  part  in  it;  supported  Stephenson . 652 

Representatives  in  four  counties  were  in  charge  of  details  there;  I was  in 
conference  with  them  from  time  to  time ; we  discussed  campaign  generally, 
but  did  not  go  into  details  of  expenditures  or  I would  have  lost  their 
support;  they  would  have  thought  that  I had  no  confidence  in  them. . . 692 

Saloons,  I am  rather  inclined  to  think  that  sometimes,  in  order  to  get  a 
man  into  a receptive  mood,  I might  possibly  have  bought  him  a drink; 

I do  not  think  very  much  of  money  represented  by  cash  items  was  spent 
in  saloons;  no  one  can  tell  how  much  of  it  was;  utterly  impossible  for 
me  to  estimate  how  much  of  the  balance  of  the  $3,000  unaccounted  for 
was  spent  in  saloons 669,  670 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


XCIX 


Perrin,  Solon  L.,  attorney  at  law,  Superior,  Wis.,  testimony  of — Continued.  Page. 

Savage,  W.  W.,  was  clerk  in  my  law  office;  I have  not  any  definite  recol- 
lection of  what  item  of  $25,  July  25,  was  paid  to  him  for;  I am  not  sure 
about  check  for  $25  August  19;  I sent  him  out  two  or  three  times,  I 
don’t  remember  when,  to  get  information  to  enable  us  to  carry  on  this 
work;  I do  not  know  what  he  did  with  item  of  $25  August  26;  he  may 
have  drawn  it  for  me  or  expended  it  himself  under  my  direction;  he  was 

authorized  to  sign  my  name  to  checks 655,  661,  664,  700 

Second  sum  of  $1,000,  received  August  4,  I do  not  remember  whether  it 
was  handed  to  me  here  in  Milwaukee  or  whether  it  was  sent  to  me  by 
mail;  I am  inclined  to  think  that  I did  not  see  Edmonds  at  that  time. . 689 

Services,  I tried  to  keep  in  touch  with  situation  in  Douglas  County;  I think 
I went  over  three  or  four  times  to  Bayfield,  Sawyer,  and  Washburn 
Counties  entirely  on  Stephenson’s  business;  I tried  to  find  out  who  were 
supporting  him;  I was  looking  for  men  who  could  get  out  and  do  the 

work  and  see  the  people;  was  disbursing  money  to  those  men 672 

Shields,  conversation  when  T handed  him  $1,000  check  and  gave  him 
$250  out  of  it,  substance  of  it  wa3  I asked  him  to  put  in  some  time  in 
Stephenson  campaign  and  what  he  thought  he  would  need  at  that  time; 
he  said  he  ought  to  have  $250;  I believe  he  got  men  interested  that 
neither  Stephenson,  Edmonds,  or  I could  otherwise  get;  got  them 
interested  mostly  by  talk;  men  to  whom  he  talked,  talked  to  a great 
many  other  people;  I do  not  know  how  far  the  money  followed  the 
conversation ; impossible  to  trace  that  money  to  ultimate  consumer.  667,  668,  669 
Shields,  is  an  insurance  agent  at  Superior;  has  resided  there  20  years; 

I have  forgotten  for  what  I paid  him  $5  August  14;  1 remember  his 
coming  and  asking  me  for  $5;  never  engaged  in  detective  business  to  my 
knowledge,  except  he  may  have  been  a deputy  sheriff  at  one  time;  he 
is  the  same  Shields  referred  to  in  the  Lorimer  case;  he  was  supporting 
Stephenson  and  had  some  of  this  money  to  be  used  for  electioneering 

purposes;  $5  given  him  for  that  purpose 659,660 

Shields,  item  of  $250  without  date  was  paid  to  him  out  of  first  check  for 
$1,000  received  from  Edmonds;  when  I got  that  check,  I indorsed  it  to 
Shields  and  he  gave  me  his  check,  as  I remember,  for  $750;  he  received 
the  physical  thousand-dollar  check;  I presume  he  indorsed  it  after  my 

indorsement;  I do  not  remember  who  issued  that  check 666,  667 

Shields,  It.  J.,  paid  item  of  $75  August  25  for  electioneering;  I know  that 
some  members  of  (he  Catholic  Church  were  active  after  I gave  him  the 
money  that  were  not  before;  paid  total  of  $330;  I did  not  ask  him  for 

itemized  statement;  I do  not  know  for  what  he  expended  it 663,  667,  671 

Statement,  presented  to  the  joint  investigating  committee  of  the  legisla- 
ture, showing  disbursement  of  $5,000,  so  far  as  I was  able  to  at  that  time 
give;  kept  unexpended  balance  for  my  own  services;  I made  this  state- 
ment up  after  I had  been  subpoenaed  to  appear  before  the  joint  investi- 
gating committee  at  Madison;  it  was  made  up  from  the  checks  and  not 
an  account  that  I kept  at  the  time  of  making  the  disbursements. . 654,  657,  658 
Statute  with  regard  to  filing  an  account,  I presume  I had  heard  of  it;  I do 
not  remember  ever  to  have  read  it;  nothing  was  said  to  me  about  fur- 
nishing data  from  which  to  make  up  an  account;  I expected  Stephenson 
to  account  under  that  statute  in  just  the  way  that  it  has  been  inter- 
preted by  all  the  candidates  for  all  of  the  offices  that  I have  known 
anything  about  since  the  statute  was  passed ; I do  not  think  the  law  was 

intended  to  be  evaded 684,  685 

Stephenson,  could  not  know  how  I was  disbursing  money  unless  I advised 
him;  I presume  about  time  of  close  of  primary  I could  have  advised  him 

how  money  was  disbursed,  but  at  any  time  after  that  I could  not 684 

Stephenson,  I felt  that  I was  responsible  to  him  for  the  expenditure  of  the 
money  he  put  in  my  hands;  I think  I was  selected  to  exercise  an  inde- 
pendent judgment  upon  the  manner  in  which  his  candidacy  should  be 

furthered  in  that  particular 671 

Stephenson,  was  not  very  well  acquainted  with  him  prior  to  his  election 
to  the  Senate  the  first  time;  I had  known  of  him  for  a great  many  years.  653,  676 
Sum  of  $3,000,  learned  I would  receive  it  about  the  time  it  was  paid;  got 

information  from  Edmonds  in  Milwaukee,  orally 689 

Sum  of  $5,000,  perhaps  three-fifths  of  it  I drew  out  in  shape  of  cash,  put  in 
my  pocket  and  distributed  among  various  persons  employed;  I should 
rather  guess  about  $3,000  dispensed  that  way 683 


c 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Perrin,  Solon  L.,  attorney  at  law,  Superior,  Wis.,  testimony  of — Continued.  Page. 

Sum  of  $5,000  received  from  Stephenson’s  manager  during  campaign;  it 
was  paid  to  me  at  three  different  times  as  I remember;  first  payment  was 
July  30,  $1,000,  either  by  check  or  draft  from  Edmonds;  August  4 I 
received  draft  for  $1,000  from  Edmonds,  and  on  August  15  $3,000  by 

check  or  draft  from  Edmonds 653,  683 

Superior,  have  resided  there  16  years 652 

Telegraph,  telephone,  and  stamp  bills,  in  all  about  $45,  money  was  ex- 
pended solely  in  interest  of  Stephenson 666 

Whitten,  T.  S.,  manager  of  North  Wisconsin  Lumber  & Manufacturing 
Co.,  at  Hayward,  in  Sawyer  County;  paid  item  of  $250  August  24;  he 
employed  men  to  placard  some  different  parts  of  the  county  and  to  pass 
out  Stephenson  cards  at  primary  polls;  I do  not  know  that  he  expended 
any  of  money  in  saloons ; did  not  account  to  me  for  expenditures  made . 663,  690 
Wilson,  J.  W.,  paid  item  of  $100  August  22,  to  electioneer  for  Stephenson 
in  Washburn  County;  he  told  me  he  paid  it  all  out  for  hiring  men  to  send 
throughout  the  county;  he  was  a locomotive  engineer;  cash  item  of  $10 
August  27,  given  him  to  be  expended  in  campaign;  did  not  account  to 

me  for  expenditures  made 662,  663,  664,  686,  690 

Worrel,  James,  cash  item  of  $15  August  31,  indorsed  by  him,  I never  paid 

him  the  money;  he  cashed  that  check  for  somebody 665,  666 

Pestalozzi,  H.  R.,  jeweler,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1887 

Bartlett,  think  he  was  present  at  the  conversation  with  Edmonds 1893, 1894 

Bribery  of,  no  one  attempted,  in  the  campaign  for  the  election t)f  Senator 

Stephenson 1887, 1888, 1891, 1892 

Edmonds,  never  offered  me  any  money;  came  to  my  store  and  wanted  to 
know  if  I could  not  try  to  catch  the  Italian  vote  for  Senator  Stephenson; 
in  second  conversation  he  wanted  me  to  come  to  his  office ; I said  I would 

not 1888, 1889, 1890, 1891, 1893, 1894 

McGovern,  was  a supporter  of,  for  United  States  Senator 1887, 1888 

Money,  Vandersee  offered  from  $1,000  to  $2,500  if  I would  support  Stephen- 
son  1887,1888,1891,1892,1893 

Murphy,  Lawrence,  told  me  if  I would  drop  McGovern  and  work  for 
Stephenson  the  proposition  of  Mr.  Vandersee  (to  give  him  $1,000  to 

$2,500)  would  stand  good 1889, 1890, 1891 

Vandersee,  do  not  know  that  he  was  representing  Senator  Stephenson  or 

anybody  in  his  interest;  told  me  he  was  a great  friend  of  Stephenson 1889, 

1892, 1893 

Vandersee,  told  me  there  was  from  $1,000  to  $2,500  in  it  for  me  if  I would 
support  Stephenson;  told  him  I could  not,  as  I was  pledged  to  Mc- 
Govern  1887,1888,1891 

Peterson,  H.  L.,  Sturgeon  Bay,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1292 

Account,  did  not  render  one 1293 

Bills  that  came  in  after  the  primaries  were  over  I paid  out  of  my  own  pocket; 

aggregate,  $17,  I think 1294 

Door  County,  I got  a great  number  of  signers  for  his  nomination  papers; 
sent  in  a large  number  of  nomination  papers;  made  automobile  trips 
through  county;  employed  workers  and  hired  rigs  to  get  voters  out  to 
election;  employed  very  few  men;  do  not  remember  their  names;  did 
a big  part  of  canvassing  county  myself;  workers  at  polls  in  northern  part 
of  county  recommended  to  me  by  men  whom  I knew  to  be  good . 1292, 1293, 1294 
Memorandum,  kept  one  of  expenditures;  after  the  primaries  I destroyed  it.  1293 
Stephenson,  did  not  pay  any  of,  money  to  voters  to  induce  them  to  vote 

for  him 1293,1294 

Stephenson,  received  $150  from  him  to  further  his  interests  in  1908  cam- 
paign  1292 

Peterson,  Lewis  W.,  hardware  dealer,  Dorchester,  Wis.,  affidavit  of 2009,  2023 

Leroy,  assemblyman  of  Marinette,  informed  him  day  left  Madison  it  would 
be  necessary  to  be  away;  he  suggested  affiant  should  try  to  pair  with  some 
anti- Stephenson  man;  affiant  spoke  to  Assemblyman  Otto  Onstad,  from 
the  second  district  of  Dane  County,  and  a pair  was  accordingly  arranged; 
both  signed  a blank-printed  form  of  pair,  which  affiant  believes  was  filed 

with  Chief  Clerk  C.  E.  Shaffer,  of  the  assembly 2009 

Madison,  left  there  morning  of  February  25,  1909,  and  returned  to  his  home 
at  Denmark,  being  called  there  by  the  illness  of  his  daughter;  did  not 
return  until  after  the  4th  of  March,  being  detained  by  illness  of  daughter 
during  that  time;  absent  from  joint  convention  for  the  election  of  Senator 
on  that  account,  and  for  no  other  reason 2009 


DIGEST  INDEX.  Cl 

Peterson,  Lewis  W.,  hardware  dealer,  Dorch  ster,  Wis.,  affidavit  of — Contd.  Page. 

Onstad,  assemblyman,  called  up  on  the  evening  of  March  3 over  the  long- 
distance telephone  and  informed  that  he  was  getting  restless  on  account  of 
the  continued  absence  of  affiant,  fearing  he  would  be  criticized  by  his 
constituents  for  not  voting;  affiant  explained  his  absence  necessitated  by 
the  continued  critical  illness  of  his  daughter;  whereupon  he  consented 

pair  should  remain  until  affiant’s  return  to  Madison 2009 

Republican  in  politics 2009 

Stephenson,  supported  him  for  the  senatorship  and  voted  for  him  on  all 

ballots  taken  up  to  and  including  the  24th  of  February,  1909 2009 

Wisconsin  Legislature,  member  of  the  assembly  of,  during  the  senatorial 
election  in  January,  February,  and  March,  1909;  at  that  time  resided  at 
Denmark,  Wis.,  and  represented  the  second  district  of  Browne  County..  2009 

Pflughoeft,  Werner,  farmer,  Medford,  Wis.,  affidavit  of 2010 

Age,  25  years 2010 

Campaign  committee,  received  from,  $252;  $100  retained  as  compensation 
for  services,  in  accordance  with  understanding  had  with  committee; 

about  $150  disbursed  for  personal  expenses 2010 

Campaign  work  done  in  Taylor  County, during  primary  contest;  devoted 
about  six  weeks’  time  to,  traveling  in  said  county,  visiting  many  friends, 
posting  lithographs,  and  circulating  campaign  material;  was  at  consid- 
erable personal  expense  for  livery  hire  and  automobiles  in  making  trips 
and  for  use  on  election  day  in  Medford;  performed  services  at  request  of 

campaign  committee  at  Milwaukee 2010 

Liquors  and  cigars,  not  exceeding  $10  expended  for 2010 

Madison  investigation,  not  called  as  witness  at 2010 

Medford,  resided  in,  for  past  seven  years 2010 

Money  not  disbursed  for  the  purpose  of  corruptly  or  unlawfully  influencing 

or  bribing  any  person 2010 

Polls,  men  engaged  at,  were  supporters  of  Stephenson ‘ 2010 

Saloon  campaign,  did  not  conduct 2010 

Statement  of  expenses,  not  called  upon  to  furnish  itemized;  did  not  keep 

any 2010 

Stephenson,  supporter  of,  before  employment 2010 

Taylor  County,  12  precincts  in;  township  not  containing  cities  usually  has 
but  one  voting  precinct;  is  the  case  generally  throughout  Wisconsin; 

townships  are  usually  6 miles  square,  and  some  larger 2010 

Piper,  Herbert  J.,  practicing  attorney,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  affidavit  of 2010 

Age,  44  years 2010 

Campaign  work  done  during  primary  contest  in  certain  parts  of  Jefferson 
County;  spent  at  least  eight  days  away  from  his  office;  at  the  request  of 


tures  in  traveling,  and  incidental  expenses,  received  $200  to  be  used  for; 

$100  applied  for  services;  balance  expended  for  livery  hire  and  automobile 
hire  and  railway  fares,  hotel  expenses,  and  for  expenses  of  men  to  convey 

voters  to  polls  and  men  to  be  at  polls 2011 

Madison  investigation,  not  called  as  witness  in ' ,.  2011 

Milwaukee,  resided  in,  for  10  years  or  more 2010 

Money  not  disbursed  for  the  purpose  of  corruptly  or  unlawfully  influencing 

or  bribing  any  persons 2011 

Precincts,  work  in  county  covered  about  seven 2011 

Statement  of  expenses,  never  called  upon  to  furnish  an  itemized;  could 

have  accurately  done  so  at  the  time 2011 

Stephenson,  supporter  of,  before  engaged  to  do  work 2011 

Poll  workers,  affidavits  of 1693,  2022,  2023,  2083 

Pollock,  Edward,  editor  and  proprietor  of  the  Teller,  Lancaster,  Wis.,  testi- 
mony of 1070 

Advertisements,  I do  not  think  I published  any  in  the  interest  of  any  other 


Advertising  material,  I refused  to  receive  it  into  commercial  columns, 


Blaine,  John  J.,  I can  not  recall  that  I ever  talked  with  him  about  matter 
of  charges  at  all;  whatever  he  got,  he  got  from  the  paper;  I am  pretty  sure 


Blaine,  tenth  specific  charge  by 1071 


CII 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page, 

Pollock,  Edward,  editor  and  proprietor  of  the  Teller,  Lancaster,  Wis.,  testi- 
mony of — Continued. 

Bribing,  if  they  knew  I was  opposed  to  Stephenson  and  then  offered  to  pay 
me  for  supporting  him,  I would  call  that  a bribe;  I did  not  report  to  any 

officer  of  the  law  that  I had  been  offered  a bribe 1076, 1077 

Charge  of  bribery,  substance  of,  I felt  that  after  I indicated  that  I was  against 
Stephenson  the  fact  that  they  continued  to  send  me  advertising  material 
to  be  paid  for  was  an  improper  way  to  undertake  to  get  support  of  paper . . 1087 

Charges,  when  made,  I am  not  sure  whether  I published  them  or  not;  saw 

them  at  time  and  knew  my  name  was  mentioned  in  them 1073 

Editorial  support  of  my  paper,  there  was  a long  time  when  we  were  in 
doubt  whether  to  concentrate  our  support  on  McGovern  or  Hatton;  we 
wanted  to  take  the  one  that  would  be  likely  to  get  the  most  votes  to 
overcome  Stephenson;  about  election  time  when  I went  home  from 
Madison,  I had  about  made  up  my  mind  to  support  Hatton;  when  I got 
home  it  was  evident  to  me  McGovern  would  get  the  most  votes;  hence  my 
paper  in  the  end  came  out  for  McGovern;  do  not  remember  in  what 

issue 1074,1082,1083,1084 

Edmonds,  I think  had  a letter  from  him;  I can  not  tell  positively 1073, 1074 

Exact  facts,  I have  not  tried  to  retain  in  my  memory;  it  has  passed  out  of 
my  mind  very  much  as  to  what  transpired,  until  the  other  day  when  I 
got  the  subpoena;  and  as  I was  quite  sick  at  the  time  I could  not  look  up 
anything;  my  clerk  looked  over  files  of  paper,  but  I could  not  look  them 
over  myself ; the  little  that  one  of  the  clerks  read  over  to  me  refreshed  my 

memory 1072 

Hatton,  was  generally  called  a “half-breed  ” 1074 

Letters,  containing  offers  from  Stephenson’s  managers,  I hardly  think  I 
have  any  of  them;  I think  all  the  proposals  came  by  letter;  I do  not  know 
from  whom;  can  not  give  the  name  of  a person  that  wrote  a letter  or  sent 
material;  hardly  think  files  of  paper  would  enable  me  to  state  who  wrote 

them;  do  not  think  I can  find  letters 1072, 1073, 1078, 1079 

Letters,  I do  not  think  I sent  any  to  Stephenson  headquarters  after  the 
one  I sent  them  when  they  asked  me  to  circulate  the  nomination  papers; 

did  not  keep  carbon  copy  of;  wrote  them  only  one 1088, 1089 

McGovern,  when  I voted  I supported  him 1074 

Madison,  I was  there  during  investigation  of  legislature  as  State  treasury 

agent  and  I was  never  called  upon 1078 

Money,  by  whom  offered,  I can  not  now  remember  anything  but  that  they 
were  Stephenson  managers;  I could  have  told  the  names  then;  I do  not 
remember  giving  in  any  publication  the  names  of  the  persons  making  the 

offers 1075 

Money,  I did  not  receive  any  for  support  of  Stephenson 1071 

Nomination  papers,  first  communication  I had  from  Stephenson  managers 
was  their  blanks  and  papers,  asking  me  to  circulate  them;  I did  not 

doit 1073,1081 

Plate  matter  sent  by  mail,  I suppose  I was  sometimes  at  office  and  some- 
times not  when  it  was  received;  think  it  came  as  many  as  three  times;  do 
not  keep  any  plate  matter  sent;  do  not  think  I replied  to  this  matter  for 
Stephenson;  can  not  tell  of  what  character  it  was;  I take  it  for  granted  that 

we  were  requested  to  publish  it 1078, 1080, 1081, 1084, 1085, 1088 

Pollock,  Byrne,  my  son,  had  charge  of  the  paper  in  my  absence  then;  have 
not  talked  with  him  with  reference  to  whether  or  not  Stephenson  corre- 
spondence had  been  preserved 1081, 1088 

Specific  charge,  I am  not  trying  to  sustain  it  particularly;  I can  not  tell  now 
without  looking  over  the  paper  whether  I made  any  reference  to  the 

truth  or  falsity  of  it;  I never  made  statement  it  was  not  true 1075 

State  treasury  agent  at  Madison  at  time  articles  from  Stephenson’s  manager 
received ; I was  not  home  and  would  know  nothing  of  it  until  I woTIld  go 

home,  in  many  cases 1072 

Stephenson,  I do  not  think  I had  a letter  from  him  in  regard  to  matter;  I 

was  not  a supporter  of  him 1073 

Stephenson  managers,  made  propositions  to  me  for  publishing  in  my  paper; 
advertisements,  and  I think  articles  sent,  that  is,  to  take  the  place  of 
editorials;  I understood  it  was  to  be  paid  for;  I do  not  think  there  was 
any  sum  named;  but  it  would  be  reasonable  to  expect  my  regular  prices 
for  advertising — something  of  that  kind;  I do  not  know  whether  they 
proposed  to  pay  for  support  or  for  advertising 1071, 1076, 1086 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


cm 


Page. 

Pollock,  Edward,  editor  and  proprietor  of  the  Teller,  Lancaster,  Wis.,  testi- 
mony of — Continued. 

Stephenson,  my  paper  supported  him  in  1907 ; it  did  not  change  during  that 
campaign;  it  was  against  him  when  he  came  up  again;  it  came  out  against 

him  from  the  first  in  campaign  of  1908 1082 

Stephenson,  was  carrying  a partisan  warfare  in  paper  against  him;  I did  not 

look  for  anything  favorable  about  him  to  publish 1077 

Stephenson’s  1908  campaign,  participated  in  only  through  paper 1071 

Teller,  have  published  it  past  28  years 1071 

Teller,  I spoke  out  strongly  to  the  effect  that  efforts  were  made  to  secure  its 

support  from  Stephenson’s  managers 1075 

Written  and  printed  matter  came  to  be  set  up,  other  than  plate  matter,  for 
Stephenson;  can  not  tell  how  many  times;  can  not  describe  its  character; 

I do  not  remember  whether  anything  was  said  about  where  it  was  to  be 

inserted  in  the  paper 1085,1086 

Pomerene,  Senator  Atlee,  and  Senator  George  Sutherland,  views  of xxvn 

Powell,  W.  W.,  newspaper  man,  Kalamazoo,  Mich.,  testimony  of 1583 

Domachowski,  Pearson  told  me  of  the  offer  of  $1,500  to,  in  the  presence  of 
Everrett  and  Watrous;  in  answer  to  my  question  he  said,  “Well,  yes,  I 
was  approached;”  said  by  a friend;  did  not  say  who;  seemed  to  be  very 

much  in  earnest 1583,1584,1585 

Everrett,  Winter,  heard  the  conversation  with  Domachowski  as  to  the  offer 

of  $1,500 1583,1584,1585 

Pearson,  Senator,  informed  me  that  Domachowski  had  told  him  that  he  had 

been  offered  $1,500  if  he  would  walk  out 1583, 1584 

Watrous,  Paul  J.,  heard  the  conversation  with  Domachowski  as  to  the  offer 

of  $1,500 1583,1584,1585 

President  of  the  United  States,  adjournment  on  account  of  visit  of,  to  Milwaukee.  1 884 

Primary  campaign,  discussion  as  to  going  into 7-23,  32-36 

Puelicher,  J.  H.,  cashier  of  Marshall  & Ilsley  Bank,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testi- 
mony of 128 

Account  with  Stephenson  not  opened  up  in  the  bank  because  he  never 
requested  or  authorized  it;  we  had  these  amounts  from  him  for  invest- 
ment, and  I continued  the  account  just  as  it  had  been  run  before 133, 134 

Accounts,  Stephenson  did  not  instruct  me  as  to  the  method  of  keeping 132 

Balance  of  $3,316.28  remaining  in  my  hands  from  total  of  $101,400  in  com- 
paign  fund  was  paid  over  to  Stephenson  at  the  time  of  final  settlement, 

about  March  6,  1909 135, 136 

Bank  records,  there  are  in  the  bank  to-day  the  original  orders  for  cashier’s 
checks  or  drafts  with  which  the  managers  paid  the  expenses  of  the  cam- 
paign; there  are  the  stub  books  giving  the  numbers,  amounts,  payees, 
and  dates;  there  are  the  register  records  of  drafts  and  cashier’s  checks, 
and  cashier’s  checks  themselves,  giving  date,  number,  amount,  payee, 

and  all  the  indorsements 132 

Banking  method  in  regard  to  campaign  fund;  I rather  think  that  the 
method  adopted  by  the  managers  in  buying  cashier’s  checks  for  the  pay- 
ment of  their  expenses,  which  would  leave  permanent  records  in  the  bank, 
was  a rather  good  way  of  handling  it;  have  no  transaction  of  that  magni- 
tude since  that  time;  method  not  used  since,  as  no  like  occasion  has 
arisen;  to  my  knowledge,  we  never  before  conducted  any  campaign 

through  the  bank 134, 135 

Campaign  fund,  there  were  times  when  the  fund  was  very  low  and  practi- 
cally exhausted 130 

Campaign  funds  in  bank,  were  in  charge  of  some  of  the  officers  of  the  bank 

or  the  paying  teller 134 

Custodian  of  campaign  fund,  independent  of  my  connection  with  bank;  did 

not  represent  bank  in  any  of  transactions  with  reference  to  fund 128 

Duties  as  custodian,  entered  upon  them  before  Edmonds  became  manager. . 131 

Duties  in  campaign,  were  merely  incidental;  I continued  my  employment 
at  the  bank  during  the  whole  period  and  was  gone  on  a vacation  a portion 

of  the  time 133 

Illegal  expenditures,  nothing  was  said  to  me  in  way  of  caution  by  Stephen- 
son  132 

Items  in  account  filed  with  legislative  committee  were  numbered  after  the 
campaign  and  during  the  investigation  at  request  of  the  committee; 
numbers  were  taken  from  the  cashier’s  checks  or  drafts  that  were  used  in 
payment  of  the  items  and  that  are  on  file  in  the  bank;  numbers  of  cashier’s 
checks  follow  consecutively  in  books  of  bank 133 


CIV 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page. 

Puelicher,  J.  H.,  cashier  of  Marshall  & Ilsley  Bank,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testi- 
mony of — Continued. 

Marshall  & Ilsley  Bank,  cashier  of,  for  four  or  five  years 128 

Money,  deposited  with  me,  paid  it  out  upon  the  order  of  the  campaign  man- 
ager as  directed  by  Stephenson;  none  paid  out  without  written  authority; 
orders  for,  turned  back  to  Sacket,  office  manager,  against  his  receipt  to 
enable  him  to  make  up  his  statement;  there  is  a voucher  for  each  item; 

no  general  form  for  vouchers,  which  were  not  numbered,  but  dated 130, 

133, 134, 135 

Money,  I was  instructed  to  pay  it  out  on  the  order  either  of  Stephenson, 

Sacket,  the  office  manager,  or  Edmonds,  general  manager 132 

Record  of  transactions  for  Stephenson,  I kept  an  absolute  record  in  a memo- 
randum form,  as  I received  the  deposits,  which  I furnished  Stephenson 
later;  the  checks  were  also  there  and  held  the  requisitions  on  me  as  evi- 
dence of  the  amount  which  I had  disbursed;  did  not  have  an  account 
of  it  in  my  bank  books;  memorandum  was  an  individual  matter  of  my 
own;  surrendered  it  to  office  manager,  Sacket,  some  time  in  October  or 

November,  1908,  when  I took  his  receipt  for  total  I had  disbursed 132, 136 

Sacket,  paid  out  campaign  money  to  his  order  before  Edmonds  became 

manager 131 

Stephenson,  as  depositor  of  Marshall  & Ilsley  Bank  and  having  funds  in 
bank,  asked  me  to  become  custodian  of  a certain  fund  which  he  wished 

to  disburse  in  this  campaign  to  meet  the  expenses  of  the  primary 128, 130 

Stephenson,  first  talked  to  me  about  acting  as  banker  of  his  funds  late  in 
June,  1908;  said  he  had  $50,000  in  Marshall  & Ilsley  Bank,  a part  or  all 
of  which  he  might  want  to  use  in  his  primary  campaign,  and  asked  me  to 
disburse  it  on  the  order  of  his  managers,  which  I did;  at  that  time  gen- 
eral manager  had  not  been  selected,  but  Mr.  Sacket,  office  manager, 

had 131,132 

Sum  of  $50,000,  Stephenson  had  no  check  with  Marshall  & Ilsley  Bank; 
we  occasionally  made  investments  for  him  and  this  $50,000  remained  in 
the  hands  of  the  bank  as  the  result  of  an  investment,  waiting  for  orders 
from  Stephenson;  three  checks,  two  amounting  to  $10,000  each  and  one 
of  $30,000,  exhausted  that  fund  during  campaign;  does  not  represent  an 

additional  fund  to  what  expended  by  me 129, 130 

Sum  of  $50,000,  was  evidenced  by  a cashier’s  check  to  order  of  bank,  and 
Stephenson  was  advised  that  the  amount  had  been  collected  and  that  we 
were  holding  it  at  his  disposal,  we  expecting  shortly  to  reinvest  it  for  him, 
as  we  have  carried  sums  for  him  in  that  manner;  did  not  send  the  cer- 
tificate to  him;  when  two  payments  of  $10,000  and  one  of  $30,000  were 
made  he  drew  a check  on  that  sum  and  the  bank  considered  it  an  order, 

although  he  was  not  authorized  to  check  on  it,  and  a new  certificate  would 

be  issued  minus  the  amount  he  ordered  out 131, 133, 134 

Sum  of  $98,083.72  was  amount  expended  in  campaign 136 

Sum  of  $101,400,  received  by  me  as  custodian  of  Stephenson  campaign  fund ; 
amounts  included  in,  when,  and  from  whom  received,  in  detail;  had  no 

other  funds  deposited  with  me  for  use  in  primary  campaign 129 

Use  to  which  money  was  put,  had  no  knowledge  of;  simply  acted  as  banker; 

Edmunds  and  Sacket  only  consulted  me  when  they  needed  money 130 

Purtell,  Thomas  M.,  State  fire  marshal,  Madison,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1201 

Appointed  fire  marshal  by  governor  a little  over  four  years  ago 1201 

Cleary,  W.  H.,  Spooner,  gave  him  $50  to  work  for  Stephenson 1202 

Doar,  J.,  Cumberland,  gave  him  $40  to  work  for  Stephenson 1202 

Edmonds,  wanted  to  know  if  I would  do  some  work  for  him ; told  him  I was 
not  doing  any  political  work;  then  he  asked  me  to  give  him  the  names  of 
some  parties  up  north  who  would  do  some  work  for  him;  I gave  him  a list 

of  names,  and  that  was  all  that  was  said  at  that  time 1201 

Fahey,  William,  Glenwood,  paid  him  $15  to  see  his  friends  and  get  them  to 

polls  and  interest  them  in  Stephenson 1202 

Madison,  have  resided  there  17  years 1201 

Milwaukee,  there  on  business  one  day  and  went  around  to  the  different 

headquarters  of  all  the  senatorial  candidates 1201 

Money,  men  to  whom  I paid  it  did  not  account  for;  did  not  ask  them  to. . 1203 

Money,  none  disbursed  by  me  or,  as  far  as  I know,  by  men  to  whom  I paid  it, 
for  purpose  of  bribing  or  corruptly  influencing  electors 1203 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


CV 


Page. 


Purtell,  Thomas  M.,  State  fire  marshal,  Madison,  Wis.,  testimony  of — Continued. 
Mulvaney,  Thomas,  Wilson,  gave  him  $30  two  weeks,  I think,  before  the 
primaries;  he  is  a farmer  in  St.  Croix  County,  and  the  instructions  were 
to  go  out  and  se©  his  friends  all  over  the  county  and  to  have  them  get 

out  to  polls  and  to  interest  them  in  Stephenson 1202 

Oakes,  Leon,  Woodville,  gave  him  $40  to  see  his  friends,  get  them  to  polls, 

and  interest  them  in  Stephenson 1202 

Sacket,  received  $175  from  some  time  in  August;  sent  me  a draft  a week  or 
10  days  after  my  visit  to  Chicago  and  asked  me  to  distribute  it  to  parties 

I thought  would  do  work  for  Stephenson 1201 

Sacket,  reported  to  him  the  people  to  whom  I had  paid  money  and  the 

amounts  paid;  did  not  state  purpose  for  which  I had  given  it  to  them 1203 

Stephenson  campaign  of  1908,  participated  in  very  little 1201 

Sum  of  $175,  I gave  it  to  other  people  to  have  them  distribute  it  to  people 
that  would  do  work  for  Stephenson 1201 

Q. 

Quarles,  Judge,  adjournment  as  mark  of  respect  on  account  of  death  of 487 


R. 


Ramsey,  Thomas  F.,  deceased,  testimony  of,  given  before  joint  investigating 

committee  of  the  Legislature  of  Wisconsin 2113 

Assembly,  March  4,  think  I left  there  about  a quarter  to  12;  believe  it  was 

immediately  after  it  adjourned  its  regular  proceedings 2115 

Brown,  Neal,  only  party  meeting  I attended  was  when  he  was  present;  he 
virtually  released  the  Democrats  from  their  pledge  to  support  him;  said 
he  had  received  all  the  honor  they  could  give  him  in  the  party,  and  if  the 
party  could  receive  any  benefit  from  it,  they  could  go  in  a body  to  some 

one 2115 

Campaign  expenses,  think  I filed  a statement  of  $254;  included  primary 

and  election 2113 

Charge  made  on  floor  of  assembly  by  Leuch  and  Zimmerman  that  they  had 
some  knowledge  of  corruption  and  something  about  a $1,500  offer;  I 

heard  those  remarks;  do  not  know  anything  about  that 2116 

Democrat,  have  always  been 2113 

Fenelon,  James: 

Believe  he  answered  to  first  few  roll  calls  when  I was  in  assembly; 
don’t  think  he  answered  to  roll  call  during  the  senatorial  election; 

papers  always  had  him  quoted  as  a Stephenson  man 2115 

Believe  he  is  a Republican 2114 

Haven’t  heard  of  him  lately;  understood  he  was  improving;  don’t 

know  whether  he  has  attended  legislature 2115,  2117 

His  telegram  from  Ripon,  March  4,  asking  me  to  pair  with  him,  received 
11.06  a.  m.;  never  occurred  to  me  it  was  not  genuine;  have  not  re- 
ceived any  information  that  would  lead  me  to  think  that  he  did  not 
authorize  sending  of  it;  thought  some  one  might  have  have  seen  him  in 

regard  to  it;  do  not  know  whether  anyone  sent  it  for  him 2114, 

2115,  2116,  2117 

My  telegram  to  him  March  4,  1909,  stating  I granted  his  request  to  pair 
on  United  States  Senator;  went  over  to  telegraph  office  and  sent  it 

before  half  past  11 2114,  2115 

Hughes,  John,  had  quite  a lively  discussion  with  him  about  fact  I had 
received  telegram  from  Fenelon;  he  did  not  say  anything  that  made  me 
regret  having  received  it;  he  and  Kneen,  I think,  on  March  3 urged  me  to 
leave  the  chamber  with  the  triple  alliance — a combination  of  Social 
Democrats,  one  of  the  factions  of  the  Republicans,  and  alleged  Demo- 
crats; did  not  violate  any  agreement  with  him  when  I went  out  day 

Stephenson  was  elected 2117,  2118 

Husting,  in  going  out  of  assembly,  I met  him  in  hall  and  he  asked  me 
if  I was  going  to  leave  them,  and  I said  I thought  I was;  he  didn’t  say 

anything,  but  he  grunted 2118 

Husting,  Senator,  think  one  evening  I had  a chat  with  in  regard  to  sena- 
torial question;  told  him  I didn’t  care  who  was  elected;  don’t  think  I 
discussed  with  him  fact  I received  telegram  from  Fenelon 2116,  2117 


CVI 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page 


Ramsey,  Thomas  F.,  deceased,  testimony  given  before  joint  investigating 
committee  of  the  Legislature  of  Wisconsin — Continued. 

Inducement,  did  not  receive  any  financial  or  otherwise  from  anyone  pur- 
porting to  speak  for  Stephenson  or  otherwise  to  leave  assembly  chamber 
March  4;  no  proposition  made  to  me  directly  or  indirectly  to  influence  my 

vote  or  to  stay  away 

Lush,  Charlie,  never  discussed  fact  that  I had  received  telegram  from 

Fenelon  with  him 

Member  of  legislature  from  sixth  assembly  district;  served  four  years  ago 

for  one  term 

Milwaukee,  bom  there  and  lived  there  all  my  lifetime 

Overbeck,  never  talked  with  him  only  at  breakfast  table  at  Avenue  Hotel; 
didn’t  have  any  conversation  with,  but  if  there  were  three  or  four  at  the 
table  there  was  a general  discussion  on  senator  business;  did  not  have 
any  conversation  with  him  or  see  him  March  4;  did  not  discuss  fact  that 

I received  telegram  from  Fenelon  with  him 2115, 

Pairing,  understood  by  that  that  if  I paired  with  him  (Fenelon)  I was  to 

walk  out  and  not  vote  on  United  States  Senator  at  all 

Senatorial  contest  in  legislature  this  session,  I voted  for  Democratic  candi- 
date every  time  I was  here,  excepting  day  Stephenson  was  elected; 
absent  from  sessions  four  or  five  times;  reasons  for;  absent  March  4,  day 
Stephenson  was  elected,  because  I got  a telegram  from  Fenelon,  Ripon, 
asking  me  if  I would  pair  with  him,  and  I sent  a reply  that  I granted  his 

request,  so  I kept  my  pledge 2114, 

Senatorial  contest  in  my  party,  took  no  part  in,  in  Milwaukee,  except 
voted  for  Hoyt,  and  if  anyone  asked  me  for  advice  I advised  them  to 

vote  for  Hoyt;  did  not  handle  a cent  for  any  of  the  candidates 

Senatorial  situation,  did  not  talk  with  anyone  who  purported  to  be  interested 
in  Stephenson  campaign,  who  was  not  a member  of  legislature,  with 
reference  to 


2116 

2117 

2113 

2113 


2117 

2115 


2116 

2113 

2115 


Stephenson,  as  a result  of  my  not  being  present  when  he  was  elected,  I 

have  not  or  any  friend  has  not  received  any  benefit 2116 

Stephenson,  when  I discovered  he  was  elected  I did  not  regret  that  I had 
paired;  know  him  to  see  him;  if  a Republican  had  to  be  elected  I think 
I would  favor  him  more  than  any  other;  think  he  was  entitled  to  it  for 
what  he  had  done  for  Republican  Party  and  he  was  nominee  of  the 

primary 2116,  2118 

Telegram  from  Fenelon,  no  one  told  me  I was  going  to  get  it;  no  one  that  I 

know  of  knew  that  I had  received  it  at  time  I left  assembly 2117 

Wayland,  don’t  knew  him;  did  not  discuss  with  him  telegram  from 

Fenelon 2115,2117 

White,  did  not  have  a conversation  with  him  in  reference  to  senatorial  situ- 
ation; did  not  discuss  fact  that  I had  received  telegram  from  Fenelon 
with  him 2115,2117 


Wilmot,  Henry  M.,  ran  against  me  in  primary  election;  beat  him  by  five 

hundred  and  something 2113 

Yockey,  Chauncey  W.,  Republican,  was  my  opponent  in  the  general  elec- 
tion  2113 

“Red  box,”  list  of  bills  and  receipts  found  in,  referred  to  in  testimony  of 

Sacket 2119-2124 

Reed,  Roy  E.,  attorney,  Ripon,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1926 

Crawford,  received  $125  from  for  disbursement  in  Stephenson  campaign..  1929 
Disbursements,  list  of  in  Stephenson  primary  campaign;  items  in  ex- 
plained; sums  in  paid  for  securing  workers  to  help  get  out  vote  and  to  get 

some  checkers  at  polls 1930, 1931 

Fenelon,  James,  so  far  as  I know  have  been  his  attorney  for  last  four  or  five 
years;  should  regard  it  dangerous  (owing  to  his  illness)  to  have  him  come 

to  Madison 

Fenelon,  James,  telegram  from  to  Ramsey,  I wrote  it  myself;  it  was  my 

own  phrasing 

Fenelon,  Representative  James,  last  conversation  with,  that  I remember 
particulars  of  was  recently,  when  he  was  subpoenaed  to  appear  here; 
said  there  was  no  use  in  his  going;  that  I knew  his  physical  condition 
and  that  I knew  more  about  it  than  he  did;  that  I could  tell  the  commit- 
tee whatever  there  was  to  it;  I did  not  go  into  the  details 

Fenelon,  William,  affidavit  of  in  regard  to  his  telephoning  me  that  James 
Fenelon  said  it  would  be  all  right  to  wire  Ramsey  and  ask  for  the  pair. . 


1932 

1928 

1928 

1929 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


CVII 


Page. 

Reed,  Roy  E.,  attorney,  Ripon,  Wis.,  testimony  of — Continued. 

Fenelon,  William,  nephew  of  James  Fenelon,  when  I called  up  Fenelon’s 
house  he  answered ; I stated  to  him  what  Overbeck  had  said  and  then  he 
said  he  would  ask  Fenelon;  I held  the  line  and  he  came  back  and  said  it 
would  be  all  right  to  wire  in  Fenelon’s  name  for  the  pair  to  Ramsey;  that 
was  some  time  about  9 or  10  in  the  morning  (Mar.  4,  1909);  saw  him 

that  afternoon  and  told  him  of  result  of  message 1927, 1928 

Money,  none  paid  out  by  me,  or  as  far  as  I know  by  those  to  whom  I dis- 
bursed it,  for  purpose  of  bribing  or  corruptly  influencing  electors 1931 

Overbeck,  Henry,  Madison,  received  a telephone  message  from  him  be- 
tween 8 and  8.30  morning  of  March  4,  1909,  asking  me  if  I thought  Fenelon 
would  pair  with  Ramsey  on  senatorial  question;  I told  him  I thought  he 

would ; he  asked  me  to  find  out  and  if  so  to  send  a wire  for  the  pair 1927 

Overbeck,  I did  not  know  him  except  by  reputation,  so  took  some  time  to 
find  out  his  position  on  senatorial  question  before  I sent  the  telegram;  asked 
several  people  and  then  sent  wire  as  it  is  given  there;  at  same  time  sent 
him  a telegram  saying  I had  sent  the  telegram  (to  Ramsey);  about  11 
o’clock  that  day  received  a phone  from  him  asking  what  arrangement 
had  been  made  in  regard  to  the  pair  and  I told  him  I had  sent  the  wire. . 1927 

Ramsey,  telegram  from,  until  June  10,  1910,  I had  the  original  reply;  had 
occasion  to  write  Stephenson  on  an  entirely  different  matter  at  that  time 
and  I sent  it  to  him;  found  copy  of  a telegram  in  my  letter  file  other  day 

(reads  telegram) . . . 1927, 1928 

Ramsey,  Thomas,  met  him  this  last  winter;  prior  to  that  did  not  know  him; 
sent  him  a telegram  on  4th  of  March,  1909,  at  request  of  Fenelon;  have 

not  a copy  of  it,  but  it  appears  in  record  (reads  it  from  record) 1926, 1927 

Ramsey,  when  I delivered  the  message  for,  at  telegraph  office  at  Ripon,  I 
asked  them  to  deliver  any  reply  that  might  come  to  me,  and  I paid  the 
charge  at  that  time;  after  that,  think  it  was  immediately  after  dinner, 

they  delivered  the  reply  from  him,  which  appears  in  record 1927 

Stephenson,  copy  of  letter  I wrote  him  inclosing  telegram  from  Ramsey. . . 1927 

Thayer,  L.  W.,  received  $20  from;  he  testified  the  other  day  it  was  $10, 

but  it  was  $20 1929 

Total  amount  I received  was  $145  and  I disbursed  $152;  have  not  been  paid 

the  difference 1931 

Reese,  John  M.,  president  of  the  Dodgeville  Chronicle,  weekly  newspaper,  and 
president  of  the  First  National  Bank  of  Dodgeville,  Dodgeville,  Wis.,  affi- 
davit of 2011 

Age,  42  years * 2011 

Campaign  headquarters,  received  from,  $150 2012 

Chronicle  carried  special  advertising  matter  in  the  interest  of  Stephenson; 
caused  3,000  extra  copies  to  be  mailed  to  practically  all  the  voters  of  Iowa 
County;  received  for  such  work  $100;  payment  of  money  in  no  way 
influenced  the  policy  of  said  paper;  was  simply  compensation  for  said 

work 2011 

Iowa  County,  resided  in  for  past  42  years 2011 

Madison  investigation,  not  called  as  witness  in 2012 

Money  not  disbursed  for  the  purpose  of  corruptly  or  unlawfully  influencing 

or  bribing  any  person 2012 

Precinct  workers,  employed;  hired  teams  and  drivers  for  purpose  of  con- 
veying voters  to  polls  on  primary  day  at  expense  of  $50 ; no  one  employed 

who  was  not  at  the  time  a Stephenson  supporter 2011 

Statement  of  expenditures,  never  called  upon  to  furnish  itemized 2012 

Stephenson,  supporter  of  in  primary  campaign 2011 

Work  done  in  campaign  in  accordance  with  usual  custom  of  campaigning 

in  that  vicinity 2012 

Regan,  M.  J.,  real  estate,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1674, 1695 

Absence  of  members,  never  discussed  subject  with  Shields;  never  sug- 
gested the  subject  at  any  time 1680, 1681, 1682, 1697, 1698 

Ay  1 ward,  said  O’Connor  was  the  first  man  who  told  him  of  the  Wagner 

story . 1682 

Black,  Wood  said  he  might  get  money  from,  by  agreeing  to  keep  out  cer- 
tain evidence;  I reported  my  conversation  with  Wood 1684, 1685 

Farrell,  never  discussed  question  of  securing  absence  of,  with  Shields; 
think  Shields  said  he  had  heard  something  about  him  (Farrell)  disput- 
ing with  Democratic  members  about  running  out  when  they  were  called . 1680, 

1697, 1698 


CVJII 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Regan,  M.  J.,  real  estate,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of — Continued.  Page. 

Farrell,  talked  with  him  about  the  Stephenson  case  at  the  Plankinton 

Hotel 1685,1686 

Farrell,  was  said  to  be  present  when  it  was  alleged  I had  given  Towne, 

Ramsey,  and  Farrell  $35,000  at  the  Plankinton  Hotel 1687 

Husting,  think  he  should  have  investigated  the  Wagner  story  more  fully 

before  putting  him  on  the  stand 1707, 1708 

McNally,  think  he  said,  “Why  don’t  the  Democrats  get  up  in  a body  and 
walk  out,  and  let  those  fellows  fight  their  own  battles  out  there;”  think 

I agreed  that  would  be  a good  plan 1682 

Marsh,  think  he  should  have  investigated  the  Wagner  story  more  fully 

before  putting  him  on  the  stand 1707, 1708 

Mason,  district  attorney  of  Dane  County,  refused  to  subpoena  O’Connor 

in  the  Wagner  case 1678 

Miner,  said  O’Connor  was  the  first  man  who  told  him  of  the  Wagner  story; 
told  me  he  had  paid  expenses  of  a man  to  go  to  see  O’Connor  and  see  the 

photograph,  but  did  not  see  it 1678, 1682, 1783 

Money,  Shields  did  not  tell  me  he  had  authority  to  get  or  use  for  the  pur- 
pose of  aiding  in  Stephenson’s  election 1680, 1704 

Morris,  absence  of,  from  investigating  committee 1707, 1708, 1709, 1710 

Morris,  testified  under  oath  that  the  committee  had  possession  of  Wagner’s 

testimony  about  a month  before  Wagner  was  put  on  the  stand 1710 

Morris,  would  like  to  modify  my  testimony  concerning 1707, 1708 

O’Connor,  told  me  he  had  a flash  photograph  of  the  fellows  that  lined  up  that 
deal  (as  to  Wagner’s  story)  in  the  Plankinton  Hotel;  Wagner  was  in  the 

habit  of  going  to  his  office 1678, 1682, 1683 

Offices  and  positions  held 1674 

Puelicher,  never  saw  him  until  he  came  into  the  court  during  Wagner’s 

trial 1686 

Puelicher,  was  said  to  be  present  when  it  was  alleged  I had  given  Towne, 

Ramsey,  and  Farrell  $35,000  at  the  Plankinton  Hotel 1687 

Ramsey,  do  not  think  I talked  with,  while  he  was  in  the  legislature;  other 

conversation  with 1686 

Ramsey,  never  discussed  question  of  securing  absence  of,  with  Shields; 

did  not  talk  about,  with  Shields 1680, 1697, 1698, 1699 

Ramsey,  was  said  to  be  present  when  it  was  alleged  I had  given  Towne, 

Ramsey,  and  Farrell  $35,000  at  the  Plankinton  Hotel 1687 

Ryan,  consulted  him  with  reference  to  the  Wagner  story ; had  been  started  by, 
to  get  evidence  as  to  Wagner’s  story;  probably  talked  to,  about  Shields; 
talked  to,  about  the  telegrams  after  they  were  stolen;  left  no  papers  with, 

in  the  Wagner  matter 1676, 1682, 1683, 1699, 1705 

Ryan,  first  consulted  him  about  the  Wagner  story  on  5th  or  6th  of  May,  1909, 

I think;  did  not  tell  him  about  telegrams  then;  think  we  talked  about 

Shields’s  conversation  with  me 1706, 1707 

Ryan,  has  been  my  counsel  since  1882,  was  a man  of  high  character 1709 

Shields,  R.  J.: 

Conversation  with,  as  to  election  of  Senator  Stephenson;  never  told 
me  he  had  authority  to  get  or  use  money  for  aiding  in  Stephenson’s 
election,  nor  of  securing  absence  or  presence  of  members;  was  favor- 
able to  Stephenson’s  election;  did  not  leave  town  for  fear  of  being 

seen  with 1680, 1681, 1682, 1695, 1696, 1697, 1699, 1700 

Do  not  know  date  of  first  telegram  of,  but  think  it  was  10  or  12  days 

before  March  4 1695,1696 

Never  discussed  question  of  securing  absence  of  Farrell,  Towne,  or 

Ramsey  with 1680, 1697 

Never  said  anything  to  me  about  being  in  Washington 1697 

Received  two  telegrams  from,  in  February,  1909,  asking  me  to  meet 
Ir'm  at  the  Pfister  Hotel;  had  conversation  with,  there  mainly  about 
some  cut-over  lands,  and  also  the  contest  at  Madison;  probably 
talked  with  Ryan  about;  do  not  think  telegram  was  sent  from  Wash- 
ington; think  second  telegram  was  sent  from  Madison 1679, 

1680, 1681, 1696, 1697, 1699, 1700, 1701, 1702, 1703 
Souther,  did  not  meet  Wood  in  office  of,  in  1909,  not  till  1910;  conversation 
with,  in  his  office,  not  exactly  as  he  testified  to;  told  him  his  testimony 

was  not  true 1675, 1678, 1679, 1684, 1685 

Souther,  do  not  think  he  is  a bad  man;  I think  he  himself  believed  what  he 
said 1685,1704 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


CIX 


Regan,  M.  J.,  real  estate,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of — Continued.  Page 

Souther,  talked  with  me  about  the  Wagner  story  and  the  telegrams  from 
Shields;  no  reason  why  I should  not  talk  with  him  about  the  telegrams.  1703, 

1704, 1705, 1706 

Souther,  meeting  with  him  and  Wood  was  on  April  1 1688 

Towne,  did  not  see,  during  the  session  that  elected  Senator  Stephenson...  1685 
Towne,  had  never  seen  him  until  I sent  for  him  at  Madison;  spoke  to  him 
about  the  story  of  my  giving  him  part  of  $35,000  at  the  Plankinton  Hotel 

on  February  20, 1909;  details  of  story 1686, 1687, 1688 

Towne,  never  discussed  question  of  securing  absence  of,  with  Shields;  did 

not  talk  about,  with  Shields 1670, 1680, 1697, 1698, 1699 

Wagner,  story  of,  absolutely  false  from  start  to  finish 1683 

Wagner,  talked  with  Wood  and  Souther  about;  told  Wood  he  had  no  corrob- 
orating evidence  back  of  his  story,  that  it  better  be  investigated  before 
he  was  put  on  the  stand;  Wood  thought  he  stole  two  telegrams  from  my 

desk;  letter  from,  to  Wood;  tried  to  secure  indictment  of 1675, 

1676, 1677, 1678, 1682, 1683, 1684, 1689, 1703, 1704, 1705 

Wood,  Harry  W.: 

Came  to  my  house  to  talk  about  Frank  Wagner,  in  February,  1910;  told 
me  he  thought  he  could  learn  from  Wagner  who  were  back  of  the 
frame  up  of  the  Wagner  story;  said  he  thought  Wagner  had  stolen  two 
telegrams  from  my  desk.  .1674, 1675, 1676, 1677, 1695, 1696, 1703, 1704, 1705 
Conversation  with,  in  Souther’s  office,  not  exactly  as  he  testified  to; 

told  him  his  testimony  was  not  true 1678, 1679, 1684, 1685 

Meeting  with  him  and  Souther  was  on  April  1;  arranged  with,  at  that 

meeting  for  him  to  go  and  see  Wagner 1688, 1689 

No  reason  why  I should  not  talk  with  him  about  the  telegrams;  do  not 

think  I did  talk  with  him  about  them 1705, 1706 

Said  he  and  Souther  had  agreed  to  testify  that  I had  stated  to  them  that 
Shields  came  with  money  to  bribe  the  legislators;  said  he  might  be 
able  to  hold  up  the  Stephenson  crowd  for  money  by  withholding  his 

testimony  as  to  these  alleged  occurrences 1684, 1685 

Remold,  Fred  W.,  insurance  agent,  Kenosha,  Wis.,  affidavit  of 2012 

Age,  48  years 2012 

Campaign  headquarters  at  Milwaukee,  received  from,  $161.05 2012 

Campaign  work  done  in  primary  contest,  in  city  and  county  of  Kenosha, 
during  primary  contest,  at  request  of  campaign  managers  at  Milwaukee, 
who  requested  him  to  look  after  Stephenson’s  interest,  by  circulating,  dis- 
tributing, and  posting  up  his  literature  and  lithographs,  and  obtaining 
list  of  names,  also  in  advocating  and  promoting  political  interests  of 
Stephenson ; legitimate  expenses  would  be  paid  and  a reasonable  compen- 
sation for  services;  engaged  in  work  about  six  weeks;  instructed  to  incur 

only  legitimate  expenses 2012,  2013 

Kenosha,  resided  in,  for  past  48  years 2012 

Madison  investigation,  not  called  as  witness  at 2013 

Money  not  disbursed  for  the  purpose  of  corruptly  or  unlawfully  influencing 

or  bribing  any  person 2013 

Personal  expenses,  expended  about  $100  for 2012 

Poll  workers,  $50,  included  in  personal  expense  expenditure  of  $100,  ex- 
pended for  services  of;  instructions  given  to;  unable  to  give  names  of; 
recalls  two;  not  employed  unless  supporters  of  Stephenson  at  the  time  of 

employment 2012 

Saloon  campaign,  instructed  by  campaign  committee  not  to  conduct 2013 

Services,  balance  of  $161.05,  not  covered  by  expenditure  of  $100  for  personal 
expenses  and  poll  workers,  retained  as  compensation  for  time  devoted  to 

campaign 2012 

Statement  of  expenditures,  never  called  upon  to  furnish  an  itemized; 

made  statement  in  aggregate  and  received  checks  for 2013 

Stephenson,  supporter  of  before  he  promised  to  do  any  political  work  for..  2012 

Report  of  full  committee  to  the  Senate vn 

Report  of  subcommittee  to  the  full  committee vii 

Report  submitted  to  Wisconsin  Legislature  on  March  18  came  with  papers  from 

governor  of  Wisconsin  to  the  United  States  Senate 322,  323 

Resolution  of  United  States  Senate  authorizing  investigation  of  election  of 

Senator  Stephenson 3 

Resolution  (No.  58)  of  Wisconsin  Legislature,  relating  to  investigation  of  the 
primary  and  general  election  of  1908  and  the  election  of  United  States  Senator 
in  1909 


2,3 


cx 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page. 


Reynolds,  Thomas,  member  of  Wisconsin  Assembly  from  Door  County,  1908  and 

1909,  testimony  of 1235, 

Blaine,  Senator,  did  not  have  a word  of  conversation  with  him  relative  to 
payment  of  money  by  Stephenson  to  me,  prior  to  time  he  filed  his  charges. 
Door  County,  men  there  all  know  Stephenson  and  what  he  did  for  people 
there  when  they  were  poor;  no  occasion  to  spend  a cent  for  him  there,  if 
I had  had  the  time;  I was  first  farmer  ever  elected  there  and  I proposed 
to  get  a State  park  there;  how  Stephenson  helped  me;  that  was  during 

legislature  of  1907 1246, 

Edmonds,  received  a $100  check  from;  after  the  primary,  I think;  I had 
been  nominated  then;  he  was  chairman  of  the  State  Republican  central 
committee;  he  said  Overbeck  advised  him  to  send  it  to  me;  I miderstood 
it  was  out  of  State  central  committee  funds;  Stephenson  told  me  after- 
wards that  he  told  him  to  send  it  to  me;  used  it  for  promotion  of  elec- 
tion of  Republican  ticket 1241,  1242, 1243, 1244, 1246 

Expense  account  filed  with  joint  investigating  committee,  given;  items  of 

explained 

Hired  a man  to  work  in  my  place  when  I was  out  in  county;  kept  him  26 

days;  called  it  $2  a day — $1.  50  and  board 1236, 

Joint  investigating  committtee,  I told  those  people  at  Madison  just  what- 
ever came  into  my  mind,  to  let  them  know  how  little  1 thought  about 

them 

Kindlin,  George,  that  I know  of  I did  not  tell  him  I saved  $100  out  of  the 
Stephenson  money;  he  says  I did;  I would  not  tell  him  the  truth  any- 
way; he  was  a busybody 

Letter  to  Milwaukee  Free  Press,  printed  in  issue  of  February  28,  1908, 
coming  out  in  favor  of  Stephenson  as  candidate  for  United  States  Senate, 

given;  I was  author  of  it 

Liquors  and  cigars,  estimated  I spent  about  $10  for,  out  of  Stephenson’s 

money 

Livery  bill,  I think,  would  be  included  in  $51.50  unaccounted  for  before 

former  committee 

Member  of  general  assembly  that  elected  Stephenson,  I was  nominated  and 

elected  as;  voted  for  Stephenson  as 

Money,  never  thought  of  impropriety  of  receiving  it  from  a candidate  for 

United  States  Senate,  who  I might  have  to  vote  on  if  elected 

Money,  none  spent  by  me  in  interest  of  Stephenson  for  bribing  or  corruptly 

influencing  voters 

Money  received  from  Stephenson,  did  not  spend  any  of  it  campaigning  for 

myself 1239, 

Nomination  papers,  circulated  Stephenson’s;  did  not  circulate  my  own; 
friends  circulated  them;  paid  $1.50  to  a man  I hired  to  circulate  Stephen- 
son’s; he  spent  one  day  at  it  and  gave  it  up;  I spent  about  28  days  at  it; 
think  I commenced  some  time  in  last  part  of  June;  had  not  announced 

my  own  candidacy  then 1238, 

Primary  election,  took  up  with  Stephenson  because  he  helped  advance 
cause  of;  changed  my  opinion  about  its  being  a great  institution  four 
years  ago  when  I saw  the  cold  ingratitude  of  man  Stephenson  helped  so 

long 

Reynolds,  T.  F.,  mentioned  in  Edmonds  account  is  another  man 

Stephenson,  have  admired  him  for  over  45  years;  would  have  supported 

him  in  absence  of  receiving  anything 1240, 

Stephenson,  met  him  on  a boat  and  received  $80  from  him,  I think  before 
July  20;  it  was  sometime  after  I circulated  his  nomination  papers; 
received  $100  in  currency  from  him  in  a registered  letter  from  Marinette 
about  middle  of  July;  was  not  a candidate  for  legislature  then,  but 

expected  to  be 1236, 1238, 1239, 1240, 1241, 

Stephenson,  supported  and  voted  for  him  in  legislature  of  1907. 

Stephenson,  traveled  through  county  in  all  directions,  advising  farmers 

that  it  was  their  duty  to  nominate  such  a man 

Reynolds,  Thomas  F.,  banker,  Oconto  Falls,  Wis.,  affidavit  of 

Age,  43  years 

Campaign  work  at  Oconto  Falls  and  Oconto  County  during  primary  con- 
test; services  voluntary,  received  no  instructions,  except  informed  by 
Edmonds  that  whatever  expenses  were  incurred  Stephenson  wanted  to 
pay  them,  and  also  desired  to  pay  compensation  for  time  put  in,  which 
affiant  did  not  desire,  never  requested,  and  did  not  receive 


1258 

1258 


1248 


1245 

1238 

1245 

1239 

1247 

1245 
1239 
1244 
1239 

1246 
1246 


1245 

1240 

1242 

1247 


1242 

1249 

1238 

2013 

2013 


2013 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


CXI 


Page. 

Reynolds,  Thomas  F.,  banker,  Oconto  Falls,  Wis.,  affidavit  of — Continued. 
Headquarters  at  Milwaukee,  received  $200  from,  for  purpose  of  paying  cam- 
paign expenses  in  Oconto  County 2013 

Money  not  disbursed  for  purpose  of  corruptly  or  unlawfully  influencing  or 

bribing  any  person 2013 

Oconto  County,  about  13  precincts  in 2013 

Oconto  Falls,  resided  in  about  29  years  past 2013 

Oconto  Falls  Herald,  paid  to  $100  at  request  of  campaign  managers  at  Mil- 
waukee, to  compensate  for  printing  and  publishing  campaign  matter, 
articles,  etc.,  and  for  sending  copy  of  paper  to  every  voter  in  the  county. . 2013 

Personal  expenses  and  expenses  of  livery  hire,  $40  retained  for 2013 

Poll  workers,  about  $60  expended  for;  instructions  given;  none  engaged 
unless  they  were  for  Stephenson  before  their  employment;  unable  to  give 

names  of  all;  recalls  three 2013 

Statement  of  expenses,  never  called  upon  for  an  itemized 2013 

Traveled  through  county  by  means  of  liveries 2013 

Stephenson,  supporter  of,  prior  to  doing  any  work  for 2013 

Ring,  Merritt  C.,  Neillsville,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1258 

Born  in  this  State 1258 

Bradford,  C.  M.,  I did  not  give  him  $50 1261 

Business,  at  present  I am  a farmer 1262 

Check  for  $500,  never  received  one;  I may  have  had  part  of  the  proceeds; 

I do  not  know  that 1267 

Clark  County  newspapers,  offer  made  to  Greenwood  Gleaner  and  Loyal 

Tribune  to  give  them  money  to  support  Stephenson 1264, 1265 

Compensation,  did  not  agree  upon  what  I was  to  receive 1259 

Crothers,  G.  E.,  did  not  offer  any  money  to  him 1268, 1273, 1274 

Dee,  I can  remember  paying  him  $150;  whether  that  was  out  of  the  $170  I 
can  not  say;  I think  I paid  him  $50  and  promised  to  send  him  $100  and 
afterwards  sent  it  to  him;  first  inquired  of  him  whether  he  had  decided 
what  candidate  to  support;  told  me  he  thought  Stephenson  was  the  man; 

he  did  support  Stephenson  after  that  to  my  satisfaction 1260, 

1261, 1262, 1265,  1270 

Edmonds,  received  $170  August  7 from,  for  purpose  of  assisting  in  campaign; 

I was  to  spend  it  in  such  a way  as  my  judgment  indicated;  can  not  specify 

how  I did  spend  it 1259,  1260 

Edmonds,  received  $800  or  $900  from  him  during  primary  campaign;  I 

think  all  at  once;  it  was  fore  part  of  August,  I think 1258, 1259 

Edmonds,  some  time  after  primary  election  wrote  me  a letter  asking  what 
my  charges  “were;  told  him  I would  make  no  charges;  I had  $25  left  of 
the  money  that  he  had  given  me  before;  he  sent  me  $125  more. . 1268, 1270. 1273 
Edmonds,  statement  to,  in  writing  but  not  itemized;  never  rendered  any 
statement  of  items;  merely  told  him  I had  expended  money;  was  not  at 

any  time  asked  for  an  account  of  expenditures 1260, 1261, 1268, 1269 

McFarland,  visited  him  at  Stevens  Point  to  see  if  I could  get  the  leading 
Republicans  there  to  support  Stephenson  as  against  Cook;  did  not  give 

him  any  money 1261, 1264, 1267, 1268 

Memorandum  of  expenditures,  I kept  on  a tablet  on  my  desk;  whether  I had 
all  the  items  on  that  I do  not  know;  most  expenditures  in  a form  I could 
easily  remember  without  any  reference  to  memorandum;  have  not  got  it 
now;  suppose  it  went  into  wastebasket  after  I had  settled  up  with 

Edmonds 1259, 1268, 1272, 1273 

Milwaukee,  think  I went  to,  three  times 1261 

Neillsville,  Wis.,  resided  there  37  years 1258 

Payment  of  $350  on  August  18 1260 

Public  office  held,  school  clerk  and  a member  of  both  branches  of  the  legis- 
lature; was  special  agent  of  Agricultural  Department  in  London  for  a 

period 1262,1263 

Smith,  William  L.,  to  whom  I delivered  a check  for  $250,  was  a candidate 
for  the  legislature;  privately  and  publicly  said  in  his  announcement  as  a 
candidate  that  he  was  pledged  to  support  no  candidate,  but  would  sup- 
port one  who  received  majority  of  votes  at  primary;  no  purpose  of  aiding 
in  his  campaign  as  a candidate  for  legislature. . . 1261, 1263, 1264, 1269, 1270, 1274 
Stephenson,  circulated  nomination  papers  for  him  personally  in  city  of 
Neillsville 1268 

15235°— 11 viii 


CXII 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


King,  Merritt  C.,  Neillsville,  Wis.,  testimony  of — Continued.  Page. 

Stephenson,  did  not  pay  any  person  money  to  vote  for  him 1268, 1273 

Stephenson,  did  not  visit  him  at  Marinette  during  campaign 1261 

Stephenson  campaign  in  1908,  took  something  of  an  active  part  in;  handled 

a little  money;  aggregate  amount  received 1258, 1259, 1268,  1269, 1270 

Traveled  over  about  four  counties  and  when  I met  a man  who  was  recom- 
mended to  me  as  a good  worker  I gave  him  from  $5  to  $15  or  $20;  went 
into  Chippewa,  Eau  Claire,  Clark,  and  Portage  Counties  and  expended 
very  small  sums  in  each  one;  spent  practically  all  my  time  in  trying  to 

do  what  I could  in  interest  of  Stephenson;  explained 1260, 1270, 1271, 1272 

Williamson,  gave  him  $50  for  publishing  advertisements  and  pictures  in 

the  Neillsville  Times,  a weekly  paper 1266 

Riordan,  D.  E.,  Eagle  River,  Wis.,  testimony  of 774 

Accounted  for  $1,200  of  this  money  before  legislative  committee;  have 
endeavored  to  account  for  same  amount  before  this  committee;  have  not 
added  any  items  to  the  expenditures;  made  best  effort  I could  to  account 
for  expenditures  before  joint  committee;  have  not  been  in  the  locality 
where  I could  make  an  investigation  since  for  purpose  of  recalling  de- 
tails  785,786,788 

Antigo  Journal,  paid  them  either  $20  or  $25  for  printing  of  sample  ballots..  779 

Assemblymen,  how  elected  in  Wisconsin 794 

Berg,  former  game  warden  and  political  worker,  I did  not  pay  him  money 

and  he  did  no  work  for  me 784 

Bissell,  W.  H.,  of  Arbor  Vitae,  Vilas  County,  paid  money  to  be  used  in 
employing  men  for  distributing  ballots  in  town  or  precincts  of  Arbor 
Vitae;  I had  to  insist  on  his  taking  the  money;  I mention  that  because 

he  is  a lumberman  and  a friend  of  Stephenson’s 779,  780 

Campaign,  I think  a thorough  campaign  for  United  States  Senate  under 
Wisconsin  primary  law,  could  not  be  made  for  $107,000;  I think  $200,000 
could  have  been  spent  legitimately  in  1908;  other  candidates  would  have 
had  to  spend  that  amount  as  well  to  make  an  effective  campaign  in  same 

length  of  time  Stephenson  had 803,  804,  805 

Campaign,  which  I planned  and  tried  to  carry  through,  was  one  to  reach 
votes  in  rural  districts  and  not  in  cities,  which  was  much  more  expensive 
because  other  candidates  had  been  working  for  months  in  centers;  I gave 
it  practically  all  of  my  time  from  time  I accepted  management  until 
primary  day;  I was  going  over  the  whole  district;  did  not  have  time  or 
money  to  canvass  district  to  ascertain  Stephenson  Republicans;  think 
preliminary  canvass  is  essential  feature  of  thorough  campaign.  788,  790,  792,  793 

Candidates  for  the  assembly,  none  employed  by  me  except  Everett 805 

Compensation,  I figured  that  I had  between  $450  and  $500  left  after  I com- 
pleted the  campaign;  I kept  that  for  my  services 786 

Connor,  Matt,  paid  him  $40  to  put  sample  ballots  in  hands  of  men  who 

would  attend  polls  on  election  day  and  work  for  Stephenson 777,  778 

Edmonds,  did  not  know  about  details  of  my  campaign  work;  I do  not  think 
he  knew  about  my  arrangements  with  men;  in  a general  way  I reported 

to  him  character  of  campaign  I was  making 789,  790 

Edmonds,  first  entered  into  an  agreement  with  him  to  support  Stephenson 
in  the  latter  part  of  July  on  North  Western  train;  had  then  made  up  my 
mind  to  support  Stephenson;  he  said  he  would  send  me  $1,000;  I had 

several  meetings  with  him  in  Milwaukee 775 

Edmonds,  I talked  with  him  about  organization  in  seven  counties  and  with 
respect  to  rest  of  State  and  we  made  up  our  minds  there  would  be  no  use 

attempting  a preliminary  canvass 793,  795 

Edmonds,  said  he  was  giving  me  the  money  to  take  charge  of  campaign  in 
counties  included  in  northern  portion  of  State,  which  were  Forest,  Flor- 
ence, Langdale,  Lincoln,  Iron,  Oneida,  and  Vilas;  I spent  some  of  aggre- 
gate sum  in  each  county,  but  not  very  much  in  two  of  them 776,  788,  790 

Everett,  of  Eagle  River,  I paid  him  the  largest  sum  in  all,  $250,  for  travel- 
ing through  the  counties  of  Vilas,  Iron,  and  Oneida  to  ascertain  the  senti- 
ment of  the  people;  made  two  such  trips  through  the  county  and  reported 
to  me  after  each  one;  was  proprietor  of  Everett  summer  resort;  at  the 
time  was  a candidate  for  the  assembly;  I paid  him  the  money  by  check 
a day  or  two  before  primary  election;  knew  he  was  a candidate  then,  I 
think;  he  was  not  elected;  he  was  to  vote  for  candidate  who  received 
primary  nomination 780,  781,  782,  786,  788,  789 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


CXIII 


Riordan,  D.  E.,  Eagle  River,  Wis.,  testimony  of — Continued.  Page. 

Forest  County,  I paid  $50  to  parties  at  Jillson  Hotel  at  Monico  Junction, 
who  came  there  to  meet  me,  but  I am  unable  to  give  their  names  and 
amounts;  paid  them  same  time  I paid  Jillson  $50;  to  be  used  to  employ 
men  at  polling  places  across  the  line  in  Forest  County  election  day; 
admonished  them  not  to  talk  to  any  elector  within  100  feet  of  the  polls. . 784 

Game  wardens;  I never  gave  any  money  to  them  or  deputy  game  wardens.  786 
Jillson,  B.  F.,  keeps  hotel  at  Monico  Junction,  gave  him  $50  for  use  in 
getting  vote  to  polls,  to  influence  voters  by  sample  ballot,  and  to  talk  to 

electors  within  proper  distance  of  polls 783 

Literature,  made  arrangements  with  Edmonds  to  send  matter  from  place 
to  place;  paid  men  for  putting  it  up,  and  in  many  places  left  something 
for  privilege  and  trouble  of  keeping  it  up,  if  torn  down;  I paid  out 

directly  that  way  not  less  than  $100 791,  792 

Liquors  and  cigars,  I carried  some  cigars  with  me  and  treated  gentlemen 
with  them  in  discussing  the  matter,  but  there  was  no  money  given  any- 
one to  buy  liquor  or  cigars  with;  there  might  have  been  a drink  bought 
occasionally,  but  there  was  no  saloon  campaign  made;  I should  say  not 
to  exceed  $50  altogether  was  spent  for  liquor  from  funds  intrusted  to  me.  804 
Lowell,  editor  of  the  Rhinelander  New  North,  Rhinelander,  Wis.,  paid 
him  $20  or  $25  for  printing  sample  ballots,  such  as  were  to  be  used  in 

Oneida  County 778 

Marteau,  Frank,  runs  a newspaper  that  is  printed,  I think,  in  Italian  at 
Hurley,  in  Iron  County;  I paid  him  $100;  $25  of  that  was  for  printing 
sample  ballots  on  tinted  paper;  the  other  $75  was  to  be  used  in  picking 
out  men  who  were  voters  to  attend  the  polls  in  different  precincts  on 
election  day  to  call  attention  of  voters  to  Stephenson’s  qualifications, 
and  to  take  a sample  ballot  to  booth  so  as  to  enable  him  to  properly  mark 
the  ballot;  was  to  hire  as  many  men  as  he  could  on  primary  day  to  per- 
form that  service ; 776,  777,  778,  785 

Memorandum,  I did  not  keep  one  at  that  time;  it  has  never  been  my  cus- 
tom in  spending  my  own  money  when  I was  a candidate  to  require  any- 
one to  account  to  me  for  what  they  expended  in  my  behalf 787 

Money,  I did  not  pay  any  person  any,  directly  or  indirectly,  to  secure  their 
support  for  Stephenson;  did  not  spend  any  for  purpose  of  corrupting  any 
elector;  within  my  knowledge  none  was  expended  by  men  to  whom  I 
intrusted  funds  for  purpose  of  directly  or  indirectly  bribing  or  corrupting 

electors 783,785,803,804 

Money,  I received  all  of  it  before  direct  primary  election  and  after  Stephen- 
son announced  his  candidacy;  I expended  it  in  interest  of  Stephenson’s 
candidacy;  I turned  over  some  money  to  be  disbursed  on  the  judgment 

of  others 776 

Moran,  Barney,  Pelican,  Oneida  County,  I paid  him  $50  to  employ  as  many 
men  as  he  could  to  attend  polling  precincts  outside  of  city  of  Rhine- 
lander, using  sample  ballots  in  advising  and  instructing  voters  to  vote 

for  Stephenson 778 

Nomination  papers,  I did  not  have  men  employed  to  procure  names  for;  if 

I did  take  part  in  that  work,  there  was  no  charge 791 

Oberhalzer,  former  game  warden  and  political  worker,  I did  not  pay  him 

money;  he  did  not  do  any  work  for  me 784 

O’Connor,  George  E.,  Eagle  River,  Vilas  County,  paid  him  $75  to  find  out 
situation  in  mill  towns;  was  looking  for  information  as  to  who  was  for  and 
against  the  candidates  before  I did  anything  in  campaign;  he  had  always 
supported  Stephenson;  he  brought  me  a list  of  names;  he  did  not  offer 

the  people  any  inducement  for  their  support 782,  783 

Political  experience,  I took  an  active  part  in  all  campaigns  from  1894  until 
1908,  with  the  exception  of  1906;  am  familiar  with  methods  in  vogue  in 

my  vicinity;  was  a member  of  State  senate  from  1896  until  1904 793,  794 

Rogers  Printing  Co.,  of  Eagle  River,  I paid  them  $25  for  printing  sample 
ballots  to  be  used  in  Vilas  County 779 


State  senators,  how  elected  in  Wisconsin. 

Statement,  I made  some  kind  of  a one  and  filed  it;  it  does  not  seem  to  be  in 
the  record;  it  was  handed  to  the  senatorial  committee  at  Madison,  but 
was  not  printed  in  the  volume;  I do  not  know  whether  it  was  marked  by 
the  committee  as  an  exhibit;  I handed  it,  I think,  to  Senator  Morris;  I 
am  not  certain  vhat  it  contained 


794 


779 


CXIV 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page. 

Riordan,  D.  E.,  Eagle  River,  Wis.,  testimony  of — Continued. 

Stephens,  D.  B.,  was  candidate  against  Everett  for  assembly;  promised  to 
abide  by  result  of  primary  in  supporting  a candidate  for  United  States 

Senate 781 

Stephenson,  have  known  him  12  or  14  years;  supported  him  in  primary 
campaign  of  1908 ; did  not  support  him  in  previous  campaign  when  he 
was  elected  to  Senate;  I made  up  my  mind  to  support  him  in  case  he 
should  be  a candidate  at  time  of  national  convention  at  Chicago  in  June, 

1908,  as  result  of  conferences  I had  with  friends  of  mine  there  and  be- 
cause of  what  had  been  occurring  during  past  two  years;  I was  not  certain 

at  that  time  that  he  would  be  a candidate  for  reelection 774 

Stewart,  A.  D.,  formerly  chairman  of  the  county  committee  of  Langdale 
County,  of  Antigo,  Wis.,  a prominent  business  man  in  furniture  business; 

I paid  him  $185  as  a result  of  a conference  with  him  and  other  Republi- 
cans in  Langdale  County  to  be  used  by  him  and  the  others  in  the  employ- 
ment of  men  throughout  the  city  of  Antigo  and  some  of  towns  and  county 
precincts  in  Langdale  County  to  handle  sample  ballots  at  polls  on  primary 


Sum  of  $900  received  in  two  payments  of  $400  and  $500  some  time  after  the 
20th  or  25th  of  August,  sent  me  by  Edmonds;  one  through  A.  C.  Miller, 
stenographer  and  clerk  in  my  office  at  Ashland,  which  was  either  $400  or 
$500;  the  other  through  T.  I.  Laughlin,  who  had  charge  of  my  office  at 


Sum  of  $1,000  sent  me  by  Edmonds  by  American  Express  about  July  22  or 

25;  I put  it  in  my  safe;  I kept  it  separate  from  my  other  moneys 775 

Sum  of  $1,300  sent  me  Aug.  4;  I did  not  receive  it  then;  it  was  later  than 

that;  I was  out  and  it  was  some  time  before  I received  it 776 

Sum  of  $3,200  received  by  me;  I account  for  approximately  $1,200  by  giv- 
ing names  of  persons,  retained  between  $450  and  $500  for  compensation, 
leaving  balance  of  about  $1,500;  of  that  not  much  given  to  other  men  to 
expend  for  Stephenson;  how  a great  deal  of  it  expended  for  traveling 

expenses _ 784,  785,  786,  787,  791 

Trimble,  Frank,  Rhinelander,  Oneida  County,  paid  him  $60  or  $75  to  se- 
lect as  many  men  as  he  could  to  handle  sample  ballots  in  different  wards 

in  city  of  Rhinelander 778 

Vilas  County,  I paid  a number  of  people  there  sums  of  $5  for  purpose  of  at- 
tending polling  places  on  election  day  to  handle  sample  ballots 780 

Rogers,  Edward  J.,  express  agent  of  American  Express  Co.,  Dodgeville,  Wis., 

affidavit  of 2014 

Age,  37  years 2014 

Campaign  headquarters  in  Milwaukee,  received  from,  $481.79 2014 

Campaign  work  in  Dodgeville  and  Iowa  County  during  primary  contest,  at 
request  of  campaign  managers  at  Milwaukee,  who  gave  no  instructions 
except  to  look  after  Stephenson’s  interests  and  would  pay  legitimate 
expense  and  a reasonable  compensation  for  services;  wanted  names  of 
Stephenson  supporters  furnished;  instructed  also  to  circulate  and  keep 
posted  literature;  go  about  county  as  much  as  possible  and  advocate 
merits  of  Stephenson,  and  reasons  why  he  should  be  elected,  and  employ 

poll  workers 2014 

Distributed  about  $96  for  expense  of  securing  poll  list,  distributing  adver- 
tising matter,  livery  hire,  and  expense  of  circulating  nomination  papers.  2014 

Dodgeville,  resided  in,  for  37  years  past 2014 

Iowa  County,  28  precincts  in;  a large  county 2014 

Money  not  disbursed  for  the  purpose  of  corruptly  or  unlawfully  influencing 

or  bribing  any  person 2014 

Precinct  workers,  disbursed  $130  to 2014 

Precinct  workers  engaged  by  Robins  and  affiant;  unable  to  give  accurate 
names  and  addresses;  not  paid  large  ms  individually;  instructions  to 
Robins  and  practice  was  not  to  employ  any  unless  they  were  originally 

Stephenson  supporters;  instructions  given  to 2014 

Reese,  disbursed  $125  to,  for  special  advertising 2014 

Reese,  received  $100  from,  in  addition  to  $481.79  from  campaign  head- 
quarters   - - - . - 2014 

Robins,  disbursed  about  $100  to,  for  services  and  expenses  and  assisting  in 

campaign  work 2014 

Services,  retained  about  $130  for  compensation  for 2014 

Services  of  affiant  and  of  Robins  covered  period  of  about  six  or  seven  weeks.  2014 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


cxv 


Page. 

Rogers,  Edward  J.,  express  agent  of  American  Express  Co.,  Dodgeville,  Wis., 
affidavit  of — Continued. 

Statement  of  money  disbursed,  never  called  upon  for  itemized;  did  not 
occur  to  keep  an  accurate  account;  regrets  did  not;  did  make  general 

report  to  headquarters,  but  not  in  detail 2014 

Stephenson,  supporter  of,  at  time  requested  to  do  work;  had  been  prior  to 

that  time 2014 

Traveled  over  county  several  times 2014 

Roll  calls  in  the  assembly,  March  4,  1909 1349, 1350, 1351 

Rosenheim,  Adolph,  saloon  keeper,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1885 

Knell,  received  $325  from,  for  use  in  primary 1885, 1886 

Money,  received  $325  from  Mr.  Knell  for  use  in  primary;  spent  it  among 

workers  and  in  saloons;  received  none  for  personal  compensation 1885, 

1886, 1887 

Worked  for  Senator  Stephenson  in  1903;  distributed  literature  for  him; 

employed  workers  in  the  primary 1885, 1886, 1887 

Rowe,  Ralph  H.,  produce  dealer,  Waupaca,  Wis.,  affidavit  of 2017 

Acquaintance  wide  in  said  counties 2017 

Age,  50  years 2017 

Campaign  managers,  received  $499.34  from 2017 

Campaign  work  in  State  and  Waupaca  County  and  Waushara  County  during 
primary  contest,  covering  period  of  about  two  months,  at  request  of  cam- 
paign managers;  no  instructions  excepting  told  to  do  what  he  could  by 
personally  interviewing  as  many  people  as  possible  and  presenting 

reasons  why  Senator  should  be  nominated 2017 

Madison  investigation,  not  called  as  witness  at 2018 

Memoranda  of  disbursements,  kept  no  detailed;  relies  upon  memory 2018 

Money  not  disbursed  for  the  purpose  of  corruptly  or  unlawfully  influencing 

or  bribing  any  person 2018 

Personal  expenses,  expended  about  $300  for,  in  traveling  over  counties; 
consisted  of  cost  of  conveyances,  train  fares,  hotel  bills,  and  expenses 

for  entertainment,  cigars,  etc 2017,  2018 

Saloon  campaign,  did  not  make;  visited  saloons  and  hotels;  occasionally 
men  were  treated,  irrespective  of  whether  for  Stephenson  or  against; 

no  considerable  amount  spent  for  liquors 2018 

Services,  kept  $200  for 2018 

Sheriff  of  Waupaca  County  for  two  years;  also  undersheriff  for  considerable 

time 2017 

Statement,  never  called  upon  for  itemized 2018 

Stephenson,  supporter  of  prior  to  interest  in  campaign 2017 

Waupaca,  resided  in  about  past  30  years 2017 

Russell,  C.  H.,  Berlin,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1192 

Account,  I had  one  of  everything  of  any  amount  that  I paid  out  at  time  of 
expenditures;  did  not  render  one  to  Stephenson  or  anyone  in  his  behalf; 

they  did  not  ask  for  one 1198 

Age,  70  years 1200 

Campaign,  I had  been  enthusiastic  supporter  of  primary-election  law  and 
when  it  passed  thought  there  was  a chance  for  a poor  man  to  get  an 
office;  started  out  with  about  $1,500  of  my  own  money;  soon  found  I 
needed  more;  Col.  Lewis  and  I went  to  Milwaukee  and  talked  with 
Sacket;  told  him  I thought  with  some  money  I could  do  good  work  for 
myself  and  Stephenson;  so  they  agreed  on  this  amount  of  money;  Ed- 
monds and  Sacket  did 1196, 1197 

Candidate  for  nomination  for  Member  of  Congress  from  second  district  in 

1908;  not  nominated 1192,1200 

Chief  clerk  in  pension  department  in  State  capitol  at  Madison. . 1192, 1199, 1200 
Counties,  money  I had  was  to  be  spent  in  Columbia,  Marquette,  Dodge, 

and  Adams 1197 

Lewis,  I gave  him  $200  first  that  I had  orders  from  Sacket  to  give  him; 
then  I gave  him  $150  more  to  pay  for  clerk  hire  and  office  rent  and  some 
little  debts  we  owed  at  the  end  of  the  campaign;  last  item  included 
postage  and  stationery  more  particularly  for  my  own  canvass 1198, 1199 


CXVI 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Russell,  C.  H.,  Berlin,  Wis.,  testimony  of — Continued.  Page 

Money,  1 received  $700  or  $750  from  Stephenson  campaign  fund  in  three 
payments,  one  of  $200,  one  of  $350,  and  I had  $200  more;  don’t  know 
from  whom  I received  it;  was  furnished  for  workers  for  myself  and  for 

Stephenson 1192, 1193, 1198 

Money,  none  disbursed  by  me  nor,  as  far  as  I know,  by  parties  in  whose 
hands  I placed  it  for  purpose  of  bribing  or  corruptly  influencing  elec- 
tors  1199 

Nelson,  John,  represents  Madison  district  in  Congress;  is  a Republican 1200 

Served  in  First  Wisconsin  Cavalry  for  four  years;  had  rank  of  first  lieu- 
tenant when  I finished  service  in  regiment 1194, 1200 

Statement  of  expenditures,  known  as  Exhibit  111  in  report  of  joint  legis- 
lative committee,  given;  items  in,  explained;  I made  that  up  jugt  the 

day  before  I was  called  on  the  stand,  in  my  office  at  Madison 1193, 

1194, 1195, 1196 

Stephenson,  worked  in  his  interest  in  primary  campaign 1192 

Russell,  Charles  C.,  attorney,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1833, 1863 

Black,  received  instructions  from,  which  gave  to  MacLean;  no  conversa- 
tion with,  about  any  purpose  in  keeping  removal  of  papers,  etc.,  from 
Senator  Stephenson;  idea  in  having  trunk  brought  back  in  case  com- 
mittee should  want  it 1834, 1845, 1847 

Box,  said  to  contain  papers  connected  with  Stephenson  campaign;  have 
never  seen;  have  seen  what  purports  to  be  its  contents,  in  garret  of  a 
shed  in  rear  of  C.  W.  Kates’s  house  in  Wells,  Mich.,  October  10,  1911; 

contents  taken  to  Wells  in  gunny  sacks 1833-1835, 1839, 1843, 1844 

Cary,  Upham  & Black;  am  attorney  with;  not  member  of  firm;  trunk 
shipped  to,  from  Escanaba  on  October  10, 1911;  letters  in  trunk  arranged 

in  order  in  office  of,  under  my  direction;  nothing  removed 1833, 

1836, 1837, 1842, 1843, 1845 

Correspondence,  nature  of;  went  through  bundle  of  letters  to  find  out,  and 

through  all  in  trunk  in  general  way 1840, 1841 

Gunny  sacks,  in  which  contents  of  box  had  been  put;  took  from  garret  in 
shed  and  put  contents  in  trunk;  did  not  examine  contents;  saw  that  let- 
ters were  in  files;  did  not  remove  any  letters..  1834-1836, 1839, 1841, 1842, 1846 
Kates,  C.  W.,  in  whose  shed  at  rear  of  house  gunny  sacks  had  been  placed; 
brought  trunk  from  house,  October  10, 1911,  and  put  contents  of  sacks  in; 
locked  trunk  and  put  rope  around  it;  used  his  automobile  to  carry  trunk 

to  American  Express  office  in  Escanaba 1834, 1835, 1836, 1846 

Letters,  in  gunny  sack  were  in  ordinary  pasteboard  files;  were  not  alpha- 
betically arranged;  in  same  condition  as  when  reached  my  office,  so  far 

as  I know 1841, 1842, 1845 

Letters,  to  Mr.  Stephenson,  dated  subsequent  to  primary  election,  have 
knowledge  of;  other  than  those  in  trunk,  which  may  pertain  to  election; 

brought  from  Wells  to  Milwaukee;  were  separate  from  letters  in  files 1839, 

1840, 1841, 1845 

MacLean,  correspondence  and  poll  lists  taken  from  his  house  in  suit  case 
to  Marinette;  from  there  in  gunny  sacks  to  Wells  in  May,  1909,  as  per 
instructions  from  me;  and  then  back  to  Marinette  again  on  April  5, 

1909 1843, 1844, 1845, 1846 

MacLean,  got  bundle  of  letters  from  his  house  at  Wells,  March,  1909,  which 
kept  in  private  drawer  in  vault  in  Wells  Building  ever  since;  did  not 
remove  any  letters  from  bundle;  saw  one  carbon  copy  of  a letter  that 
might  have  been  in  files,  and  I had  picked  up  by  mistake. . 1840, 1841, 1842, 1844 
MacLean,  met  in  Menominee,  Mich.,  March  4,  1909  (as  instructed),  across 
river  from  Marinette,  Wis.;  told  him  to  go  to  offices  of  Stephenson  and 
get  files  of  letters  or  papers  and  take  to  Wells  and  take  care  of  them;  had 
telephoned  to,  previously,  to  meet  me  there  . . 1833, 1834, 1838, 1842, 1844, 1845 
MacLean,  superintendent  of  I.  Stephenson  Co.  at  Wells,  Mich.;  told  me 
had  gone  to  Stephenson’s  office  as  per  instructions,  found  files  on  chair; 
could  not  carry;  too  bulky;  so  removed  contents  to  suit  case  and  they 

remained  in  this  case  until  some  time  later 1838, 1839, 1845 

Poll  lists,  in  trunk,  same  as  had  been  in  gunny  sacks;  had  seen  before  in 

Wells  at  time  I was  examining  correspondence 1843 

Receipt,  express,  of  box  shipped  from  headquarters  in  Milwaukee  to 
Marinette,  dated  September  5,  1908.  found  in  storage  barns  of  American 
Express  Co 1836, 1837 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


CXVII 


Russell,  Charles  C.,  attorney,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of — Continued.  Page. 

Stephenson,  Senator,  knew  nothing  about  correspondence  being  carried 
from  Marinette  to  Wells;  was  in  Washington;  no  object  in  keeping  it 

from  him;  no  purpose  in  moving  it 1843,  1847 

Stringham,  Miss,  did  not  see  in  Marinette;  came  on  train  with,  from  Madi- 
son to  Milwaukee,  March  3;  stated  to  her  MacLean  would  call  for  this 

correspondence  and  to  have  it  ready  when  he  called 1833, 1838 

Trunk,  have  seen  contents  of,  since  it  arrived  in  Milwaukee;  nothing  in 
form  of  papers  removed  from,  to  my  knowledge;  had  charge  of  in  a gen- 
eral way;  did  not  remove  any  letters  from  files 1837, 1842 

Trunk,  in  which  all  the  contents  of  gunny  sacks  had  been  placed;  shipped 
from  Escanaba  to  Milwaukee;  weighed  185  pounds;  have  not  shipping 
bill  of;  now  contains  all  of  correspondence  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge. . 1835, 

1836, 1839, 1843, 1845, 1863, 1864 

S. 


Sacket,  Rodney,  an  executive  clerk  of  the  United  States  Senate.  Berlin,  Wis., 

testimony  of 152,  374,  440, 1804,  2063 

Account,  did  not  understand  the  law  required  me  to  keep  one;  did  not 
understand  law  required  me  to  file  one  which  shall  state  amount  of  money 

and  purpose  for  which  paid  out 162, 163 

Accounts  in  record  filed,  as  complete  as  kept  on  card  index;  copied  from 
cards;  names  and  purposes  of  expenditures  always  transferred  to;  ex- 
plains more  fully  than  cards 500,  522,  523 

Accounts,  kept  as  full  as  I had  the  time  for;  did  not  hire  help  on  as  I pre- 
ferred to  keep  them  myself 496 

Accounts,  when  I began  work  thought  of  necessity  of  keeping  accounts  but 

did  not  think  it  necessary  to  keep  permanent  ones 477 

Advertisement  in  Milwaukee  Free  Press,  copy  of  only  one  I was  able  to  get 
that  contained  campaign  advertising;  is  a half-page  display  similar  to  one 
ran  in  all  large  daily  papers  of  Milwaukee  at  same  time;  inserted  on  three 
days  preceding  election;  remember  bill  for  being  found  among  those  left 

at  Madison;  described  and  read 529,  530,  531 

Advertising,  recollection  of  certain  items  for 433, 434,  436 

Ames,  A.  R.,  recollect  paying  him  $200  for  organizing  in  Dane  County;  be- 
lieve it  was  in  cash;  was  to  keep  within  the  law  and  render  an  account; 
account  from  left  with  joint  legislative  committee,  as  I recollect;  paid 
$350,  August  8;  $50,  August  14;  and  $50,  August  28,  for  same  purpose  as 

previous  payment 527,  528,  531,  532,  547,  548 

Ames,  A.  R.,  testimony  shows  he  received  $450  more  than  accounted  for  in 
Exhibit  49;  to  best  of  my  knowledge  must  have  covered  some  item  of 

general  expense  charged  in  that  exhibit 2067 

Ashland  County  item,  have  no  recollection  of 429 

Bancroft,  asked  Puelicher  to  make  arrangements  with  him;  I did  not  talk 
to  him  with  regard  to  payment  of  money;  Puelicher  was  to  have  distinct 
understanding  with  him  that  all  money  given  him  by  our  headquarters 
was  to  be  used  for  Stephenson’s  interests,  and  none  of  it  was  to  be  used  to 
promote  his  own  campaign;  did  not  provide  method  by  which  uses  could 

be  separated 403,  404,  485,  486,  509 

Bancroft,  employment  of,  think  Mr.  McMahon  sent  his  name  to  Mr.  Ed- 
monds; Edmonds  agreed  to  see  him  but  was  called  away;  I was  busy  and 
asked  Mr.  Puelicher  to  talk  to  him;  McMahon  said  he  was  for  Stephenson; 
talked  matter  over  with  Mr.  Puelicher,  and  we  did  not  think  it  improper . 408, 

409, 485,  486 

Bancroft,  L.,  paid  $250  July  31  to  promote  Stephenson  campaign  in  Rich- 
land County;  at  that  time  was  candidate  for  assembly  from  that  county; 
was  elected,  and  was  speaker  of  house;  knew  he  was  a candidate  when  I 
paid  him  money;  voted  for  Stephenson  for  United  States  Senator  in 
legislature;  elected  attorney  general  last  fall;  voted  for  Stephenson  in 

1907 401,402,403,485,509 

Beach,  J.  B.,  $150  paid  him  October  16,  which  he  claimed  we  owed  him  in 

final  settlement  of  account  for  organizing 562 

Berg,  O.  A.,  have  no  recollection  of  item  of  August  13,  $50  to 428 

Berlin  A.  & I.  Association,  $150  paid  for  stock;  association  was  a county 
fair;  think  deal  was  made  with  man  named  Edwards  from  Oshkosh;  I 
ratified  it;  fact  that  Stephenson  had  invested  money  well  known  around 
locality  where  fair  was;  not  a good  stock  investment,  but  not  a bad  ad- 
vertising one 560, 561 


CXVIII 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page. 

Sacket,  Rodney,  an  executive  clerk  o;  the  United  States  Senate,  Berlin,  Wis., 
testimony  of — Continued. 

Bills,  accounts,  and  receipts  left  with  joint  committee  at  Madison;  unable  to 

say  in  all  cases  which  ones  itemized 492 

Bills,  have  receipts  for  where  service  was  with  regular  business  houses; 
business  bills  and  campaign  bills  distinguished  because  I demanded  strict 
business  rules  from  business  houses  that  I would  not  demand  of  friend 

campaigning  for  me 452 

Bills,  none  were  for  services  rendered  after  primary,  September  1 566 

Bowman,  Harry,  either  paid  him  $150  or  gave  the  check  or  cash  to  Mr. 
Edmonds  to  pay  him;  does  not  know  how  money  used  by;  have  no  recol- 
lection of  paying  him  any  money  at  any  time 164,  430 

Bowman,  W.  A.,  in  testimony  says  he  received  $20  more  than  shown  by 

Exhibit  49;  I can  not  account  for  it 2067 

Box,  in  which  papers  connected  with  campaign  were  placed,  had  bills  put 
into  and  sent  up  to  Stephenson  and  they  were  afterwards  returned  to  me; 
to  my  knowledge,  no  memoranda  of  expenditures  was  placed  in;  saw  it 
after  it  reached  Milwaukee  in  office  of  Cary,  Upham  & Black;  the  box,  the 
trunk,  was  open,  and  Mr.  Russell  asked  me  if  it  was  our  stuff;  thought  I 
recognized  our  things;  had  never  seen  them  in  a trunk  before;  why  I did 

not  explain  about  when  on  witness  stand  before 1806, 1809, 1810, 1811 

Box,  in  which  papers  connected  with  campaign  were  placed;  presume 
unused  stationery  went  into;  “I  did  not  think  there  was  any  correspond- 
ence in  the  box  until  after  I testified  (previously)  ” 2077 

Box,  in  which  papers  connected  with  campaign  were  placed;  told  Mr. 
Lambeck  to  put  fixtures  and  everything  Stephenson  might  use  in  his 
offices  into;  gave  him  no  instructions  to  put  papers  into  unless  it  might 
have  been  poll  lists;  think  it  was  in  outer  room  or  in  vault  being  packed 
when  I finally  left  the  offices,  shortly  after  September  1;  directed  Lam- 
beck to  send  it  to  Marinette;  Stephenson  did  not  tell  me  to  send  it;  have 

no  knowledge  of  papers  that  went  into 1804, 1805, 1811, 1812 

Bratz,  W.,  paid  $100  August  13  for  expenses  and  possibly  some  salary  in 
organizing  Washington  County;  do  not  know  how  he  expended  it;  if  I 
received  expense  account  from,  it  was  filed  with  others;  item  of  August  14 
was  to  pay  for  advertisement  he  inserted  in  some  paper;  item  of  August 

21  for  advertising 427,  428,  548 

Breithaupt,  L.,  think  payment  of  $660  was  for  printing  of  some  kind 463 

Bruderle,  paid  him  $60  for  advertising  space  in  a paper  published  in  Fond  du 
Lac;  a German  paper,  I think;  articles  set  forth  Stephenson’s  qualifi- 
cations  429 

Buttons,  distributed  more  than  100,000;  bill  from  Whithead  & Hoag  Co.  on 

file  shows  cost 430 

Calkins,  L.  A.,  received  $250  in  cash  from  Edmonds,  which  appears  in 
Exhibit  49;  I can  not  say  just  where,  but  it  appears  as  a general  item  or 

part  of  a general  item;  do  not  know  what  $210  check  is  for 2068 

Calkins  made  an  affidavit  in  which  he  stated  he  had  received  $760; 
Exhibit  49  shows  him  charged  with  $300  in  his  own  name;  received  $250 
in  cash  from  Edmonds,  which  appears  in  Exhibit  49  under  the  head  of 
“General”;  He  received  a check  from  E.  A.  Edmonds  on  his  $5,000  in 


National  Exchange  Bank;  that  explains  discrepancy 2084 

Campaign,  assisted  Mr.  Edmonds  in  general  management  of,  at  Milwaukee 

office  in  1908 152 

Campaign,  never  took  personal  active  part  in  any  except  Stephenson 494 

Campaign,  severed  connection  with  October  16  when  I settled  the  final 

outstanding  accounts 405 

Campaign,  we  had  no  information  to  start  with;  had  no  lists;  every  thing 


waukee  headquarters  at  Wells  Building;  engaged  to  perform  by  Stephen- 
son latter  part  of  June,  1908 152 

Campaign  in  Wisconsin,  if  a man  wanted  to  make  a systematic  campaign 
for  United  States  Senate,  and  get  the  best  possible  results,  I think  it  would 

cost  him  $150,000  to  $200,000 513 

Campaign  literature,  Hoard  letter,  and  letter  sent  out  with  nomination 
papers  in  record  before  joint  committee;  15,000  or  20,000  letters  sent  out 
with  nomination  papers;  about  150,000  Hoard  letters  sent  out;  of  400,000 
Republican  voters  only  able  to  reach  150,000  with  literature 512 


DIGEST  INDEX, 


CXIX 


Page. 

Sacket,  Rodney,  an  executive  clerk  of  the  United  States  Senate,  Berlin,  Wis., 
testimony  of — Continued. 

Candidates  for  legislature,  none  except  Bancroft,  Wellensgard,  and  Kempf 

received  money  in  any  way  from  us 490 

Card  index,  kept  one  indicating  payment  of  all  moneys;  original  of  de- 
stroyed; entries  on  made  by  me;  represented  payment  of  $98,083.72; 
copied  before  destroyed;  expenditures  not  itemized;  reason  for  destroying; 
how  sundry  items  entered  in  and  transferred  from;  cards  destroyed  from 
time  to  time  during  campaign;  presence  of  original  would  not  throw  new 

light  on  investigation 160, 161, 163,  500,  520,  522,  523,  524, 1806, 1808 

Cashier’s  checks,  when  procured  from  bank,  we  gave  them  a receipt  for 
the  check  and  a list  of  names  and  amounts  to  whom  checks  were  issued.  556 
Check  of  $5,000,  given  me  by  Stephenson;  placed  with  campaign  fund  in 

Marshall  and  Ilsley  bank;  dated  about  August  27 166,  475 

Checks  of  bank  cashier  would  show  to  whom  I paid  money;  never  cashed 

at  bank  for  convenience  of  anyone * 162, 168 

Cigars,  have  no  recollection  of  item  of  $10.75  paid  for;  no  knowledge  of  $4 

and  $2  items  for  August  24 465,  469 

Cigars,  items  as  published  in  record  showing  what  was  expended  for  dur- 
ing whole  campaign,  grouped 514,  515,  516 

Cigars  and  liquors,  why  bills  for  former  itemized  and  latter  not 498 

Circulating  nomination  papers,  paid  various  men  throughout  the  State 

whatever  they  claimed 464,  465 

Clerks,  had  assistance  of  messenger  to  Stephenson’s  committee,  Arthur 
Lambeck,  and  two  stenographers;  had  as  high  as  42  girls  addressing 

envelopes 154,448 

Copy  of  statement  rendered  before  committee  not  correct  in  all  instances; 

instances  given 393,  394,  395,  396,  423,  424,  436,  538 

Currency,  tried  not  to  handle;  think  I drew  about  $5,000  in  during  cam- 
paign; paid  for  office  salaries  and  expenses;  do  not  recollect  of  any  dis- 
bursed to  managers  except  to  Mr.  Stone 168,  524 

Daily  Jewish  Courier,  Chicago  paper  with  large  circulation  among  Jewish 

people  of  Wisconsin;  payment  of  $150  to,  was  for  an  advertisement 552 

Dane  County,  paid  $200  in  currency  for  organizing  there 169 

Dangers,  F.  W.,  recollect  he  was  paid  $50  August  20  to  put  in  slides  at  his 

moving-picture  show  to  advertise  Stephenson 548 

Dart,  G.  W.,  had  no  personal  knowledge  of;  had  no  dealing  with 378,  380,  509 

Dart,  G.  W.,  procured  check  for  $400  on  Marshall  and  Ilsley  bank,  signed 
by  some  officer,  probably  on  order  of  Mr.  Edmonds;  does  not  know  how 

money  used  by 

Deidrich,  Peter,  have  no  recollection  of  item  of  $50,  August  21;  the  word 
“receipt”  in  statement  would  indicate  I had  filed  it  with  joint  com- 
mittee  

Dettmann,  G.,  have  no  recollection  of  any  payments  to 

Dinners,  when  we  kept  the  42  girls  in  office  working  at  night,  I gave  the 

lady  in  charge  money  to  buy  their  dinners  with 

Disbursements  of  $98,083.72,  summary  of  statement  of,  prepared  by  me. . . 
Dresser,  L.  B.,  $250  more  shown  in  his  testimony  received  than  appears 
in  Exhibit  49,  accounted  for  by  check  for  that  amount  given  him  by 

Edmonds  out  of  his  $5,000 

Ecklund,  Frank,  have  no  recollection  of  payment  of  $25  to 

Edmonds,  E.  A: 

Do  not  think  I accompanied  him  when  he  went  to  see  Stephenson  in 

regard  to  fifing  account  before  legislative  committee 

Given  personal  check  for  $200;  orders  for  money  from  not  necessarily 
written;  do  not  know  how  money  paid  out  to  his  order  was  used;  did 
not  think  myself  responsible  for  money  paid  to;  felt  when  he  asked  for 
money  I was  under  obligation  to  give  it  to  him;  think  he  would 
indicate  what  he  wanted  money  for;  expenditures  by  never  ac- 
counted for  to  me 162,167,532,534 

Know  nothing  about  item  of  $200  paid  him  July  23  for  general  organ- 
izing  397 

Presumes  he  knows  about  things  I do  not  know  about 174 

Recollect  that  part  of  campaign  fund  which  Stephenson  had  placed  in 
the  hands  of  Puelicher  was  transferred  to  private  credit  of  in  an 
account  opened  at  Marshall  & Ilsley  Bank;  should  estimate  amount 
at  $500;  fund  drawn  by  check  signed  by  Edmonds;  do  not  know 
how  used;  recollect  he  said  he  paid  some  of  his  board  out  of  it.  533,  534,  535 


164 


429 

423 

466 

470 


2067 

434 


396 


cxx 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page. 

Sacket,  Rodney,  an  executive  clerk  of  the  United  States  Senate,  Berlin,  Wis., 
testimony  of — Continued. 

Edmonds,  E.  A. — Continued. 

Think  he  would  know  about  item  of  check  for  $400  to  Dart 380 

Think  most  of  his  personal  expenses  were  paid  out  of  $5,000  given  him 
by  Stephenson;  have  no  knowledge  whether  he  received  compen- 
sation for  services  as  manager 532,  533 

Was  the  manager;  never  examined  my  accounts;  did  not  submit  my 
accounts  to ; do  not  remember  any  instance  where  he  reported  to  me 

salary  arrangement  made  with  one  of  his  lieutenants 497,  501 

When  private  account  in  Marshall  & Ilsley  Bank  was  low,  I deposited 
some  cashier’s  checks  drawn  on  general  fund  to  credit  of  it;  in  sev- 
eral cases  I purchased  cashier’s  checks  to  order  of  people  out  in  the 
State  which  I handed  over  to  Mr.  Edmonds  and  he  asked  me  to  have 
them  credited  to  his  personal  account;  never  indorsed  by  parties  to 
whom  drawn;  indorsed  by  Edmonds;  it  was  not  necessary  to  send 
them  to  the  people  in  whose  favor  they  were  drawn  and  Mr.  Ed- 
monds thought  he  needed  more  money  in  his  personal  account; 

this  procedure  followed  in  $250  check  drawn  for  Wellensgard 535, 

536,  537,  538,  539,  540,  541,  542,  543,  544 

Eppling,  F.  J.,  do  not  know  about  payments  to 2067 

Exhibit  49  is  more  detailed  statement  of  account  known  as  Exhibit  47; 

how  names  were  added  to 503,  504,  525 

Exhibit  49,  recollect  it  was  made  for  the  joint  committee  of  Wisconsin 
Legislature;  account  of  Stephenson  filed  with  secretary  of  state  before  it 
was  made;  presented  after  Exhibit  47;  amounts  of  all  funds  drawn  from 

Marshall  & Ilsley  Bank  appear  in 397,  525,  535 

Expenditures,  had  no  idea  question  of  legitimacy  of  would  be  raised;  did 

not  think  Stephenson’s  friends  would  question  genuineness  of 500 

Expenditures,  my  opinion  of  legal  or  illegal  as  affected  by  custom,  explained  386 

Expense  accounts,  list  of  persons  who  filed  and  list  of  persons  who  did  not 
file,  within  recollection  of  me,  given;  list  shows  persons  who  filed 
accounts  and  all  of  the  amounts  that  they  received,  but  I can  not  desig- 
nate just  the  amounts  for  which  they  filed  accounts;  taken  from  Exhibit 

49;  identified  with  printed  record  by  date  and  not  page 2064,  2065,  2066 

Expense  accounts,  put  them  all  in  one  drawer  in  my  desk;  took  them  out 
of  that  drawer,  sent  them  to  Marinette;  they  were  sent  from  there  to  me 
at  Washington;  I carried  them  to  Madison  and  turned  them  over  to 

joint  legislative  committee 428 

Express,  $235.87,  was  for  sending  campaign  material  about 465 

Fine,  knew  Stephenson  amenable  to  one  if  he  did  not  file  an  account  com- 
plying to  statute;  did  not  think  if  my  accounts  were  kept  so  he  could 
not  file  such  an  account  that  I would  be  amenable  too  as  an  aider  and 

abettor 502 

Fond  du  Lac  County,  have  no  recollection  of  item  of  $250  under 431 

Fossbinder,  my  recollection  of  $61  to,  is  that  he  did  some  work  in  hanging 
posters  and  other  campaign  work;  think  he  rendered  a bill;  do  not  recol- 
lect exactly  what  it  was  for 445 

Frank,  J.  H.,  have  no  recollection  of  payment  of  $100  to  Aug.  28;  do  not 
remember  transaction  by  which  he  received  $515;  do  not  know  how 

spent;  never  saw  statement  from 435 

General  campaign  expenses,  only  items  in  Exhibit  49  that  answer  to  desig- 
nation of  general  campaign  expenses  or  “general”  in  which  names  of 
persons  to  whom  money  was  given  are  not  stated,  tabulated;  aggregate, 

$2,947.08 567 

General  expense  of  organizing,  items  of  charge  for  on  July  6 not  included 
in  any  statement;  meant  expenditure  of  money  covering  a larger  terri- 
tory than  a county,  possibly  all  over  the  State;  do  not  know  to  whom 
money  for  was  paid;  never  presented  items  for  to  Stephenson;  as  item- 
ized in  Exhibit  49 380,  381,  480,  517,  518,  526,  527 

“General  organizing,  July  21,  $250,”  have  no  recollection  whatever  of 

item 392,393 

Gordon,  George,  Mr.  Edmonds  would  know  for  what  purpose  he  was  paid 

$1,300 176 

Gust,  O.  L.,  have  no  knowledge  of  how  payments  to  on  August  8,  28,  and 
October  16  were  expended 425,  426 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


CXXI 


Page. 

Sacket,  Rodney,  an  executive  clerk  of  the  United  States  Senate,  Berlin,  Wis., 
testimony  of — Continued. 

Hamalrath,  E.  A.,  lived  in  Antigo;  he  sent  me  a bill  for  money  he  had 
expended  in  interest  of  Stephenson  and  I sent  check  of  $13.75,  Septem- 
ber 5,  to  reimburse  him 548 

Hambright,  C.  M.: 

Did  not  ask  him  whether  he  did  or  would  vote  for  Stephenson;  told  me 
he  was  favorable  to  Stephenson  before  I paid  him  any  money;  trav- 
eled in  Racine  and  Kenosha  Counties;  said  to  me  that  he  did  take 
people  into  the  hotel  and  invite  them  to  dinner  and  meals  and  pay 
their  bills;  do  not  know  that  his  items  were  ever  submitted  to 

Stephenson 381,  382,  383,  384 

Paid  $50  in  currency 169 

Payments  were  for  organizing;  expense  account  left  with  legislative 
committee  at  Madison ; passed  upon  propriety  of  his  account;  do  not 
remember  how  items  for  sundries  expended-;  paid  $300  for  salary, 
September  5;  unable  to  state  what  proportion  of  $400  given  to  for 

expenses  was  used  in  purchase  of  liquor  and  cigars 381, 

382,  383,  384,  385,  390,  441 

Testimony  shows  he  received  $45.50  more  than  appears  in  Exhibit  49; 
recollect  he  was  going  out  on  a trip  and  was  short  of  money  and  I 
gave  him  that  or  some  amount  and  charged  it  under  “sundries, 

smalP’  as  appears  in  Exhibit  49 2067 

Was  employed  to  go  around  State  and  report  to  us  ability  of  certain 

persons  whom  we  might  employ 422 

Hanson,  J.  T.,  affidavit  shows  he  received  $100  more  than  appears  in  Ex- 
hibit 49;  explanation  is  that  in  printed  copy  of  Exhibit  49  they  left  out 
the  name  of  Hanson,  which  should  appear  after  one  of  the  items  of  “ad- 
vertising ” 428, 436,  2068 

Haslam,  W.  C.,  from  his  testimony  appears  to  have  received  $301  more 
than  shown  in  Exhibit  49,  $250  of  that  was  a check  from  Edmonds 

account  of  $5,000,  leaving  $51  I can  not  account  for 2067 

Hayes,  E.  V.,  have  no  recollection  of  items  of  August  27  and  September  5 

paid  to 433 

Headquarters,  on  train  from  Marinette,  first  talked  of  opening;  Puelicher 

and  I went  into  details  and  then  I determined  to  open  office 475 

Hilsenhoff,  H.,  have  no  recollection  of  who  paid  him  $25  for  distributing 

and  hanging  posters 435 

Hotel  Meyer,  Janesville,  do  not  remember  about  item  of  $17.50  to,  August 
24;  my  recollection  of  item  August  20  is  that  it  was  money  Mr.  Puelicher 
paid  for  hotel  expenses  when  he  and  Stephenson  and  others  took  trip.  469,  560 
Hornibrook,  Henry,  of  Marinette,  had  nothing  to  do  with  office  in  our  head- 
quarters  1810 

Humphrey  & Williams,  have  faint  recollection  of  paying  $25  to,  for  putting 

up  posters  around  in  other  counties  and  Milwaukee  County 440 

Investigating  committee  of  Wisconsin  Legislature,  knew  personnel  of; 
though  members  of  were  not  unfriendly  to  Stephenson;  think  statement 
of  that  $30,000  was  spent  for  liquor  and  cigars  is  incorrect;  understand 
their  language  to  mean  the  $30,000  is  to  be  divided  into  two  classes,  a 
portion  of  it  misappropriated  and  another  portion  spent  for  liquors  and 

cigars 483,484 

Itemized  statements  of  expenditures  by  McMahon,  Larson,  Reinold,  Rowe, 

Keyes,  Ames,  Sexton,  and  Stevens  rendered  to  us,  can  not  find  in  record 
of  legislative  investigating  committee;  recollect  they  were  among  papers 

left  with  committee  at  Madison 490,  491,  492 

Items  in  account  dated  October  16,  aggregating  $3,188.65,  a cleaning  up  of 
bills  that  came  in  after  primary;  no  part  of  aggregate  paid  for  activity 
during  real  campaign  after  the  nomination;  items  read  and  where  possi- 
ble explained;  statement  made  from  claims  in  bills  and  letters;  had 
knowledge  of  items  at  time,  but  have  forgotten  them  in  three  years;  dis- 
bursements for  were  actually  made  and  not  for  any  improper  purpose; 
think  memoranda  that  was  basis  of  account  was  left  with  joint  legislative 

committee 562,  563,  564,  565 

Items  under  head  of  “General,”  have  no  recollection  how  expended;  actu- 
ally disbursed  by  me  or  by  Mr.  Edmonds  during  campaign 422, 

426,  429,  431,  433, 434,  444,  526 
James,  N.  L.,  have  no  recollection  of  item  of  $300  to,  August  21 433 


CXXII 


DIGEST  INDEX, 


Page. 

Sacket,  Rodney,  an  executive  clerk  of  the  United  States  Senate,  Berlin,  Wis., 
testimony  of — Continued. 

Johnson,  0.  T.,  have  no  recollection  of  item  of  $57.76  paid  to 445 

Johnstad,  L.  F.,  have  no  recollection  of  item  of  $100  to,  August  28 434 

Johnstone,  A.,  of  Eau  Claire  County,  have  no  recollection  of  paying  him  $50 . 441 

Jones,  A.  M.,  in  regard  to  $150  paid  him,  I did  not  make  arrangements  with 
him,  but  remember  there  was  a Mr.  Jones  in  Waukesha  County  who 

helped  us  and  probably  spent  some  money 549 

Jones,  J.  R.,  paid  $100  for  expenses  in  organizing  Racine  County;  as  I 
remember  he  did  not  receive  salary;  items  of  August  14,  29,  and  31  paid 
him  for  organizing;  think  payment  of  September  5 was  final  settlement; 
did  not  account  in  writing,  by  items,  for  any  of  $883.50  paid  him  between 
August  7 and  September  5,  as  I remember;  can  not  say  how  much  of 
total  sum  was  spent  for  treating  or  entertaining  electors;  recommended 

by  Hambright 420. 421,  422 

Jones,  W.  B.,  have  no  recollection  of  item  of  $30  paid  to 445 

Juneau  County,  do  not  know  who  organizer  there  was 566 

Kates,  C.  W.,  of  Escanaba,  had  nothing  to  do  with  office  in  our  head- 
quarters  1810 

Kelley,  J.  T.,  thinks  $500  paid  him  was  in  currency 169 

Kempf,  candidate  for  legislature,  who  sent  in  a bill  for  posting  bills  for 

Stephenson 490,  509,  510 

Kewaunee  County  item,  have  no  recollection  of  it;  was  in  my  card  index; 

do  not  know  to  whom  the  $75  of  this  item  was  paid  August  5 419 

Keyes,  facts  in  regard  to  Hambright’s  expenditures  applicable  to  those 
made  by;  to  my  best  recollection  expense  account  rendered  by,  was 
among  papers  left  with  joint  committee  at  Madison;  not  able  to  find 
expense  account  of,  in  testimony;  said  he  was  in  favor  of  Stephenson’s 


and  30,  August  5,  8,  and  20,  and  September  5 were  partly  for  salary  and 


Keyes,  paid  $50  in  currency 169 

Knell,  W.  R.,  his  account  included  in  my  statement,  for  the  money  for 
which  I gave  a receipt  for  him;  gave  bank  or  Mr.  Puelicher  a receipt  for 
money  used  by;  presume  Stephenson  authorized  him  to  disburse  money 

171,473 

Koch  Advertising  Agency,  payments  to,  for  advertising  in  sundry  papers.  458, 

459,  552 

Kuryer  Publishing  Co.,  Milwaukee  paper  of  some  prominence;  $250  paid 

them  was  for  advertising  space 552 

Lambeck,  Arthur,  had  charge  of  contents  of  box  in  which  papers  connected 

with  campaign  were  placed 1810 

Lamoreaux,  F.  P.,  have  no  recollection  of  item  of  $25,  August  19;  do  not 

know  him 428 

Larson,  C.  O.,  $25  paid  July  30  advanced  to  him  for  expense  money  as 
manager  in  Ozaukee  County;  $50  paid  to  August  14  to  cover  his  expenses 


Law: 

Claim  no  immunity  by  reason  of  not  knowing;  accept  responsibility 

of  actions  as  being  within ’. 154 

Do  not  think  it  was  evaded 496 

Instructed  employees  to  keep  within 162 

It  was  not  my  understanding  that  it  prohibited  the  general  giving 

of  anything  of  value  for  the  purpose  of  procuring  votes  properly 377 

Knew  it  required  detailed  statement  of  expenditures  by  candidate; 
did  not  know  that  law  required  particular  items  of  expenditure 
should  be  given  and  not  grouped;  I understood  that  no  one  but  can- 
didate should  make  report  of  each  expenditure  over  $5;  did  not 
know  candidate  would  be  obliged  to  reply  on  statement  of  dis- 
bursing agents 477 

Question  as  to  what  it  was  not  considered;  promised  to  keep  within; 
not  professionally  familiar  with;  had  general  understanding  of  that 
referred  to  by  Stephenson;  read  carefully  before  I did  anything 

except  to  rent  and  furnish  offices 153 

Requiring  candidate  to  file  expense  account,  how  interpreted  by  me.  506,  507 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


CXXIII 


Page. 

Sacket,  Rodney,  an  executive  clerk  of  the  United  States  Senate,  Berlin,  Wis., 
testimony  of — Continued. 

Letters  and  copies  of  letters  on  file  pertaining  to  primary  campaign,  I in- 
tended to  have  destroyed  after  the  primary  campaign;  did  not  learn 
that  letters  had  not  been  destroyed  until  after  I testified  here  the  first 
time;  Mr.  Lambeck  told  me  it  was  his  recollection  he  did  send  them  in 
box  to  Marinette;  have  not  gone  over  them  with  Mr.  Black;  thought 
letters  destroyed  when  I testified  before  joint  legislative  committee; 

did  not  know  of  shipping  of  box  then 2077,  2079,  2080,  2081 

Liquors  and  cigars,  made  expenditures  for  myself  in  several  instances  when 
I took  men  I was  doing  business  with  to  dinner;  do  not  think  $500  was 
spent  for,  during  whole  campaign;  only  know  of  my  own  expenditures 
for,  which  would  not  amount  to  $20;  knew  of  only  one  man  who  spent 

money  given  him  in  drinking,  and  discharged  him 481, 482,  483 

Liquors  and  cigars,  my  agents  in  some  instances  told  me  they  spent  money 
for;  remember  nothing  of  any  complaints  that  money  was  being  spent 

extravagantly  for 485 

Liquors  and  cigars,  there  was  money  spent  for,  to  my  certain  knowledge  . . 469 

Literature  sent  to  electors  included  personal  letters,  multigraph  letters, 
and  circulars  of  all  kinds;  can  not  furnish  copies  of  any  sent  out  from 
Milwaukee  headquarters;  carbon  copies  of  personal  letters  probably  put 

with  waste  paper  when  we  cleaned  up  office 449 

MacLean,  of  Escanaba,  had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  our  office 1810 

McGill,  his  affidavit  of  expenditures  shows  a difference  of  $25  from  those 

accounted  for  in  Exhibit  49;  unable  to  account  for  except  generally 2068 

McGovern,  now  governor  of  the  State;  Mr.  Edmonds  went  to  Madison  and 
examined  his  account,  as  being  only  one  filed  by  a lawyer  who  was  can- 
didate for  the  Senate  at  the  time,  with  idea  of  having  Stephenson’s  ac- 
count as  nearly  like  as  possible 506 

McMahon,  compensation  of,  think  paid  approximately  $450  in  aggregate; 

paid  $300  in  salary;  $150  used  in  traveling  expenses 155, 156,  374 

McMahon,  did  not  advise  as  to  meaning  of  law;  gave  money  under  general 
instructions  from  Stephenson;  when  I gave  him  $50  thought  I under- 
stood application  of  section  388  of  election  laws  of  Wisconsin;  did  not 
know  of  arrangements  between  him  and  Mr.  Dart;  reported  to  me  in 
detail  how  he  expended  aggregate  of  $200;  gave  $300  for  salary  Sep- 
tember 5 375,  376,  377,  378,  379,  380,  441 

McMahon,  employed  to  organize  throughout  State  for  Stephenson;  in- 
structed to  get  names  of  influential  persons  favorable  to  Stephenson 
to  whom  we  could  send  letters  and  nomination  papers  and  request  for 

assistance,  and  to  create  sentiment  in  favor  Stephenson 155,  375 

McMahon,  engaged  during  almost  entire  campaign;  had  no  business;  lived 
in  Milwaukee;  had  no  political  experience;  knew  he  was  absent  because 
he  sent  expense  account  from  outside  places;  expense  account  of,  left 
with  legislative  committee  at  Madison;  expense  account  paid  in  cur- 
rency  155, 156, 168,  378 

Madison,  not  at,  when  legislature  was  organized  or  during  contest  for  elec- 
tion of  speaker 409 

Madison,  was  witness  before  joint  committee  during  session  of  legislature 
at;  not  in,  when  houses  voted  separately  on  question  of  election  of  a Sen- 
ator; not  at,  on  day  Stephenson  declared  elected 173 

Mailing  list;  beside  those  obtained  from  two  papers,  we  had  lists  of  all  who 

signed  Stephenson  nomination  papers 512 

Mandel  Engraving  Co.,  payment  of  $278.35  to,  was  for  large  lithographs  of 

Stephenson 464 

Marshall,  J.  T.,  do  not  remember  item  of  $50  to,  paid  for  Columbia  County 
organizing;  have  no  recollection  of  him;  can  not  recollect  any  pay- 
ments to  him 401 

Marshfield  Times,  have  no  recollection  of  item  paid  to 552 

Member  of  legislature  from  my  district  told  me  voluntarily  that  he  was 
for  Bancroft;  that  Bancroft  would  be  a good  speaker;  I agreed  with 

him 409,410 

Memoranda  relating  to  sums  paid  out,  three  conditions  of  existence:  First, 
cards;  second,  sheets  of  paper  on  which  I had  taken  amounts  from  cards; 
third,  ultimate  statement  into  which  I incorporated  them;  statement 
taken  from  cards  copied  a number  of  times  because  soiled;  carried  some  of 
it  in  my  pocket  from  July,  1908,  to  February,  1909 1806, 1807, 1808 . 


CXXIV 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page. 

Sacket,  Rodney,  an  executive  clerk  of  the  United  States  Senate,  Berlin,  Wis., 
testimony  of — Continued. 

Memorandum  of  expenditures  in  card  index;  knew  all  about  each  entry  at 
time  I set  it  down;  names  of  persons  in,  always  stated  truly;  statement 

of  facts  upon,  true .* 479 

Memorandum  of  expenditures  taken  from  cards  was  destroyed  as  I made 

up  the  final  report  filed 1806, 1807, 1808 

Memorandum  with  reference  to  employment  of  these  men  destroyed  by 
me  shortly  after  conclusion  of  campaign;  accounting  for  money  not  de- 
stroyed; showing  agreement  with  Miller  destroyed 157, 158, 165 

Meyer,  Richard,  jr.,  says  he  received  $500;  $200  of  that  was  a check  from 

Mr.  Edmonds  out  of  his  $5,000,  and  $300  a general  item  in  Exhibit  49 2068 

Miller,  J.  C.,  never  knew  until  met  at  Milwaukee  headquarters;  was  not 
engaged  in  business;  does  not  remember  on  whose  recommendation  he 

was  paid  $50;  $50  paid  in  currency 157, 168 

Miller,  paid  $50  for  expense  money;  paid  $300  at  close  of  campaign;  did  not 

receipt  for  money ; report  from  destroyed 159 

Miller,  payment  of  $50  to  was  for  purpose  of  traveling  through  State  to  ascer- 
tain Stephenson  sentiment  in  different  localities  and  influence  it  as 
much  as  possib  le ; f ac  ts  in  regard  to  items  of  expense  same  as  in  Hambright ’s 

case 380,390,400,441 

Milwaukee,  opened  headquarters  at  by  renting  and  furnishing  office  of  two 

rooms  in  Wells  Building 154 

Milwaukee  County  expenses,  have  no  personal  knowledge  of  payment  of 
any  items  contained  in  report  of  W.  R.  Knell;  Mr.  Knell  would  know 

about 446,447,470,471,472,473 

Miner,  G.  L.,  have  no  recollection  of  payment  of  $300  to  on  August  25; 
lives  in  Richland  Center;  know  him  personally;  have  no  record  to  show 

who  paid  him  money 

Minneapolis  Journal;  $100  paid  to  was  for  advertising  space;  advertised  in 
because  throughout  northwestern  part  of  State  people  take  Minneapolis 

papers  instead  of  Milwaukee  papers 

Minneapolis  Tidende,  Scandinavian  paper  with  large  circulation  in  Wis- 
consin; paid  $563.79  for  advertising;  August  19  paid  $1,000  for  advertis- 
ing  456,457,458,552 

Money,  did  not  admonish  men  in  regard  to  expenditure  of 169 

Money  for  organizing,  can  not  tell  how  disposed  of;  might  have  been  used 
in  getting  lists  of  names  or  employing  men  at  polls;  paid  for  getting  signa- 
tures to  nomination  papers 162, 174 

Money,  recollect  purpose  of  payment  of  in  all  cases  where  I made  the 
arrangements;  knew  nothing  of  disposal  of  what  passed  through  my  hands 

on  order  of  Mr.  Edmonds 165 

Morse,  R.  L.,  have  no  recollection  of  item  of  August  27,  $250  paid  to;  do 

not  remember  having  any  dealings  with 434 

Names,  omitted  in  accounts  in  some  instances  because  I felt  persons  to 
whom  money  was  paid  did  not  want  it  known  because  newspapers  might 
say  things;  can  recall  persons  who  asked  their  names  be  not  used;  after 
joint  committee  demanded  them  I furnished  them  whenever  able;  do 

not  recall  anybody  whose  name  has  not  been  given 480, 481,  502,  524,  525 

Names  of  friends  who  did  not  want  publicity,  did  not  intend  they  should 
come  out  unless  we  were  obliged  to  give  them ; did  not  understand  statute 
obliged  me  to  give  them  to  Stephenson;  did  not  appear  in  card  index.  501,  502,  523 
Names  of  persons  to  whom  money  was  given,  did  not  think  law  required 
me  to  state;  gave  them  when  convenient;  think  15  or  20  kept  off  record; 
do  not  think  more  than  $10,000  given  to;  Edmonds  and  I did  not  suggest 
to  each  other  they  should  be  inserted  in  account;  item  of  July  21  headed 
“ general  organizing,”  given  to  some  person  whose  name  I did  not  want  to 
put  on  card 495, 498, 499,  502,  506,  545 


Narden  Tribune,  can  not  place  paper,  paid  $20,  August  13 552 

Neillsville  item,  of  $150,  August  27,  know  nothing  about  it 434 

Neillsville^Times,  paid  $50  for  advertising,  for  which,  as  I recollect,  an 

itemized  bill  was  rendered 551 

Net  expense  of  campaign  $107,793.05;  shown  by  details  gathered  in  state- 
ment to  be  $107,624.18  or  $168.87  less  than  amount  returned;  think  dis- 
crepancy arises  from  grouping  the  items  in  original  report;  some  have  been 
put  into  two  groups,  which  made  the  report  that  much  larger  than  it 
should  have  been 2072 


432 

553 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


CXXV 


Page. 

Sacket,  Rodney,  an  executive  clerk  of  the  United  States  Senate,  Berlin,  Wis., 
testimony  of — Continued. 

Nomination  papers,  sent  out  blanks  to  get  signatures  required  by  law  for, 

in  order  to  get  Stephenson’s  name  on  ballot 154 

Newspaper  advertising,  have  no  copy  of  any  advertisement  for  which 
Usher  paid  $500  or  $600;  set  forth  Stephenson  qualifications;  under- 
stood they  were  printed  as  paid  matter;  aggregate  of  $12,696.76  paid  for, 

included  Usher’s  services  and  disbursements 452, 455,  456,  459 

Newspapers,  purchased  extra  ones  to  circulate;  think  we  paid  one  of  the 
Minneapolis  papers  for  sending  out  extra  copies  in  large  numbers;  think 
in  case  of  Wisconsin  Agriculturist  we  paid  for  sending  out  a large  number 
of  extra  papers  and  my  recollection  is  that  in  a number  of  other  instances 
we  paid  money  for  the  purpose;  sent  out  by  the  newspaper  offices  to 

nonsubscribers;  do  not  know  how  they  got  the  list 554 

O’Connor,  D.  J.,  who  does  not  appear  at  all  in  Exhibit  49  and  who  testi- 
fied here  that  he  received  $307.50,  received  that  out  of  the  Edmonds 

$5,000 2068 

Office  expenses,  items  for  salary  and  general  expenses,  aggregate  $4,074.38; 
did  not  keep  payroll;  item  of  $1,101.91  for  expenses  July  1 to  August  5 
taken  from  card  index  account  destroyed;  telephone  and  telegraph 
bills;  postage-stamp  item  of  $9,819  all  for  sending  personal  and  circular 
letters  in  interest  of  nomination  campaign;  think  $1,200,  August  27,  was 
for  2-cent  stamps;  remember  sending  60,000  letters  one  day  with  2-cent 
stamps;  stamp  transactions  always  in  cash. . .447, 448, 449, 450, 451,  474,  549,  550 
Organization,  I estimated  it  would  cost  between  $150,000  and  $200,000 
to  do  it  thoroughly;  made  up  my  mind  it  was  not  advisable  to  organize 
by  precincts;  made  up  my  own  mind  we  ought  to  organize  larger  dis- 
tricts and  counties  and  in  more  systematic  manner  than  we  did;  esti- 
mated cost  of  such  an  organization  at  $50,000  or  $60,000;  expense  of,  went 

beyond  what  I expected 476, 477,  512,  513 

Organizing,  my  use  of  the  word  intended  to  convey  any  act  of  campaign- 
ing that  would  produce  votes  for  Senator  Stephenson,  do  not  mean  any 

act  other  than  legitimate 404,  510 

Orton,  R.  E.,  paid  $300  on  Mr.  Edmonds’s  order;  do  not  know  how  he 

expended  money.. 165, 166, 167 

Overbeck,  Henry,  his  testimony  shows  he  received  $600  more  than  appears 
in  Exhibit  49;  $500  of  that  was  a check  on  Edmonds’s  account  of  $5,000 
and  $100  was  received  by  him  from  Edmonds  in  cash  and  appears  in 

Exhibit  49  under  date  of  July  6 as  an  item  of  general  expense 2067 

Payments  made  after  campaign  closed,  not  accounted  for  in  card  index; 
think  I kept  track  of  them  on  sheet  of  paper;  account  for,  came  under 
date  of  October  16;  made  in  response  to  demand  for  money  that  it  was 

claimed  we  owed  both  for  services  and  disbursement 468 

Payments,  whether  made  by  check  or  currency,  how  determined 169 

People  of  Wisconsin,  thought  we  were  keeping  faith  with,  in  method  of 

accounts 495,496 

Perrin,  S.  L.,  testifies  that  he  received  $1,000  more  than  Exhibit  49  shows; 

Mr.  Edmonds’s  testimony  this  afternoon  will  show  that  he  gave  him  a 
check  for  $1,000  out  of  the  $5,000  in  National  Exchange  Bank;  that 

is  no  part  of  Exhibit  49;  that  $5,000  not  included  in  $98,000 2066 

Perrin,  S.  S.;  paid  for  items  of  August  4 by  cashier’s  check;  has  no  per- 
sonal knowledge  of  what  items  refer  to 176 

Peterson,  G.,  have  no  recollection  of  item  of  $200  to 397 

Phlughoefft;  have  no  recollection  of  him  or  payments  to  him  of  items  of 

August  28  and  September  5 437 

Plivelich;  paid  him  $35  for  expenses  in  electioneering  in  Taylor  County; 
employed  because  he  spoke  Polish;  paid  $40  August  31  for  election- 
eering; rendered  an  account  to  me;  can  not  remember  items  in  his 

account 433,  441 

Political  promises ; did  not  make  any  or  cause  any  to  be  made  during  pri- 
mary campaign, 2064 


CXXYI 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page. 

Sacket,  Rodney,  an  executive  clerk  of  the  United  States  Senate,  Berlin,  Wis., 
testimony  of — Continued. 

Poll  of  voters;  did  not  have  list  made;  generally  first  thing  organizer  gets 
if  he  has  an  organization  and  money  enough  to  do  it;  had  list  of  about 
20,000  names  of  persons  in  different  parts  of  State  who  had  expressed 
sentiments  favorable  toward  Stephenson;  to  my  knowledge  had  no 
record  in  office  of  two- thirds  of  people  who  supported  Senator;  presume 

they  read  advertisements  and  received  circulars 407,  510,  511 

Powell,  W.  E.,  recollect  he  came  into  my  office  after  the  primary  and  stated 
that  he  had  expended  $44  in  the  interest  of  Stephenson,  and  I gave  him  a 

check  for  it 548 

Prosecutions,  do  not  know  of  any  brought  by  Wisconsin  officials  in  connec- 
tion with  either  the  primary  or  senatorial  campaign  in  which  Stephenson 

was  candidate 507 

Puelicher,  have  no  knowledge  whether  he  received  compensation  from 

Stephenson 533 

Ranger,  have  no  recollection  of  payment  of  $50  to  August  15;  do  not  think 

anyone  would  recollect  nature  of  advertising  paid  for 551 

Rank,  M.  E.,  do  not  remember  item  of  $22  to 441 

Rasmussen,  H.,  or  Rasmussen  Publishing  Co.,  paid  $1,000  for  advertising  in 
his  paper  in  northern  part  of  State;  think  it  was  run  as  paid  advertise- 
ment  455, 456,  457 

Raymond,  have  no  recollection  of  paying  him  Marshfield  item  of  $35 440 

Raymond,  W.  B.,  do  not  remember  payment  of  $42  to  for  advertising 434 

Receipts,  my  intention  to  keep  original  ones  in  all  cases 2078 

Red  paper  box  produced  by  Mr.  Essman  from  State  capitol  in  Madison;  do 
not  think  it  includes  all  of  the  memoranda  left  with  committee  at  Madi- 
son; receipts  in,  read  and  traced  to  corresponding  items  in  Exhibit  49; 
instances  given  in  which  it  does  not  contain  bills  left  with  committee  at 
Madison;  receipts  and  bills  in  box  all  refer  to  items  that  appear  some- 
where in  exhibit  that  aggregates  $98,000 2072,  2073,  2074,  2075 

Reese,  J.  M.,  think  payment  of  $100  to,  was  for  publishing  an  advertisement 

in  his  newspaper  favorable  to  Stephenson’s  candidacy 43 

Remold,  F.,  paid  $50  on  July  30  to  organize  Kenosha  County,  for  expenses, 
and  possibly  included  some  salary;  do  not  know  that  he  spent  any  of  it  for 
treating  electors  to  meals,  liquors,  or  cigars;  recollect  that  item  of  $11.05 
September  5 was  a final  settlement  of  his  expense  account,  rendered,  and 


a balance  of  salary  due  him;  do  not  know  manner  of  expenditure 401 

Reynolds,  have  no  knowledge  of  matter  of  his  being  a supporter  of  Stephen- 
son prior  to  the  arrangement  made  with  him 509 

Reynolds,  Thomas,  no  money  paid  to,  to  my  knowledge 2066 

Richland  Rustic,  have  no  recollection  of  that  paper 552 

Ring,  M.  C.,  testimony  shows  he  received  $300  more  than  accounted  for  in 
Exhibit  49;  to  best  of  my  knowledge  it  must  have  covered  some  item  of 

general  expense  charged  in  the  exhibit 2067 

Riordan,  his  testimony  shows  he  received  $1,900  more  than  appears  in  Ex- 


hibit 49;  $1,000  of  it  was  a National  Exchange  Bank  check  from  Mr.  Ed- 
monds and  $900  is  explained  in  his  own  testimony,  in  which  he  says 
Laughlin  received  $400  or  $500  and  Miller  the  same,  making  $900  sent  to 


Riordan  and  in  Exhibit  49  charged  to  Miller  and  Laughlin 2066,  2067 

River  Falls  Times,  do  not  remember  item  paid  to 552 


Rogers,  E.  J paid  $50  on  August  5 for  expenses  and  possibly  for  some  salary 
for  organizing  in  either  Grant  or  Iowa  County;  received  reports  from  him, 
which  think  were  left  with  legislative  committee  at  Madison ; think  $300 
paid  him  August  22  was  for  hiring  men  and  teams  to  work  at  polls;  of 
three  items  paid  to,  amounting  to  $481.79,  should  think  $90  would  cover 
salary;  can  not  say  whether  any  part  of  money  was  spent  for  treats,  liq- 
uors. or  cigars 410,  412,  413,  430,  431 

Rowe,  R.,  general  organizing  in  Waupaca  County  purpose  of  payments  of 
July  24  and  August  5,  10,  and  18  to;  rendered  an  itemized  statement 
which  it  is  possible  I destroyed;  can  not  remember  items;  paid  $300 
August  22  to  employ  men  and  teams  to  work  at  polls;  $48.34  paid  on 
October  16  was  to  reimburse  him  for  money  expended  in  excess  of  $300; 
do  not  know  whether  he  spent  any  money  for  refreshments,  meals,  or 
drinks  for  electors 398,  399,  400 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


cxxvn 


Page. 

Sacket,  Rodney,  an  executive  clerk  of  the  United  States  Senate,  Berlin,  Wis., 
testimony  of — Continued. 

Russell,  C.  H.,  $200  paid  to  August  10;  agreed  to  furnish  him  money  to 
cover  his  expenses  in  helping  us;  not  to  receive  a salary,  as  I remember; 
to  cover  Columbia  and  Adams  and  one  or  two  other  counties;  paid  $550 

August  19  under  same  conditions 547 

Russell,  in  Cary,  Upham  & Black’s  office;  had  nothing  to  do  with  head- 
quarters during  campaign 1810 

Rustone,  ran  a Scandinavian  newspaper  in  Milwaukee  and  ran  advertise- 
ments for  us  from  time  to  time;  check  of  $25,  August  13,  for  that  purpose.  551 

Saloon  campaign,  gave  instructions  against  conducting,  explained 388,482 

Saloons,  did  not  go  into  and  call  up  people  generally  to  drink  with  me 482 

Sampson,  D.  G.,  $100  item  at  Ashland,  have  no  recollection  of 434 

Schedule  of  minor  items  in  account,  not  classified  as  sundries,  read  and 
where  possible  explained;  made  up  from  time  to  time  from  card  index; 
items  in  actually  disbursed  and  not  to  my  knowledge  for  any  improper 

purpose 559,  560,  561 

Services,  I received  no  payment  whatever  for  my,  from  July  1 to  October  16.  476 

Sexton,  item  of  $523.98  to  was  a settlement  covering  both  expenses  and 
salary,  as  I remember;  arranged  with  him  to  travel  through  State  to 
promote  Stephenson’s  interests  within  the  law;  did  not  talk  to  him 
about  provisions  of  law;  his  home  in  Waushara  County;  think  he  was  to 
receive  about  $150  a month  as  compensation;  items  of  August  4,  12, 

and  14 444, 445,  544,  546,  547 

Shields,  R.  J.,  have  no  recollection  of  paying  him  item  for  advertising 

August  6 

Smith,  C.  D.,  remember  him  in  Fond  du  Lac;  gave  money  to  cover  expenses 
of  campaign  work;  as  I remember  payment  October  16  of  $112  was  a 
claim  for  his  son,  who  traveled  around,  he  said,  in  interests  of  Stephen- 
son; have  no  knowledge  of  what  he  really  did  with  money 426, 

Smith,  have  no  specific  recollection  of  item  of  $100,  Oconto  Falls,  for  ad- 
vertising paid  to,  August  15 

Stamps,  $200  for,  do  not  recollect  transaction,  but  fact  it  is  in  statement 
would  indicate  I bought  and  used  them;  think  all  were  bought  at  post 

office  here 

Statement  filed  with  secretary  of  state  by  Stephenson,  made  up  by  Mr. 
Edmonds  with  data  I gave  him;  only  statement  submitted  to  Stephenson; 
do  not  recollect  anyone  being  present  when  I gave  Edmonds  data.  503,  505,  506 

Statement  of  account  filed  is  true  statement 479 

Statement  of  disbursements,  as  prepared  by  me,  contained  in  Exhibit  49 . 154 

Statement  of  total  campaign  expenditures,  includes  bills  paid  during  pri- 
mary or  contracted  during  primary  that  may  have  been  paid  afterwards.  2071 
Statute,  referring  to  giving  a thing  of  value,  understood  that  it  prohibited 
the  giving  if  it  be  corruptly  or  for  the  purpose  of  bribery;  do  not  think 
it  would  affect  custom  of  treating;  do  not  recollect  of  hearing  it  referred 
to  as  antitreating  law  of  Wisconsin;  did  not  understand  it  was  claimed  to 

be  enacted  for  purpose  of  preventing  treating  during  campaigns 388,  389 

Statute  requiring  filing  of  expense  account,  remember  having  read  it;  un- 
derstood it  to  mean  Stephenson  was  required  to  file  account  of  money 

. expended  by  him,  and  by  others  that  he  had  knowledge  of 494,  495 

Stephenson,  Senator: 

Asked  me  to  do  what  I could  to  get  the  nomination  papers,  to  get  out 
the  vote  and  promote  his  interests;  used  the  words,  as  I remember, 

“Keep  within  the  law,  whatever  you  do” 153,  376, 475 

Did  not  ask  what  we  were  doing  with  money;  did  not  submit  accounts 
to;  heard  him  complain  of  amount  campaign  was  costing;  thought  I 

should  keep  an  account  that  would  satisfy  him 497 

Did  not  tell  him  I was  paying  $250  to  a legislative  candidate  to  work 
for  him;  did  not  talk  to  him  in  regard  to  employment  of  Bancroft. . . 403, 

408, 487,  488 

Expected  him  to  get  information  for  account  required  by  law  from  his 
own  books  of  the  sums  expended  and  disbursed  by  him;  do  not 
think  he  was  responsible  to  account  for  amounts  furnished  to  any 
person  if  it  was  not  reported  to  him 

15235°— 11 ix 


419 

427 

551 

397 


478 


CXXVIII 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page. 

Sacket,  Rodney,  an  executive  clerk  of  the  United  States  Senate,  Berlin,  Wis., 
testimony  of — Continued. 

Stephenson,  Senator — Continued. 

Expected  to  give  him  the  account,  Exhibit  47,  as  I filed  it  before  the 
legislative  committee,  as  evidence  of  money  sent  to  people;  did  not 
intend  to  retain  any  original  evidence  to  show  him  in  case  he  desired 
to  question  account,  because  I did  not  think  he  would  require  any 

evidence 2077,  2078 

Gave  me  to  understand  Knell  was  to  have  charge  of  Milwaukee  County.  527 
Had  no  idea  of  concealing  any  information  because  I thought  it  might 

hurt  him 501 

In  entering  expenditures  of  money  in  account  under  headings  “Gen- 
eral” and  “Sundries”  it  was  not  my  purpose  to  keep  him  from 

knowing  how  various  items  were  expended 480 

Items  in  his  statement  filed  with  secretary  of  state  were  submitted  to 

him;  account  examined  here  not  submitted  to 498 

Knew  law  required  him  to  file  a special  account  showing  persons  to 
whom  money  paid,  amount  paid,  and  purpose  for  which  paid;  knew 
good  faith  on  my  part  required  I should  keep  his  accounts  so  as  to 

enable  him  to  comply  with  law;  think  I did 494,  495 

Left  discretion  to  me  as  to  whom  to  give  money  on  his  account;  did 
not  discuss  provisions  of  law  governing  expenditure  of  money 

with 375,376 

Puelicher  and  I alone  with  for  several  hours  at  meeting  at  Senator’s 
house  in  city  of  Marinette,  late  in  evening  one  of  last  days  in  June . . 153, 474 
Recollect  Puelicher  paid  his  expenses  during  a trip  through  six  or 

seven  counties 527 

Telephoned  me  from  Marinette  to  Berlin  and  said  he  had  become  a 
candidate  for  Senate;  asked  me  to  come  to  Marinette  by  way  of 

Milwaukee  and  to  ask  Mr.  Puelicher  to  come  up  with  me 153,  474 

When  considering  question  of  putting  more  money  in  campaign  I did 
not  go  over  items  with  him;  do  not  recollect  being  present  at  an 

interview  with  in  regard  to  necessity  of  having  more  money 381 

Wrote  or  called  him  up  as  soon  as  office  was  opened;  had  no  specific 
understanding  with  that  I was  to  have  charge  of  office  work;  did 

not  pay  me  money  used  in  campaign  with  exception  of  $5,000 475 

Stevens,  L.  H.,  came  to  Milwaukee  to  see  about  Stephenson  campaign  in 
his  county.  Before  arrangements  made  he  suggested  matter  of  procuring 
his  bank  to  be  a depository  of  State  funds.  I told  him  I had  no  authority 
from  Stephenson  to  make  any  promise  of  that  kind ; that  if  he  wanted  to 
take  hold  of  the  Stephenson  campaign,  he  must  do  it  with  the  under- 
standing that  that  was  not  to  be  a consideration 2064 

Stevens,  paid  $28.93  August  5 for  expense  money  to  organize  Grant  County; 
think  report  of  that  item  was  turned  over  to  legislative  committee;  paid 
him  $300  August  22  to  provide  men  and  teams  at  polls;  $200  paid  him 
August  31  was  for  salary;  $200  paid  October  16  was  to  settle  his  claim  put 
in  after  primary  was  over  for  money  expended  and  not  collected  before; 
money  given  him  to  use  in  entertaining  electors;  have  no  recollection 

of  any  account  made  to  me  of  over  $700  spent 415,  416,  417, 418,  441,  468 

Stone,  J.  W.,  $349.50  shown  in  his  testimony  that  he  received  above  what 

accounted  for  in  Exhibit  49  was  a check  on  the  Edmonds  $5,000  2067 

Stone,  paid  $2,500  in  cash  August  12;  does  not  know  how  it  was  expended; 

might  have  expended  it  for  purpose  of  bribery 169, 170 

Stone,  State  game  warden;  recollect  payment  of  $2,500  to,  was  in  cash; 
remember  getting  money  from  Marshall  & Ilsley  bank,  because  Mr. 
Edmonds  asked  me  to;  think  reason  was  because  he  did  not  want  to 

take  check  or  certified  cashier’s  certificate 508 

Stringham,  Miss,  do  not  know  she  had  any  knowledge  of  affairs  in  our 

office 1810 

Submanagers,  about  25  per  cent  of  them  rendered  itemized  accounts;  did 
not  order  itemized  accounts  from,  destroyed;  I intended  to  keep  those 
separate  in  my  desk;  office  help  instructed  to  bring  accounts  of,  to  me-, 
not  by  my  direction  or  knowledge  included  in  box  shipped  to  Stephen- 
son; got  memorandum  as  to  number  who  furnished  itemized  accounts 
from  Exhibit  49 2079, 2082, 2083 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


CXXIX 


Page. 

Sacket,  Rodney,  an  executive  clerk  of  the  United  States  Senate,  Berlin,  Wis., 
testimony  of — Continued. 

Submanagers,  thought  it  necessary  for  them  to  keep  detailed  accounts; 
did  not  have  authority  to  require  it  in  all  cases;  issued  orders  for  money 
given  to;  when  Mr.  Edmonds  made  arrangements  with,  I did  not  feel  I 

had  authority  to  give  them  directions 496, 497 

Sum  of  $11,600,  known  as  Knell  item;  did  not  consider  myself  responsible 

for  manner  of  expenditure;  came  out  of  $98,083.72 171 

Sum  of  $46,000,  included  items  of  expenditures  for  organizing;  thinks  it 
includes  expenditures  for  procuring  names  to  petition  for  primary  nomi- 
nation; would  include  expense  of  nomination  papers;  would  include 
payment  of  money  to  men  who  were  to  work  at  polls;  has  no  knowledge 

of  its  including  money  spent  in  purchasing  votes 175 

Sum  of  $98,000  accounted  for  in  Exhibit  49,  included  Stephenson’s  check 
of  $5,000  to  me,  August  27;  did  not  include  Edmonds’s  check  for  $5,000 

from  Stephenson 2070 

Sum  of  $111,385.49  furnished  by  Stephenson  for  primary  campaign;  differ- 
ence between  that  and  expenditures  of  $98,083.72  shown  by  Exhibit  49 
plus  Stephenson’s  check  of  $5,000  to  Edmonds,  aggregating  $103,083.72, 

explained  in  statement 2070,  2071 

Sundries  covered  incidental  expenses  in  offices;  might  have  been  for  beer 
and  cigars  in  some  cases;  undoubtedly  knew  expenditures  for,  were 
lawful ; paid  for  th  em  myself  or  reimbursed  somebody  else  who  paid  them . . 172 

Sundries,  did  not  intend  to  cover  up  items  of  drinks  and  cigars  by  classi- 
fying as;  how  entered  into  accounts;  money  for,  how  expended;  do  not 
recollect  what  items  entered  under  were  for;  items  from  Exhibit  49 
grouped;  bills  for,  read  from  list  and,  where  possible,  explained;  money 
for,  disbursed  in  every  instance  and,  to  m>  knowledge,  none  for  unlawful 

purposes 466, 467, 469, 481,  518,  519,  520,  521,  522,  554,  555,  556,  557,  558,  559 

Sundries,  small,  items  in  account  entered  “sundries,  small,”  taken  from 
card  index,  destroyed;  recollect  that  items  included  under  heading  as 
traveling  expenses  were  sums  paid  to  men  who  were  invited  to  come  and 

consult  about  campaign 467,  559 

Sundry  advertising,  $156.40,  have  no  recollection  of;  check  will  show 553 


Superior  Tidende,  paper  published  in  Scandinavian,  which  we  ran  adver- 
tisements in,  and  they  were  sent  a cashier’s  check;  think  I remember 


552 


we  had  their  itemized  bill 549,  551, 

Testimony  given  by  persons  that  received  money,  find  that  some  of  them 
admit  receiving  more  than  is  charged  to  them  in  Exhibit  49;  reason  for, 

in  some  instances,  explained 2066,  2067,  2068 

Thayer,  L.  W.,  did  not  make  arrangement  by  which  he  was  paid  $600, 

August  27 548 

Treating,  was  not  done  in  campaign  for  consideration  of  votes 513, 514 

Usher,  E.  B.,  publicity  man  employed  to  look  after  advertising;  was  to 
make  contracts  for  advertising;  helped  prepare  some  of  matter;  is  news- 
paper writer 451, 454,  456,  566 

Van  de  Kamp  & Lorberter,  have  no  recollection  of  items  paid  to 463, 464 

Van  Houten,  had  nothing  to  do  with  our  office 1810 

Violation  of  statute,  would  not  think  that  expenditure  of  money  in  pur- 
chasing drinks  and  meals  for  purpose  of  influencing  voter  would  be; 
would  draw  line  concerning,  at  what  was  customary  and  what  was  not. . 385, 386 
Vote,  do  not  know  by  name  any  single  man  who  was  induced  to  cast  one 

for  Stephenson 404,  406 

Voters,  think  400,000  Republicans  in  State;  think  aggregate  voting  popula- 
tion of  Wisconsin  less  than  700,000;  know  of  no  way  Stephenson  could 
estimate  total  Republican  voters  and  proportion  he  could  rely  upon  with- 
out making  accurate  canvass  of  precincts 511,  5*12 

Votes,  knew  of  no  deal  to  split  up  the  vote  of  candidates  opposed  to  Stephen- 
son in  order  to  improve  his  chance;  heard  a rumor  of  that  kind  during 

campaign;  had  destroyed  card  index  before  I heard  rumor 499,  500 

Votes,  Stephenson  received  approximately  56,809  in  primary  at  a cost  of 
$111,389.49;  would  be  at  rate  of  more  than  $2  for  every  vote;  total  vote 
cast  at  general  election  in  Wisconsin  that  fall  was  about  450,000;  total 
Republican  vote  over  300,000;  never  estimated  number  Stephenson 
would  have  received  at  primary  if  no  money  had  been  expended;  talked 
about  them  and  influence  different  things  might  have  on  voters 405, 406 


cxxx 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page. 


408 


Sacket,  Rodney,  an  executive  clerk  of  the  United  States  Senate,  Berlin,  Wis., 
testimony  of — Continued. 

Votes,  we  expected  to  get  75,000  or  80,000  votes  for  Stephenson  at  primary. . 

Washington,  remained  at  during  recess  of  Congress 152 

Washington,  returned  to  shortly  after  November  1;  if  I remember  correctly 

I stayed  and  voted  and  then  went  to  in  a few  days 173 

Waukesha,  had  several  managers  in  Waukesha  and  Waukesha  County 549 

Waukesha  County  item,  $50,  have  no  recollection  of  it 434 

Wayland,  C.  C.,  know  nothing  of  payments  to;  he  is  Mr.  Edmonds’s  partner 

in  business.  Mr.  Edmonds  went  over  that  item  again  and  again 414 

Weisman,  A.  J.,  paid  for  purpose  of  organizing  in  Manitowoc  County 404 

Wellensgard,  C.  E.,  agreement  with  was  that  he  was  not  to  use  any  money 
in  his  own  campaign  that  I furnished  him;  do  not  understand  that  he  did 
any  electioneering.  He  simply  employed  other  people  to  look  after 

Stephenson’s  interests 488,  489 

Wellensgard,  paid  $250  September  5 to  reimburse  him  for  money  expended 
in  Green  Lake  and  Waushara  Counties  in  interest  of  campaign;  was 
elected  to  legislature;  member  of  legislature  that  elected  Stephenson;  was 
then  a candidate;  mailed  him  cashier’s  check;  had  a conversation  with 
in  early  part  of  campaign  when  I knew  he  was  a candidate,  before  I gave 

him  money 441,  442,  488,  490 

Wellensgard,  itemized  statement  of  his  account  filed  with  joint  legislative 
committee  at  Madison;  items  of  his  expense  account,  known  as  exhibit 

62,  explained 442,  443,  444 

Wells,  J.  H.,  received  $200  on  August  21  for  organizing  city  of  Portage; 
keeps  a hotel  at  Portage;  do  not  know  if  it  has  barroom;  do  not  know  how 

he  expended  $400  received  on  local  account 437 

Wells  Co.,  paid  $210.62  for  number  of  small  bills 464 

Whitehead  & Hoag,  several  items  paid  to  were  for  campaign  buttons 463,  464 

Windsor,  handled  money  jointly  with  Hanson 2068 

Wisconsin,  customary  there  for  candidates  to  buy  liquor  for  voters;  in- 
structed those  employed  by  me  not  to  observe  this  custom 387,  388 

Wisconsin,  went  to  in  latter  part  of  June,  1908;  custom  to  go  to  after  adjourn- 
ment of  Congress 152 

Wisconsin  Agriculturist,  paid  altogether  about  $1,400  or  $1,500  to  furnish 
us  a mailing  list  of  names  of  farmers  throughout  State;  we  paid  them  1 
cent  for  each  name  and  a half  a cent  for  each  subsequent  use  of  name; 
also  paid  them  for  addressing  envelopes  and  for  envelopes  themselves; 
paid  for  use  of  70,000  names;  ran  advertisement  in  and  received  itemized 
bills  from , which  I think  have  been  filed  with  joint  committee . 460,  461,  511,  551 
Witnesses  who  testified  to  receiving  larger  sums  than  shown  in  Exhibit  49, 
items  to,  are  included  in  exhibit  under  heading  of  “general,”  except 
such  as  accounted  for  by  checks  drawn  from  Edmonds  check  of  $5,000.  2068,  2069 
Wypszinski,  J.  W.,  items  paid  to  July  22  and  24  were  for  expenses  of 
organizing;  authorized  to  travel  through  State;  arrangement  involved 

payment  of  salary  and  expenses 545 

List  of  bills  and  receipts  found  in  “red  box,”  referred  to  in  testimonv 

of 2119-2124 

Salmon,  C.  B.,  president  and  treasurer  of  Beloit  Water,  Gas  & Electric  Co., 

Beloit,  Wis.,  affidavit  of 2015 

Age,  60  years 2015 

Beloit,  resided  in  about  past  35  years 2015 

Campaign  headquarters  at  Milwaukee,  received  $100  from;  was  insufficient; 
expended  about  $40  in  excess;  not  been  reimbursed  for  and  does  not 

expect  to  be 2015 

Campaign  work  in  Beloit  and  various  parts  of  Rock  County  during  primary 
contest;  services  covered  several  weeks,  had  assistance  of  others  to 
travel  into  someof  country  precincts  in  south  part  of  Rock  County  and  also 
do  work  in  Beloit;  principal  work  was  the  circulating  of  literature,  post- 
ing lithographs,  distributing  campaign  buttons,  conferring  with  friends, 
sending  men  out  in  conveyances,  and  causing  favorable  material  to  be 

published  in  certain  newspapers  in  Beloit.  . 2015 

Expenses  incurred  were  legitimate,  proper,  and  such  as  have  been  cus- 
tomarily expended  in  campaigns  in  Wisconsin,  and  such  as  accustomed 
to  expend  in  previous  campaigns  for  last  30  years  whenever  he  assisted 
others  to  be  elected  to  office 2015 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


CXXXI 


Salmon,  C.  B.,  president  and  treasurer  of  Beloit  Water,  Gas  & Electric  Co., 

Beloit,  Wis.,  affidavit  of — Continued. 

Money  not  disbursed  for  the  purpose  of  corruptly  or  unlawfully  influencing 

or  bribing  any  person 

Saloon  campaign,  neither  he  or  anyone  who  assisted  him  conducted  in  any 

sense 

Services,  makes  no  claim  for  compensation  for;  at  no  time  expected  any. . 
Stephenson,  supporter  of;  prior  to  doing  any  work  for;  had  supported  him 

in  previous  campaigns 

Sanderson,  Thomas  H.,  attorney  at  law,  assistant  sergeant-at-arms  of  the  senate 

of  Wisconsin  in  1909,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of 

Absence  of  members,  did  not  know  of,  probably,  until  a few  minutes  after 
election;  never  heard  that  I was  charged  with  having  knowledge  of  the 

cause  and  conditions  surrounding 1645,1647,1648 

Absence  of  members,  no  one  told  me  of  money  being  spent  for;  heard  ex- 
pressions of  various  people  about 1641, 1642, 1643 

Crownhart,  statement  of  conversation  that  Wood  had  with. . 1641, 1642, 1648, 1652 
Election  of  Senator  Stephenson,  do  not  remember  I was  on  floor  of  joint 
convention  at  time  of;  heard  some  talk  of  his  probable  election  on 

March  4 1643  1644  1646  1647  1648 

Farrell,  never  knew  or  heard  of  a page  carrying  a note  to,  on  the  floor  and 

of  his  leaving  chamber  immediately 1643, 1645, 1647, 1648 

Kittle,  said  is  Wood  just  trying  to  get  $100  or  $200  or  $50  for  nothing,  or  is  he 
acting  in  good  faith ; told  him  that  from  what  I could  gather  he  is  a reliable 

and  truthful  man 1650, 1651 

Kittle,  William,  statement  of  conversation  that  Wood  had  with;  got  the 
impression  from,  that  Morris  had  said  there  were  no  funds  for  hiring 

Wood 1640,1641,1642,1648,1652 

Kleist,  John  C.,  said  Wood  had  done  a great  deal  of  work  for  him  and  he 

always  found  him  honorable 1640, 1653 

Money,  no  one  told  me  of  any  being  paid  to  three  men  who  stayed  out  of  the 
legislature;  all  the  information  I have  of  are  expressions  of  various  people 

around  the  Capitol 1641, 1642, 1643 

Morris,  Governor,  talked  with  him  about  the  story  Wood  had  told 1640, 

1641, 1642, 1648 

Regan,  statement  of  conversation  of  with  Souther  and  Wood 1639, 

1640, 1641, 1642, 1649, 1650, 1651 

Shields,  was  mentioned  by  Wood  as  Stephenson  agent 1652 

Souther,  statement  of  conversation  of  Wood  with  Regan  in  presence  of.  1639, 1652 
Wood,  did  not  know  he  had  offered  to  work  for  Kittle,  Morris,  and  Crown- 

hart  for  $10  a day 1648 

Wood,  Harry  W.,  made  statement  to  me  as  to  conversation  at  which  Frank 
Souther,  M.  J.  Regan,  and  himself  (Mr.  Wood)  were  present  in  regard  to 
statement  made  by  Mr.  Regan;  sometime  in  February  or  March,  1911. . . 1639, 

1640, 1641 

Wood,  Kittle  and  Crownhart  came  to  Milwaukee  and  interviewed  him; 
said  if  he  devoted  time  to  this  thing  he  would  want  expense  money  and 

some  compensation 1640, 1641, 1648, 1649, 1650 

Wood,  statement  of  conversation  (in  detail)  he  had  with  Regan. . 1651, 1652, 1653 
Sattler,  D.  W.,  president  of  the  Western  Casket  Co.  and  the  Western  Casket  & 

Undertaking  Co.,  Chicago,  111.,  testimony  of 2089 

Harper  & Shields  are  stockholders  in  the  company;  hold  about  $10,000  of 
the  $25,000  stock;  it  cost  me  no  more  to  insure  the  company  through  the 

Harper  & Shields  agency  than  in  any  other  agency 2089,  2090 

Hines,  not  a stockholder  in  the  Western  Casket  Co. : had  nothing  to  do  with 

the  placing  of  insurance  on  the  company  with  Mr.  Shields 2090 

Sells,  Max,  district  attorney  for  Florence  County  in  1908,  testimony  of 1021 

Canvassed  three  counties  in  favor  of  Senator  Wright;  never  mentioned  any 

candidate  for  assemblyman 1022 

Chicago  & North  Western  Railway  Co. , I was  not  an  attorney  for  at  that  time 
and  had  not  been  for  a number  of  years  prior  to  that;  was  not  an  employee 

of  theirs  in  any  capacity 1021, 1022 

Hyzer,  never  had  any  conversation  with  him  in  relation  to  alleged  con- 
spiracy against  Nelson 1023 


Page. 

2015 

2015 

2015 

2015 

1639 


cxxxn 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page. 

Sells,  Max,  district  attorney  for  Florence  County  in  1908,  testimony  of — Con. 

Nelson,  E.  F.,  am  personally  acquainted  with  him;  I did  not  do  anything 
directly  or  indirectly  for  purpose  of  defeating  his  nomination  for  assembly- 
man;  I had  his  nomination  papers  circulated  and  properly  acknowledged 
and  sent  them  to  him,  and  had  some  correspondence  with  reference  to 
his  candidacy,  but  I neither  did  anything  for  him  or  against  him;  I do 

not  believe  I voted  for  him  at  primaries;  he  was  not  nominated 1022 

Reeder,  I believe  I voted  for  him  for  candidate  as  assemblyman;  he  was 

nominated 1022 

Specific  charge  No.  13  not  true  in  any  particular;  have  no  idea  of  any  foun- 
dation for  it 1021, 1022, 1023 

Stephenson,  I was  not  supporting  him  in  that  campaign;  supported  Cook. . . 1023 

Senate  resolution  authorizing  investigation  of  election  of  Senator  Stephenson . . 3 

Shields,  R.  J.,  treasurer  of  the  Harper  Shields  Agency,  insurance,  real  estate, 

etc.,  Superior,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1390, 1712, 1872 

Absence  of  members,  never  heard  of,  until  after  election;  do  not  think  I 
heard  anything  in  reference  to  a charge  of  bribery  in  connection  with; 

never  used  money  to  induce 1720, 1721, 1733 

Bell,  relations  with,  not  very  friendly;  did  not,  to  my  recollection,  talk  with 
him  in  West  Baden  about  the  election  of  Senator  Stephenson;  did  not 
6ay  I had  “pulled  it  off,”  or  “brought  it  around,”  or  “across,”  or  any 
words  to  that  effect;  never  talked  to  him  in  Madison  about  the  election. . 1872, 

1873, 1874, 1875 

Cook,  do  not  recall  a talk  with  him  on  board  a train  from  Duluth  to  Chicago 
in  the  fall  of  1909 ; never  talked  with  me  as  to  an  arrangement  whereby  I 
was  to  get  $15,000  out  of  the  Madison  affair;  nor  of  any  difficulty  with  Mr. 

Hines ; met  him  frequently ; never  said  I would  kill  him  if  he  made  me  any 


trouble,  or  any  thing  like  that 1399-1401 

Cuppernull,  do  not  know,  and  never  heard  of  him;  did  not  say  in  his  pres- 
ence at  West  Baden,  “Here  is  $7,000  of  Stephenson’s  money  ” 1875 

Edmonds,  received  $600  or  $700  from 1391, 1392 

Farrell,  did  not  converse  with  Reagan  about  him 1716 

Farrell,  did  not  know  he  had  absented  himself  from  legislature  until  after- 
wards   1393, 1394 

Farrell,  never  talked  with  him  that  I recall;  never  entertained 1725, 1726 


Haley,  never  talked  with  him  on  the  subject  of  Stephenson  investigation. . 1401, 

1402 

Hines,  Edward: 

Am  stockholder  in  several  companies  in  which  he  is  interested. . . 1402, 1403 
Did  not  ask  me  to  go  to  Madison;  did  not  talk  with  nor  have  a letter 

from  him  on  the  subject 1397 

Did  not  procure  money  from,  for  election  of  Senator;  had  no  contro- 
versy over  any  amount  of  money;  know  nothing  of  any  such  financial 

transaction 1395, 1396 

Never  talked  with  him  as  to  the  matter  of  expense  that  he  had  been  put 
to  in  Stephenson’s  election;  never  signified  to  me  that  he  was  respon- 
sible for  Stephenson’s  election 1402 

Saw  him  in  Washington  in  February,  but  did  not  talk  with,  on  subject 

of  Stephenson’s  election. 1728, 1729 

Investigation  by  joint  committee  of  Wisconsin  legislature,  was  not  in 
Madison  in  that  connection  particularly;  had  no  interest  in  it;  did  not 

know  I was  wanted  as  a witness 1397, 1398, 1399, 1731, 1732 

Jenkins,  assisted  to  secure  nomination  of 1392 

Madison,  in,  at  the  Park  Hotel,  when  legislature  was  considering  election  of 
Senator;  partially  in  the  interest  of  Stephenson;  never  saw  Stephenson 

then  to  talk  to 1393 

Madison,  was  there  a week  or  10  days;  was  in  consultation  with  Stephen- 
son’s friends;  that  was  practieally  my  purpose  in  being  there;  left  on 
March  4 going  to  West  Baden,  Ind.  1396, 1720, 1724, 1725, 1726, 1730, 1731, 1732 
Members  of  legislature,  did  not  know  all;  knew,  from  my  own  county  and 

some  others 1724, 1725 

Money : 

Did  not  procure,  handle,  or  control,  in  connection  with  election  by 
legislature;  never  heard  of  any  promises  or  agreements  made  by  any- 
body as  to  the  use  of,  in  influencing  the  vote  of  any  member  of  the 
legislature 1395, 1733, 1875 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


CXXXIII 


Page. 

Shields,  K.  J.,  treasurer  of  the  Harper  Shields  Agency,  insurance,  real  estate, 
etc.,  Superior,  Wis.,  testimony  of — Continued. 

Money — Continued . 

Might  have  had  $500  when  I went  to  Madison;  had  a check  cashed  for 
$200  or  $250;  do  not  know  how  much  money  I had  when  I left; 
probably  got  the  check  cashed  a day  or  two  before  1 left  Madison  on 

the  4th  of  March 1721, 1722, 1723, 1724 

Received  $600  or  $700  from  Perrin  and  Edmonds,  but  paid  most  of  it 

out  to  others 1391, 1392 

Spent  in  entertaining  people,  members  of  the  assembly;  did  not  enter- 
tain Towne,  Ramsey,  Farrell 1726 

Spent  more  than  I received 1392 

Montague,  do  not  know  him 1875 

Overbeck,  I told  him  to  arrange  with  Roeder  to  come  to  Milwaukee  and  I 
would  pay  for  the  train  to  bring  him  to  Madison;  said  Stephenson  and 

his  representatives  could  not  hire  this  train 1718, 1719 

Overbeck,  talked  and  worked  with,  more  than  with  anybody  else  repre- 
senting Senator  Stephenson;  do  not  know  how  much  money  he  had  there; 

never  talked  about 1722, 1723 

Perrin,  received  $600  or  $700  from 1391, 1392 

Ramsey,  did  not  know  he  had  absented  himself  from  legislature  until 

afterwards;  never  entertained 1393, 1394, 1726 

Reagan,  did  not  talk  with,  in  regard  to  absence  of  certain  members  and 

securing  a quorum 1394, 1720 

Reagan,  do  not  believe  I telegraphed  him  to  meet  me  here  on  business; 
met  him  in  Milwaukee  during  the  time  of  balloting  for  Senator  in  Madi- 
son; do  not  recall  talking  to  him — saying  much  to  him;  do  not  think  I 
discussed  with  him,  generally,  the  Stephenson  situation;  I may  have 
discussed  it;  think  I saw  him  once  in  Madison;  talked  with  about  cer- 
tain lands 1712, 1713, 1714, 1715, 1716, 1717, 1718, 1720, 1726, 1727 

Reagan,  never  told  him  I had  any  money,  or  authority  to  get  or  use  money 

to  aid  in  Stephenson’s  election. 1733 

Roeder,  did  not  know  why  was  absent;  Overbeck  said  if  he  were  there  the 

election  would  be  ratified . 1720 

Roeder,  hired  special  train  to  bring,  from  Milwaukee  to  Madison;  did  not 

meet  him  or  know  he  was  there 1718, 1719 

Special  train,  I paid  for,  to  bring  Roeder  from  Milwaukee  to  Madison; 

never  got  back  what  I paid 1718, 1719 

Starkweather,  was  paid  $250  from  Stephenson’s  money,  and  $250  from  Jen- 
kins’s campaign  money 1392 

Stephenson,  took  part  in  campaign  for 1390 

Towne,  did  not  know  he  had  absented  himself  from  legislature  until  after- 
ward  1393, 1394 

Towne,  never  heard  Wayland  boasting  of  having  kept  him  out  of  legisla- 
ture; never  knew  by  sight;  never  entertained 1721, 1725, 1726 

Was  on  floor  or  in  lobby  when  vote  was  taken;  did  not  talk  with  members 
of  legislature  as  to  manner  of  voting,  except  members  from  district  in 

which  I live 1394 

Washington,  went  there  on  a trip  with  Flannery  in  February;  saw  Hines 
there;  talked  with  friends  about  Senator  Stephenson’s  election;  did  not 

see  Stephenson  to  speak  to 1728, 1729, 1730 

Wayland,  never  heard  him  boasting  of  keeping  Towne  out  of  legislature^ ..  1721 

West  Baden,  Ind.,  went  there  from  Madison;  staid  there  about  two  weeks..  1397, 
1398, 1724, 1725, 1730, 1731, 1872, 1873, 1874, 1875, 1876 
White,  I think,  we  were  rather  tickled  over  the  result  (of  keeping  members 

out  of  legislature) 1721 

Smith,  Addison  T.,  statement  of 1215 

Trunk,  received  key  of,  from  Attorney  Black  this  morning 1215 

Smith,  Herbert  H.,  real  estate  and  insurance  business,  Hartford,  Wis.,  affi- 
davit of 2015 

Addressing,  mailing,  and  stamping,  expense  for  about  $40 2016 

Age,  49  years 2015 

Automobile  hire,  expense  for,  about  $15 2016 

Campaign  committee,  received  $100  from;  whole  expended  and  more,  for 
which  never  asked  to  be  recompensed,  and  does  not  expect  to  be 2016 


CXXXIV 


DIGEST  INDEX, 


Page. 

Smith,  Herbert  H.,  real  estate  and  insurance  business,  Hartford,  Wis.,  affi- 
davit of — Continued. 

Campaign  work  in  Hartford  and  in  eastern  part  of  Dodge  County,  during 
primary  campaign,  at  request  of  campaign  managers  at  Milwaukee;  cov- 
ered period  of  several  weeks;  consisted  of  traveling  throughout  Washing- 
ton County  and  eastern  part  of  Dodge  County,  m corresponding;  also 
had  assistance  of  others  in  putting  up  and  circulating  campaign  material, 

such  as  lithographs,  cards,  buttons,  etc 2015,2016 

Hartford,  resided  in  about  past  20  years 2015 

Livery  hire  and  automobile  hire,  large  expense  for 2016 

Madison  investigation,  did  not  testify  at 2016 

Money  not  disbursed  for  the  purpose  of  corruptly  or  unlawfully  influencing 

or  bribing  any  person 2016 

Personal  expense  in  traveling  and  for  livery  hire,  about  $45 2016 

Statement  of  expenditures,  never  called  upon  for  itemized 2016 

Stephenson,  supporter  of  prior  to  request  to  do  campaign  work 2015 

Sommer,  W.  J.,  shoe  business,  Superior,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1710 

Crownhart,  C.  H.,  lives  in  Superior;  have  no  recollection  of  talking  with  on 
subject  of  election;  presume  he  is  half-breed;  holds  office  in  Wisconsin..  1711 

Palace  Market  Co.,  am  president  of 1710 

Politics,  am  a Republican;  out  of  entirely;  have  not  been  taking  any 

interest  in  for  last  eight  years 1711 

Shields,  R.  J.,  have  known  for  17  years;  never  talked  with  at  any  time 
about  Stephenson  election;  never  made  remarks  about  time  had  at 

Madison 1710, 1711 

Stephenson,  election  of,  only  know  what  read  in  papers 1710 

Souther,  Frank  T.,  inspector  on  street  work  in  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of. . 1653 

Black,  never  knew  of  any  efforts  on  the  part  of  Wood  to  be  retained  by,  in 

the  interest  of  Senator  Stephenson 1666 

Crownhart,  never  knew  of  any  efforts  on  the  part  of  Wood  to  be  retained  by.  1666 
Farrell,  Regan  said  Shields  asked  him  if  he  thought  he  (Farrell)  would 
stand  hitched;  did  not  say  that  Shields  said  what  he  expected  to  do 
with  him;  did  not  write  his  name  down  in  my  book;  spoke  to  Wood 

about 1658, 1659, 1662, 1663, 1664, 1668, 1669 

Kittle,  never  knew  of  any  efforts  on  the  part  of  Wood  to  be  retained  by. . 1666 

McConicha,  John  D.,  do  not  think  he  knew  anything  of  the  conversations 

between  Regan  and  myself 1673 

Ramsey,  Regan  said  Shields  asked  him  if  he  thought  he  (Ramsey)  would 
stand  hitched;  did  not  say  that  Shields  said  what  he  expected  to  do  with 
him;  did  not  write  his  name  down  in  my  book;  spoke  to  Wood  about. . 1658, 

1659, 1662, 1663, 1664, 1668, 1669 

Regan,  M.  J.: 

Came  to  talk  with  me  about  Wagner;  Wood  came  also,  being  a friend 
of  Wagner;  said  Shields  had  sent  him  two  telegrams  to  meet  him  and 
he  met  him  at  the  Hotel  Pfister;  said  he  had  come  prepared  and  that 
Stephenson  must  be  elected;  said  Shields  had  come  direct  from 
Washington  from  Stephenson,  and  had  carte  blanche  to  use  any 
amount  of  money  to  carry  through  a certain  deal;  said  he  had  tele- 
grams in  safe  place 1654, 

1655, 1656, 1657, 1660, 1661, 1662, 1663, 1664, 1665, 1672 
Did  not  say  to  me  anything  about  having  lost  any  telegrams;  never 

heard  anything  about  it  until  a long  time  after 1665 

Did  not  tell  me  that  Shields  assured  him  that  he  would  be  kept  out  of 

sight  in  Madison 1659 

Did  not  tell,  what  "Wood  had  reported  to  me 1659, 1660 

Said  he  believed  a part  of  what  Wood  said  was  true,  but  not  that  part 
which  connected  him  (Regan)  with  the  occurrence  at  the  Planking- 

ton  Hotel 1657 

Said  he  had  taken  advice  of  an  attorney  (Ryan)  as  to  Shields’s  propo- 
sition; attorney  advised  him  to  have  nothing  to  do  with  it;  do  not 

remember  time  of  this  meeting,  probably  in  September,  1909 1655, 

1656, 1657, 1659 

Said  Shields  asked  if  he  thought  Farrell  and  Ramsey  would  stand 

hitched;  do  not  know  that  he  mentioned  Towne 1658, 1659 

Told  Wood  I would  testify  to  the  truth  as  to  his  (Regan’s)  conversation 

with  me,  touching  telegram  Shields  sent  him 1666, 1667, 1668 

Wood  cautioned  me  to  keep  quiet  about  matters  affecting 1670, 1671 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


CXXXV 


Page. 

Souther,  Frank  T.,  inspector  on  street  work  in  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony 
of — Continued. 

Ryan,  attorney  at  law,  Regan  said  he  consulted  him  as  to  Shields’s  propo- 
sition; did  not  put  his  name  in  my  book 1655, 1659, 1668 

Shields,  Regan  told  me  he  asked  him  (Regan)  if  he  thought  Farrell  and 
Ramsey  would  stand  hitched;  do  not  know  that  he  mentioned  Towne..  1658, 

1659, 1663, 1664 

Shields,  Robert,  Regan  told  me  of  his  (Shields)  sending  him  two  telegrams 
to  meet  him  at  Hotel  Pfister,  and  he  met  him;  Regan’s  conversation  with; 

never  knew  where  telegrams  came  from 1654, 

1655, 1656, 1657, 1660, 1661, 1663, 1672 

Towne,  do  not  know  that  Regan  told  me  that  Shields  asked  him  (Regan)  if 
he  (Towne)  would  stand  hitched;  did  not  write  his  name  down  m my 

book 1658,1659,1668 

Wagner,  Frank,  made  appointment  with  Regan  to  come  to  my  office  to 
talk  with;  Wood  came,  being  a friend  of;  Regan  believed  a part  of  story 

of;  I could  not  help  but  believe  it 1654, 1656, 1657, 1660 

Wagner,  never  able  to  obtain  any  information  of  value  from,  as  to  who  was 

behind  him 1666 

Wood,  Harry  W.: 

Cautioned  me  to  keep  quiet  about  conversation  in  so  far  as  it  affected 

Regan 1670,1671 

Conversation  with,  as  to  my  testimony;  I told  him  I would  tell  the 
truth;  said  he  would  see  Regan  and  tell  him  what  my  stand  would 
be;  I said  I would  say  Regan  had  received  telegrams  from  Robert 
Shields;  have  a book  at  home  with  that  name  down  in;  spoke  of  the 

Ramsey  and  Farrell  business 1666, 1667, 1668, 1669, 1670 

Never  knew  any  efforts  of,  to  be  retained  by  Mr.  Kittle  and  Mr.  Crown- 
hart,  nor  of  his  effort  to  be  retained  by  Mr.  Black  in  the  interest  of 

Mr.  Stephenson 1666 

Visited  Wagner  two  times  at  Waupun;  reported  results  to  me 1666 

Was  present  when  he  had  conversation  with  Regan  in  Milwaukee  on  the 
question  of  the  election  of  Senator  Stephenson ; Regan  and  I agreed 
to  send  him  to  see  Wagner;  do  not  remember  that  he  asked  Regan  to 

pay  his  expenses  to  go  to  Waupun  to  see  Wagner 1653, 

1654, 1657, 1660, 1662, 1663, 1664, 1665 

Stephenson,  Senator: 

Charges  against,  specific 4,  5 

Checks  used  by,  in  primary  campaign 1255,  2025 

Copies  of  letters  stating  that  he  could  not,  under  the  law,  give  any  assistance 

toward  the  election  of  any  candidate  for  the  legislature 2038,  2039 

Counsel  for,  W.  E.  Black,  C.  E.  Littlefield,  H.  H.  J.  Upham 1 

Letter  of  attorney  general  to,  in  relation  to  the  filing  of  his  expense  account; 
his  letters  to  secretary  of  state  and  attorney  general  inquiring  about  filing 

of  expense  account 58,  89,  90 

Personal  letter  book  of 1255, 1257 

Stephenson,  Senator  Isaac,  testimony  of 23,  909,  2103 

Account,  did  not  keep  one  myself,  showing  persons  to  whom  I paid  this 

money  and  purposes  for  which  it  was  paid ; only  my  check  book 51 

Account  of  expenses  filed  in  February;  not  until  after  legislature  elected 
me;  knew  in  a general  way  that  the  other  candidates  had  filed  their 
accounts  within  30  days  subsequent  to  primary;  attorney  general  said  I 
need  not  file  it  until  time  I did  file  it;  did  not  withhold  it  because  of  fact 
I had  expended  this  large  sum  of  money  and  it  might  influence  electors. . 53, 

54,  55,  2111 

Advertising,  there  were  buttons  with  my  photograph  on  sent  all  over;  my 
qualifications  were  set  forth  in  every  newspaper  in  the  State  that  they 
could  get  them  into;  I had  nothing  to  do  with  that;  do  not  know  how 
much  was  paid  to  news  apers  only  in  the  general  statement;  know 
nothing  about  amount  paid  for  advertising  only  as  Edmonds  made 

returns  to  me 30, 31 

Alexander,  Walter,  paid  him  check  for  $588.30  on  Corn  Exchange  Bank  of 

Chicago,  October  29 25 

Bancroft,  H.  L.,  elected  to  assembly  in  1908;  became  speaker;  I did  not 
myself  pay  him  anything;  know  of  his  being  paid  $250  only  as  Edmonds 

reported  it 39, 40 

Blank  signed  check,  never  gave  one  to  any  man 2108 


CXXXVT 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Stephenson,  Senator  Isaac,  testimony  of — Continued.  Page. 

Book  account,  showing  details  of  expenditures,  at  no  time  asked  them 

(Edmonds,  Puelicher,  and  Van  Cleve)  to  keep 56 

Box,  containing  poll  lists  sent  to  Marinette,  never  saw  it;  never  saw  any 
correspondence  contained  in  it;  had  no  knowledge  of  contents  or  dis- 
position of  it  until  it  came  here  during  this  hearing 2104 

Business,  have  been  lumber  and  timber  business  for  some  71  years;  now 

engaged  in  through  corporations  of  which  I am  the  head 2107 

Campaign,  left  entire  management  of,  to  managers;  for  10  days  during,  went 
on  annual  fishing  trip  and  for  about  a week  was  on  my  yacht;  had  all 
my  other  business  to  attend  to  during  those  60  days  and  it  was  very  exten- 
sive; gave  it  very  little  attention;  should  have  given  it  more 2113 

Candidates  for  assembly  or  senate,  did  not  at  any  time  during  general  cam- 
paign make  any  contribution  to,  for  any  purpose;  did  not  authorize  any- 
body acting  for  me  to  make  contribution  to,  in  election  of  1908 2105 

Canvass,  I was  only  in  seven  counties  a part  of  the  last  five  days  of  campaign; 
that  is  all  I had  to  do  with  it;  paid  my  own  expenses;  not  included  in  any 

statement;  did  not  exceed  $100 31,  2111 

Cook,  who  ran  against  me  came  on  stand  and  showed  that  a man  can  spend 

$500,000  legally  in  one  of  these  primaries  here 54 

Corruptly  influencing  legislature,  never  gave  Hines  or  Shields  or  any  man 
carte  blanche  to  come  to  Wisconsin  for  purpose  of;  never  gave  any  sum  to 
any  one  for  purpose  of  procuring  the  absence  of  three  Democrats  from 

legislature,  March  4,  1909,  or  any  other  day,  or  of  any  other  member 2108 

Eagle  Printing  Co.,  that  is  my  own  city  daily  paper,  paid  check  of  $16,  July 
18;  paid  check  of  $13.50,  September  26,  on  Stephenson  National  Bank; 

first  check  to  was  for  some  advertising;  do  not  know  what  it  was 24,  25,  28 

Edmonds,  E.  A.: 

Appointed  him  an  agent  to  spend  the  money;  authorized  him  to  spend 
it  for  organization  in  71  counties  of  State;  Puelicher  and  Van  Cleve, 
treasurers,  were  to  pay  him  the  money  when  he  called  for  it;  did  not 
place  any  limit  on  amount  they  were  to  pay  him;  exceeded  far  beyond 

what  I expected  it  would 23,  24,  30 

Cautioned  him  to  get  along  as  cheap  as  he  could;  I did  not  want  to 
throw  my  money  away  any  more  than  was  necessary;  I asked  him 
why  he  was  spending  so  much;  told  me  he  had  to  do  it  to  get  the  vote 
out  and  to  get  literature  before  them,  and  it  cost  a good  deal  to  get 

the  names  and  for  postage 55 

Check  for  $5,000,  July  18,  on  Stephenson  National  Bank  was  only  money 
paid  direct  to,  as  I remember;  do  not  know  what  it  was  expended  for; 
gave  him  it  to  do  what  he  pleased  with  and  he  spent  it  in  the  canvass, 
as  I understand,  and  put  some  back  to  me;  did  not  give  it  to  him  for 
service,  but  he  wanted  it  so  he  could  get  it  if  Puelicher  were  absent. . 24, 

28,  46, 49,  50,  56,  57 

Did  not  see  him  to  exceed  four  times  during  the  canvass 31 

Expected  him  to  make  a canvass  with  the  money  given  him;  told  him 

to  keep  within  the  law,  at  different  times 41,  50,  53 

First  conversation  with  in  reference  to  campaign  was  about  first  part  of 
July;  met  him  at  Marinette;  asked  him  to  go  to  Milwaukee  and  meet 
Puelicher  and  Van  Cleve;  he  said  he  would  take  charge  of  campaign 
and  I said  I would  furnish  money  to  Puelicher  and  Van  Cleve  and  he 
could  call  on  them;  nothing  said  about  what  campaign  would  cost. . 48,  49 
Furnished  me  information  on  which  I filed  my  account  in  about  same 
form  as  it  was  filed ; did  not  bring  me  a book  or  cards  or  slips  of  paper 
or  memoranda  showing  it;  I do  not  know  whether  it  was  the  original 

account  that  he  kept 58,  2112 

Have  known  him  15  or  20  years;  is  in  paper  business;  once  in  legisla- 
ture from  Oconto  County;  I asked  him  to  take  charge  of  campaign; 
no  suggestion  made  by  either  of  us  about  his  being  compensated;  I 
do  not  know  whether  he  was  or  not;  think  he  devoted  most  of  his  time 

to  my  interests 44,  45,  46,  50 

His  testimony  in  relation  to  payment  to  him  of  $2,400  in  aggregate 
covering  expenses  incurred  by  him  at  the  session  of  legislature  when 
I was  elected,  and  some  expenses  incurred  afterwards  is  in  accordance 
with  my  recollection  of  facts;  did  not  spend  a cent  other  than  that 
in  connection  with  legislative  election;  no  account  filed  of  that 


expenditure 2110,  2111,  2112 

Told  him  to  keep  a correct  account  of  everything;  told  him  he  must 
be  specific  about  amounts  paid  and  persons  to  whom  paid 50 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


CXXXVII 


Stephenson,  Senator  Isaac,  testimony  of — Continued.  Page. 

Eppling,  came  into  my  office  and  wanted  some  money  for  Lutherans  at 
Watertown;  Miss  Stringham,  my  secretary,  was  sitting  there  and  went 
out;  I told  him  I would  not  give  Watertown  anything,  but  that  I would 
give  him  $200  for  his  church  at  Algoma  in  memory  of  Senator  Stebbins; 
in  meantime  Miss  Stringham  came  in  and  I told  her  to  make  out  a check 
for  $200;  she  noted  on  the  stub  “Watertown”;  it  was  a mistake;  I did 

not  give  it  for  Watertown  and  did  not  ask  him  to  work  for  me  at  all 909 

Expended  a hundred  and  seven  thousand  seven  hundred  and  something 
dollars  between  time  I announced  candidacy  and  primary  election,  in 

connection  with  my  nomination 23 

Expenses  for  organizing  outside  Milwaukee  County,  $53,729,  know  nothing 

about  that  only  as  you  see  it  in  account  returned  by  Hambright 32 

Greenwood,  Alfred,  paid  $125  in  cash;  was  a cripple;  dead  now;  he  went 
into  Kewaunee  County  and  others  and  got  names;  gave  money  to  him 

partly  out  of  charity 25,  38,  39 

Henning,  E.,  advised  me  by  telegraph  my  election  occurred  January  26. . . 2109 

Hines,  Edward,  have  known  him  about  15  years;  business  relations  with; 
never  had  any  conversation  with  me  in  connection  with  my  election  to 
Senate  by  Wisconsin  Legislature;  never  discussed  with  me  question  of 
use  of  money  in  any  way  in  connection  with  my  election  by  legislature; 
did  not  state  to  me  I would  be  likely  to  have  “trouble ” which  could  be 
relieved  by  payment  of  a sum  of  money  and  I did  not  agree  to  contribute 

$55,000  for  that  purpose 2107,  2108 

Howey,  J.  W.,  paid  check  of  $100,  November  7,  on  Corn  Exchange  Bank. . 25 

Hutchinson,  Fred,  paid  $25  through  Ludington  Co.,  as  far  as  I recollect,  for 

obtaining  signatures  to  nomination  papers 37 

Lambeck,  called  him  up,  I think,  on  telephone  and  asked  him  to  ship  poll 

lists  to  Marinette;  do  not  know  whether  they  were  shipped 2103,2104 

Law,  knew  what  it  was  during  primary  campaign;  had  a general  idea; 
charged  and  cautioned  all  of  them  that  were  doing  anything  for  me  to  be 
careful  about  and  to  keep  within;  knew  it  required  me  to  make  an 
account  showing  amounts  paid,  persons  to  whom  paid,  and  purposes  for 

which  paid 53,56 

Letters,  did  not  write  any  political  campaign  ones;  might  write  a friend 
asking  him  to  do  what  he  could  for  me;  did  not  write  any  in  regard  to  any 

expenditure 57 

McAllister,  D.  J.,  one  of  my  foremen  in  my  lumber  mill,  paid  by  the  N. 
Ludington  Co.,  which  is  one  of  my  companies,  $110.50,  and  charged  to 
my  account;  I think  he  went  over  into  Oconto  County  and  saw  some  of 

his  friends — to  vote  for  me,  I guess 25,  37 

McLean,  J.  A.,  August  8,  paid  check  for  $20  on  Corn  Exchange  Bank  for 
getting  names,  I think,  in  Brown  County ; I never  saw  him ; my  secretary 
or  somebody  else  may  have  paid  him;  I can  not  remember  that;  pre- 
sume I signed  the  check,  as  I sign  my  checks 24,  28, 29 

Madison,  was  only  there  the  16th  of  February,  1909,  and  gave  my  evidence 

there  in  the  forenoon  and  afternoon 43 

Marshall  and  Illsley  Bank,  had  $50,000  there  in  the  first  place;  it  was  an 
open-account  deposit;  it  was  loaned  to  a flour  man  at  Minneapolis  and  he 

paid  it  and  it  was  lying  there 51,  52 

Members  of  legislature,  never  paid  or  authorized  to  be  paid  any  money 
to  any  of  them  for  voting  for  me  for  United  States  Senator;  did  not  pay 
or  authorize  the  payment  of  any  money  to  any  of  them  for  absenting 
themselves  or  refraining  from  participating  in  the  ballot;  know  of  three 
members  absenting  themselves,  only  through  the  newspapers;  never  saw 

and  had  nothing  to  do  with  them 43, 44,  2108 

Memorandum  of  money  furnished  to  be  expended  in  campaign,  making  in 

all  $111,385.49;  know  how  a few  items  in  were  expended 24,  25,  28 

Money,  did  not  pay  any  person  any  in  connection  with  my  campaign  be- 
tween September  2 and  the  day  of  the  general  election  for  the  purpose  of 

influencing  or  working  for  me  with  the  members  of  the  legislature 43 

Money,  did  not,  to  my  knowledge,  pay  out  any  in  connection  with  primary 
election  other  than  the  aggregate  that  has  been  shown  here  on  record. . . . 2110 


cxxxvm 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Stephenson,  Senator  Isaac,  testimony  of — Continued.  Page. 

Money,  I thought  it  was  calling  for  a good  deal  of  money,  but  of  course  I did 
not  know  what  Edmonds  wanted  it  for  and  I had  absolute  confidence  in 
him  and  in  my  two  treasurers,  then  and  now,  and  I did  not  know  any- 
thing about  the  detail  and  how  they  were  using  it,  and  did  not  know  any 
of  the  time  until  they  made  their  report;  in  a general  way  would  say  to 
them,  “You  are  spending  a good  deal  of  money  and  I would  get  along 

with  less” 42,  43,  55,  56,  2112 

Money,  they  tried  several  times  to  have  me  state  how  much  I would  put  up; 
and  I would  not  do  that;  I was  going  to  pay  the  cost  as  it  came  along;  at 

no  time  during  campaign  had  I determined  on  any  limit 2111 

Morgan,  J.  Earle,  paid  check  of  $2,550,  November  7,  on  Stephenson  Na- 
tional Bank;  he  did  some  work  in  Winnebago  and,  I think,  Waupaca 
County  to  get  out  voters  and  circulate  documents;  is  my  son-in-law  and 
has  plenty  of  money  of  his  own  and  I suppose  did  not  send  his  bill  to  me 

until  he  got  ready 2543 

Patrick,  L.  S.,  my  secretary,  paid  check  of  $190.99,  November  21,  on 

Stephenson  National  Bank 25 

Peterson,  H.  L.,  paid  check  of  $150,  August  17,  on  Stephenson  National 
Bank  for  circulating  nomination  papers ; is  a reputable  citizen  of  Sturgeon 
Bay,  Door  County;  do  not  know  how  many  names  he  got  or  how  long  he 

was  engaged  in  doing  it 24,  29,  30, 37 

Political  promises  or  agreements,  did  not  make  of  any  kind  in  connection 
with  primary  campaign;  did  not  authorize  any  of  my  representatives  to 
make  any  of  any  kind;  did  not  make  any  in  connection  with  my  election 
by  the  legislature  in  1909,  or  authorize  any  person  representing  me  to, 

and  so  far  as  I know  none  were  made 2105,  2106 

Postage,  item  of  $11,339  paid  for;  have  no  personal  knowledge  in  regard 

to  it 31,  47 

Puelicher,  all  money  given  to,  was  to  be  paid  over  to  Edmonds  as  he  might 

need  it 28,30,51,52 

Puelicher,  cashier  of  Marshall  & Illsley  Bank,  with  Van  Cleve,  was  a treas- 
urer of  money  I paid  to  be  used  in  campaign;  no  particular  business  rela- 
tions with;  I have  some  stock,  and  we  do  a great  deal  of  business  in  that 

bank;  managed  my  campaign  in  1907  before  the  legislature 47 

Puelicher,  J.  H.,  cashier  Marshall  & Illsley  Bank,  money  paid  to:  July  30, 
check  for  $10,000;  August  7,  check  for  $30,000,  Marshall  & Illsley  Bank; 
October  10,  check  on  Stephenson  National  Bank  for  $3,700;  November  20, 

check  for  $200,  Stephenson  National  Bank 24,  25,  51 

Puelicher,  made  first  arrangement  with,  I think,  about  the  28th  of  June; 
did  not  see  him;  presume  I wrote  him  to  meet  Van  Cleve  and  Edmonds 
to  arrange  about  campaign;  told  him  to  keep  within  the  law;  assumed  he 

knew  I would  have  to  file  an  account 52, 53 

Reynolds,  paid  him  $180  in  cash;  was  for  obtaining  signatures  to  nomina- 
tion papers;  he  did  not  make  any  charge,  but  I gave  him  that  money; 
not  sure  he  was  a candidate  for  legislature  when  I gave  him  first  $80  in 
currency;  asked  him  to  get  me  some  names  and  employ  others;  after- 
wards instructed  secretary  to  send  him  $100  in  currency;  knew  then  he 
was  a candidate  for  legislature,  but  I gave  it  to  him  for  getting  these 

names  originally 25,  37,  38,  40 

Reynolds,  Thomas,  do  not  know  anything  about  contribution  of  $100  to 
him  by  State  central  committee  during  general  campaign  after  primary; 

did  not  suggest  or  advise  committee  to  make  such  contribution 2105 

Sacket,  Rodney,  gave  him  check  on  Corn  Exchange  Bank  for  $5,000 

August  27 25 

Settersten,  A.  J.,  paid  check  of  $26.10,  September  14,  for  getting  names  in 

my  own  city,  at  5 cents  a name 25 

Shields,  Robert  J. ; have  not  any  acquaintance  with  him  that  I know  of;  he 
said  he  saw  me  five  years  ago  when  I had  an  ulcer  of  the  eye*  I do  not 
remember  seeing  him  then;  never  had  any  conversation  with  him  in  rela- 
tion to  my  election  to  United  States  Senate;  do  not  remember  any  con- 
versation with  him  of  any  kind ; never  gave  him  a signed  check  in  blank 
to  be  filled  in  for  use  in  connection  with  my  election  to  United  States 
Senate 2106,2108 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


CXXXIX 


Stephenson,  Senator  Isaac,  testimony  of — Continued.  Page. 

State  central  committee,  think  I contributed  $2,000  to,  for  general  campaign 
fund;  had  no  agreement  with  anyone  connected  with  committee  that  any 
part  of  it  or  of  any  of  their  funds  should  be  used  for  my  personal  interest; 
no  understanding  between  Edmonds  and  myself  that  any  acts  of  commit- 
tee should  be  performed  in  my  interest  personally  or  as  a candidate ; think 

I gave  the  money  to  Edmonds . 2104,  2105,  2110,  2111 

Statement  of  my  expenses  in  primary  campaign,  filed  under  the  law  Febru- 
ary 11,  1909,  given;  shows  amount  placed  in  hands  of  Edmonds,  Pue- 
licher,  Van  Cleve,  Sacket,  Brown,  and  others  as  $111,385.49;  expendi- 
tures accounted  for,  $107,793.05;  have  no  personal  knowledge  of  items  in, 
except  that  of  $225.06  for  getting  names  to  nomination  papers.  26,  27,  32,  37,  41 
Stevens,  never  knew  anything  about  efforts  to  get  his  bank  at  Lancaster  a 

depository  for  State  funds 2104 

Stronach,  H.,  paid  him  check  of  $26,  September  3,  on  Stephenson  National 

Bank,  for  getting  names  in  my  own  city 25 

Tariff  upon  lumber,  my  attitude  toward,  in  1909 2109 

Treasurers,  appointed  J.  H.  Puelicher,  cashier  of  Marshall  & Illsley  Bank, 

and  J.  A.  Van  Cleve  as 24 

United  States  Senate,  first  elected  to,  26th  of  January,  1909;  became  a can- 
didate for,  in  June,  1908;  was  then  a Member  of,  having  been  elected  to 

fill  an  unexpired  term  on  the  17th  of  May,  1907 23,  48,  2109 

Van  Cleve,  all  the  money  that  was  given  him  was  to  be  given  to  Edmonds, 

my  manager,  as  he  might  need  it. . . 30,  51 

Van  Cleve,  business  relations  with;  with  Puelicher,  was  treasurer  of  money 

I paid  to  be  used  in  campaign 47 

Van  Cleve,  J.  A.,  money  paid  to,  by  me:  June  28,  check  on  Stephenson 
National  Bank,  $2,000;  July  6,  check  on  Marshall  & Illsley  Bank,  $10,000; 
August  20,  check  on  Corn  Exchange  Bank,  Chicago,  $15,000;  August  24, 
check  on  Corn  Exchange  Bank,  $10,000;  August  31,  check  on  Corn  Ex- 
change Bank,  $2,000;  September  3,  check  on  Corn  Exchange  Bank, 
$13,500;  November  28,  check  on  Stephenson  National  Bank,  $71.35; 

cash  paid  through  H.  J.  Brown,  $792.75 24,  25,  27 

Vandersee,  Frank,  do  not  remember  any  such  man;  did  not  authorize  him 

to  make  any  negotiations  or  promises  in  my  interest 2106 

Wellensgard,  C.  C.,  know  nothing  about  him  at  all;  that  is,  about  money 

he  received  in  connection  with  my  campaign 40,  41 

Wells  Building,  think  they  had  15  or  20  persons  there  sending  out  letters; 

I was  in  there  twice  and  that  is  all;  I saw  a good  many  there;  that  was 

under  direction  of  Edmonds 48 

Stevens,  L.  H.,  banker,  Lancaster,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1295 

Bank  books,  there  are  certain  transactions  that  have  always  been  carried 
by  us  as  spindle  items — that  is,  just  transient — where  they  do  not  go 
through  the  books;  first  entered  on  piece  of  paper  and  paper  is  put  on 
spindle;  did  not  have  a spindle  account  for  Stephenson  money.  1296, 1297, 1311 
Blaine,  Senator,  I know  him;  did  not  state  to  him  at  any  time  in  any 
form  or  language  that  I was  doing  work  for  Stephenson,  organizing,  and 

picking  off  Hatton  and  McGovern  men 1308, 1309 

Compensation,  kept  $200  of  Stephenson  campaign  money  for  my  own  use; 
pursuant  to  an  arrangement;  received  that  probably  a month  after  the 

primary;  think  I made  arrangement  for,  with  Edmonds 1302, 1312 

Draft  for  $28.92,  received  August  5,  spent  for  small  expenditures  made  in 
going  over  county  and  a trip  to  Milwaukee;  sent  them  a statement  for  it . . . 1298, 

1307 


Drafts  received  from  Stephenson  fund,  I cashed  in  my  bank;  sent  to  Chicago 
or  Milwaukee  for  collection;  whole  record  of,  is  kept;  indorsed  by  me; 
could  tell  from  books  of  bank  when  received  and  amount;  did  not  bring 

memorandum  of  those  facts  here;  did  not  think  it  necessary 1297, 

1298, 1308, 1309 

Edmonds,  first  knew  him  in  August,  1908;  came  to  Milwaukee  pursuant 
to  conversation  with  McMahon  to  talk  over  Stephenson  matter  with  him; 
in  same  conversation  early  in  August  took  up  with  him  question  of  getting 

State  deposit  for  me 1301 

Edmonds,  I had  some  correspondence  with  him  in  reference  to  securing 
the  depository;  I think  I destroyed  it  just  about  as  I received  it  or 
shortly  afterwards;  did  not  keep  copies  of  letters  I wrote;  believe  he 
reported  to  me  he  had  taken  it  up  with  the  commission  and  with  the 
secretary  of  state 1304, 1305 


CXL 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Stevens,  L.  H.,  banker,  Lancaster,  Wis.,  testimony  of — Continued.  Page. 

Edmonds,  think  I received  all  told  about  $900  from  him;  think  it  was  all 
sent  to  me;  did  not  keep  an  account  of  it;  can  not  give  dates  sent;  it 
ranged  from  August  5 to  middle  of  October;  have  nothing  to  indicate 
exact  amount  received;  testified  before  legislative  committee  it  was 

$800;  may  possibly  have  been;  all  received  by  check 1296, 

1303, 1306, 1307, 1310 

Grant  County,  list  of  men  employed  there  prepared  from  memory,  given; 

shows  amounts  paid,  but  not  dates 1305 

Grant  County,  money  all  expended  there;  had  workers  at  the  polls  as  far 

as  I could  cover  the  county 1303 

Jensen,  F.  P.,  paid  $50  or  $60  for  livery  and  expenses  for  workers  at  Platt- 

ville 1306 

Lancaster,  have  resided  there  four  years 1295 

Law  requiring  candidates  to  file  expense  accounts,  knew  there  was  one; 


in  his  paper,  the  Grant  County  Herald,  in  the  last  publication  before  the 


and  surrounding  territory,  securing  workers  at  polls  and  talking  up 

Stephenson  sentiment 1306 

McMahon,  Edward,  was  first  man  to  come  to  see  me  about  supporting 
Stephenson;  I did  not  make  matter  of  securing  State  deposit  for  my  bank 


McMahon,  first  conversation  with,  I mentioned  subject  of  State  depository 
first;  told  him  I was  working  for  it;  asked  him  if  he  could  help  me  any; 
he  said  he  would  do  what  he  could;  he  wanted  me  to  aid  Stephenson’s 
canvass;  both  agreed  to  help  one  another;  said  he  wanted  to  get  workers 


Madison,  was  there  two  days  during  senatorial  contest  in  legislature;  was 
there  when  investigation  was  going  on;  did  not  have  any  conversation 
with  any  of  the  members  of  legislature  in  regard  to  election  of  a United 

States  Senator 1302 

Memorandum,  have  none  showing  items  or  details  of  disbursements;  did  not 

keep  one  of  names  and  amounts  when  I was  disbursing  money 1309, 1311 

Meyer,  Richard,  heard  he  was  working  for  Stephenson  in  Grant  County. . 1304 

Money  all  spent  before  primary  day  in  promoting  or  working  for  Stephenson; 


Money,  carried  Stephenson  funds  in  my  pocket  in  cash;  did  not  enter  it  on 

any  piece  of  paper 1297 

Money,  none  spent  by  me,  or  as  far  as  I know,  by  men  to  whom  I disbursed 

it,  for  purpose  of  bribing  or  corruptly  influencing  electors 1310 

Money  unaccounted  for,  I think,  was  my  expense  in  traveling  around  over 
the  community  during  a good  deal  of  month  of  August;  traveled  by 
team  and  auto;  used  my  own  auto;  included  hotel  fare  and  lodgings; 
circulated  some  literature  and  put  up  advertising  as  I went  around;  do 

not  remember  that  I hired  anyone  else  to  do  it 1309 

Public  office,  have  never  held  one  in  State  of  Wisconsin 1302 

Puelicher,  met  him;  did  not  have  conversation  with  him  on  subject  of 

rendering  account;  did  not  talk  to  him  about  State  depository 1308 

Sacket,  talked  to  him  about  question  of  State  deposit;  he  said  they  could  not 
promise  the  depository;  think  he  said  in  substance  he  had  no  authority 

to  make  any  political  promises 1308 

State  deposit  for  my  bank,  secured  in  February,  1909;  had  McMahon, 
Edmonds,  and  my  father  help  me,  and  J.  P.  Chandler,  who  was  assembly- 
man at  the  time  Treasurer  Dahl  was  in  the  assembly  went  with  me  to 
Madison  to  interview  the  committee;  continued  to  receive  deposits  from 
State  until  last  January;  withdrawn  as  soon  as  Gov.  McGovern  took  his 
chair;  received  about  $20,000  on  deposit  by  this  arrangement.  1300, 1301, 1302 
Stephenson,  commenced  to  support  him  first  of  August;  did  not  talk  in 
favor  of  another  candidate  in  June  and  first  half  of  July  to  anyone. .....  1299 

Stephenson,  did  not  have  any  conference  with  him  on  subject  of  rendering 

an  account . 1308 

Stephenson,  do  not  know  when  I first  expressed  myself  in  favor  of  his  candi- 
dacy; did  not  do  any  work  for  him  before  McMahon  came  there;  had  not 
announced  I would  support  him  before  then 1300 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


CXLI 


Stevens,  L.  H.,  banker,  Lancaster,  Wis.,  testimony  of — Continued.  Page. 

Stephenson’s  campaign  in  1908,  participated  in 1295 

Storrs,  paid  $25  for  money  expended  for  workers  in  and  around  Fennimore . . 1305, 

1306 

Sum  of  $200  received  day  before  election  I think  I spent  for  workers  and  for 

expenses  in  the  election  and  for  livery  hire 1303 

Tiller,  W.  C.,  paid  $40  for  his  teams  on  day  of  primary,  if  it  was  deemed 


Weller,  William,  never  paid  him  anything  for  livery  purposes 1311 

Stone,  James  A.,  letter  to  Hon.  John  J.  Blaine,  dated  Jan.  22,  1909,  in  regard 

to  investigation  of  Stephenson 1480 

Stone,  John  W.,  Minneapolis,  Minn.,  testimony  of 1313 

Bowman,  gave  him  $500  in  Milwaukee  the  day  I received  money,  $500  in 
city  of  Madison  some  time  in  August,  and  gave  him  check  for  two  hundred 

and  some  odd  dollars  at  another  time 1315 

Bowman,  H.  A.,  game  warden;  paid  him  $1,280  to  be  expended  for  ordinary 
election  work  in  different  parts  of  State  where  he  was  located ; he  did  not 


Craig,  John,  of  Superior,  game  warden;  paid  him,  for  campaign  use,  first 


Edmonds,  M.,  as  result  of  conversation  had  in  Milwaukee,  Mr.  Sacket  gave 

me  $2,500,  the  amount  I had  suggested 1323 

Edmonds,  sent  me  a draft,  in  full,  for  $349.50 1320 

Fridley,  at  Superior,  was  paid  $140  for  campaign  use 1321 

Game  warden,  served  as,  in  State  of  Wisconsin  two  years,  June,  1907  to 

1909;  Salary  $1,800  a year 1313, 1317 

Gerhart,  Fred,  game  warden,  paid  him  $200  for  campaign  use 1316 

Gordon,  paid  him  $25  for  campaign  use 1316 

Hulbert,  A.  J.,  game  warden;  paid  him  $10  for  campaign  use 1316 

Kolb,  G.  C.,  game  warden,  paid  him  for  campaign  use,  $50 1316, 1317 

Memorandum,  had  only  partial  one  at  time  of  expenditure 1318 

Money,  have  no  personal  knowledge  of  what  was  done  with,  I paid  to  men. . 1317 

Money,  none  was  spent  to  my  knowledge,  nor  did  I spend  any  for  purpose  of 
bribing  or  unlawfully  influencing  any  voters  in  interest  of  Senator 

Stephenson 1324 

Money  was  given  me  to  be  expended  in  interest  of  Stephenson’s  primary 

campaign ; to  be  used  at  my  discretion 1315 

Ordinary  election  work,  meant  team  hire,  putting  up  lithographs,  seeing 

that  the  vote  was  gotten  out,  etc 1316 

Pierce,  E.  W.,  paid  him  $10  for  campaign  use 1316 


Sacket  gave  me  $2,500  in  currency  in  one  package  in  Wells  Building  at 


Sather,  J.,  paid  him  $10  for  campaign  use 1316 

Stephenson,  had  conversation  with,  in  Marinette  prior  to  making  the  ar- 
rangements with  Mr.  Edmonds;  asked  him  if  he  was  candidate  for  re- 


Stephenson,  no  mention  was  made  of  any  money  I was  to  receive  for  use  in 

campaign 1323 

Stores,  A.  E.,  game  warden;  paid  him  for  campaign  use  $20 1316, 1317 

Tate,  F.  A.,  paid  him  $20  for  campaign  use 1316 

Tuttle,  E.  W.,  game  warden;  paid  him  $75  for  campaign  use 1316 

Stover,  James  H.,  attorney  at  law,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1593 

Puelicher;  Wagner  claimed  he  brought  the  money  into  the  room 1595 

Regan,  Matt;  Wagner  said  he  distributed  the  money 1595 

Wagner,  Frank  T.,  about  the  9th  or  10th  of  March,  told  me  a story  of  having 
looked  over  a transom  of  room  325  in  the  Plankington  Hotel,  and  seeing 
certain  members  of  the  legislature  receiving  money;  connected  Matt 
Regan  with  the  occurrence;  claimed  Mr.  Puelicher  brought  the  money 
into  the  room;  told  the  same  story  three  different  times;  was  afterwards 


convicted  of  perjury 1593, 1594, 1595 

Stringham,  Miss  Mary  F.,  secretary  to  Senator  Stephenson,  Marinette,  Wis., 

testimony  of 1812 

Box,  understood  was  sent  direct  from  Wells  to  Milwaukee;  never  was  told 
it  was  sent  back  to  Marinette  from  Wells  or  Escanaba;  do  not  know  what 
became  of  contents  beyond  letters  and  campaign  buttons 1819, 1820 


cxm 


DIGEST  INDEX, 


Pag*. 

Stringham,  Miss  Mary  F.,  secretary  to  Senator  Stephenson,  Marinette,  Wis., 
testimony  of — Continued. 

Box,  wooden,  containing  letters,  papers,  etc.;  first  saw  in  warehouse  of  N. 
Ludington  Co.,  of  which  Senator  Stephenson  is  president;  do  not  know 
who  receipted  for  it  when  it  came;  looked  through  and  had  letter  files 
and  box  of  campaign  buttons;  nothing  else;  carried  into  office;  had  been 
opened  before  by  mistake;  nothing  removed. . . 1812, 1813, 1814, 1818, 1820, 1821 
Lambeck,  messenger  for  Stephenson;  wrote  letter  from  Washington,  after 
holidays  in  1909,  to  find  certain  letter  and  forward  to  Sentor  Stephenson 
there;  thought  letter  was  in  box  at  warehouse  shipped  from  headquarters; 

think  he  was  mistaken  about  it  being  there 1813, 1815, 1818, 1821 

Letter,  instructed  to  find,  do  not  know  what  was  about;  do  not  recall  name 

from  whom  it  was 1821 

Letter  files,  indexed;  five  or  six;  looked  through;  could  not  find  letter 
wanted;  stacked  them  in  vault  of  Senator’s  private  office  until  was 

instructed  to  take  them  out 1815, 1818, 1820 

MacLean,  R.  E.,  superintendent  of  I.  Stephenson  Co.  at  Wells;  came 
personally  after  letters  in  files;  did  not  go  over  them  so  far  as  I know; 
brought  suit  case;  do  not  know  what  happened  to  them  after  he  took 
them  away;  never  saw  them  again;  took  letters  under  direction  of 

attorneys 1816-1821 

Russel,  attorney  in  office  of  Cary,  Upham  & Black,  gave  orders  for  files  to 
be  gotten  out  and  ready  to  send  to  Wells  by  MacLean,  when  he  came; 

never  went  through  letters  and  papers  in  vault  to  my  knowledge 1816, 

1818, 1820, 1821 

Stephenson,  Senator,  secretary  to,  now  and  in  1909  and  1910 1812 

Sturtevant,  John  L.,  Wausau,  Wis.,  affidavit  of 2016 

Age,  46  years 2016 

Money  not  paid  for  advertising  for  purpose  of  corruptly  or  unlawfully  influ- 
encing or  bribing  Post,  or  any  person  connected  with 2016 

Stephenson,  personally  a supporter  of;  supported  him  in  his  campaign  for 

the  Senate  in  1907 2016 

Waupaca  Post,  during  primary  campaign  was  owner  of;  for  special  adver- 
tising in  interest  of  Stephenson  and  sending  out  large  number  of  copies  to 
voters,  received  $100  from  campaign  headquarters;  was  reasonably  worth 
that  sum;  paper  supporter  of  Stephenson  several  months  prior  to  time 
special  advertising  was  run;  payment  in  no  way  influenced  general  sup- 
port of  paper  or  affiant 2016 

Subcom  mittee  appointed  to  investigate  charges  against  Senator  Stephenson ii,  4 

Report  of,  to  the  full  committee vn 

Sutherland,  Senator  George,  and  Senator  Atlee  Pomerene,  views  of xxvii 


Testimony,  as  to  committee  reopening  case  and  receiving  additional 1992 

Thayer,  L.  W.,  owner  of  real  estate,  Ripon,  Wis.,  testimony  of 934, 1752 

Accounts,  I keep  them  in  connection  with  my  ordinary  business;  generally 
make  memoranda  of  business  transactions;  some  things  I do  not  record  . 937,  938 
Burgess,  L.  A.,  Ripon,  hired  his  automobile;  think  I was  two  or  three  days 
in  his  machine;  he  was  with  me;  made  a one-day  trip  to  Green  Lake  and 
from  there  to  Markesan  and  Waupun;  we  carried  Stephenson  lithographs 
and  literature;  engaged  various  parties  in  different  precincts  to  organize 

and  distribute  literature;  think  I paid  him  $20 937,  945,  946,  947,  948, 1753 

Burke,  Jere,  Ripon,  gave  him  $5,  I think 1754 

Business  college,  attended  in  1876  or  1877;  I could  not  tell  amount  paid  for 

tuition 938 

Campaign,  I spent  practically  all  of  my  time  after  I began  to  do  this  work 

until  primary  election  day 948 

Cast  my  first  vote  for  Rutherford  B.  Hayes;  cast  my  last  vote  for  President 

Taft 938,939 

Check  for  $100,  payable  to  “cash,”  was  sent  to  me  at  Northwestern  station 
by  James  L.  Stone,  cashier,  in  response  to  a telephone  call  of  mine;  he 
brought  the  check  or  sent  it  down,  and  I signed  it  there  in  the  station 

and  he  gave  me  the  cash  then 942 

Check  for  $150,  received  from  bank  September  2,  1908 943 

Checks,  show  how  I withdrew  money  from  bank;  looked  them  up  to  see  if 
I could  not  refresh  my  memory,  because  I was  subpcened  before  this  com- 
mittee; have  checks  and  bank  book  with  me;  given  as  exhibits 941, 

942, 943, 952 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


CXLIII 


Page. 

Thayer,  L.  W.,  owner  of  xeal  estate,  Ripon,  Wis.,  testimony  of— Continued. 

Competition,  there  was  an  active  campaign  for  other  three  candidates  in 
that  district 950 

Edmonds,  I received  $600  from  him  to  organize  western  half  of  Fond  du 
Lac  County  and  take  up  work  in  Green  County;  had  done  some  work 
and  disbursed  some  money  there  before  I received  the  check  from  him. . 934, 

936,  944, 1752 

Expense  account,  I knew  that  the  candidate  was  required  to  file  one ; since 
no  request  was  made  of  me  to  keep  an  itemized  account,  I took  it  for 
granted  that  the  candidate  would  file  his  account  from  office  expendi- 
tures; I thought  from  the  custom  of  filing  reports  that  the  mere  state- 
ment that  the  candidate  had  paid  me  $600  would  be  a sufficient  designa- 


tion of  the  item 936 

Items  accounted  for  amount  to  somewhere  about  $180  to  $185 1754 

Laws  of  Wisconsin,  had  a passing  knowledge  of  one  that  defines  one’s  action 

in  campaigning 936 

Memorandum,  never  had  one  of  the  sums  paid  out 934, 1752, 1754 


Men,  employed  30  or  40  in  various  precincts  for  purpose  of  looking  out  for 
the  vote  on  election  day,  canvassing,  and  with  rigs  to  get  voters  out;  not 
always  employed  by  me  directly;  I should  think  that  cost  me  anywhere 
from  $250  to  $300  for  the  entire  district;  believe  $150  paid  out  to  persons 

I can  not  recall . 940,  941,  944,  949,  950,  951, 1754 

Money,  I paid  out  a large  amount  of  it  to  other  men;  can  not  give  the  name 
of  any  person  to  whom  I gave  it  or  the  amount,  only  by  guesswork . 934,  935,  940 
Money,  none  spent  by  me,  or  within  my  knowledge  by  anyone  to  whom  I 
intrusted  it,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  for  purpose  of  bribing  or  cor- 
ruptly influencing  voters 952 

Morse,  Roy,  Fond  du  Lac,  an  attorney;  asked  me  if  i would  not  take  part 
in  organization  of  western  part  of  Fond  du  Lac  County;  I agreed  to  do  so.  945 
Organizing,  defined,  I mean  to  have  men  talk  to  electors  with  reference  to 
qualifications  of  candidate,  to  distribute  literature  and  get  out  the  vote. . 934 

Personal  expenses,  including  livery,  auto  hire,  hotels,  and  entertainments, 

I would  figure  at  $200 936,  937, 1755 

Public  offices  held,  I was  elected  to  the  State  assembly  in  1892;  elected  to 
senate  in  1894;  member  of  county  board  for  eight  years;  was  chairman 

of  that  board  two  years 949,  950 

Reed,  Roy,  Ripon,  gave  him  $10,  I think;  did  work  for  Stephenson  west 

of  Ripon 1753 

Ripon,  has  four  precincts;  I vote  in  the  fourth 939 

Saloons,  left  literature  in  very  many  of  them;  we  would  go  into  a saloon 
with  literature,  and  the  first  thing  that  would  occur  would  be,  probably, 
finding  10  or  15  people  in  there,  to  invite  them  either  to  a smoke  or  drink; 
that  might  have  cost  $100  on  automobile  trip,  going  from  Markesan  to 

Waupun 939,940,947,948 

Schrader,  F.  P.,  Markesan,  I think  I gave  him  $15;  understood  he  was 
friendly  to  Stephenson  and  I went  down  to  see  him,  and  he  said  he  knew 
a number  there  who  were  favorably  inclined  and  he  would  take  it  up 

with  them 947, 1752, 1753 

Scribner,  Wynne,  El  Dorado,  think  I gave  him  $20;  was  a Stephenson  man; 
he  distributed  literature,  and  got  those  who  seemed  to  be  friendly  inter- 
ested in  campaign 935,  936,  940,  944, 1752 

Stewart,  Arthur,  gave  him  $35  or  $40;  worked  for  Stephenson  in  city  of 

Ripon;  looked  after  carriages,  and  I am  not  sure,  but  the  poll  work 1753 

Sullivan,  T.  G.,  had  been  doing  considerable  work  for  Lyons;  was  favor- 
able to  Stephenson;  gave  him,  I think,  $30  or  $35;  was  to  go  for  his  serv- 
ices or  as  he  might  feel  disposed  to  disburse  it;  had  confidence  in  him; 

did  not  instruct  him  with  reference  to  expenditure 1753, 1754 

Sum  of  $600,  when  I received  it  I took  $300  of  it  in  cash  with  me  on  trips 
through  district,  $300  was  left  in  the  bank,  deposited  I think,  Aug.  28, 

1908;  I drew  on  that  $100  at  one  time  and  $150  at  another;  I think  there 

was  $50  in  the  end,  kept  for  my  own  compensation 937,  941,  942,  943 

Trips,  I went  with  buggy  quite  a good  deal  and  with  autos;  I covered  the 

district  pretty  well;  there  were  41  precincts  in  the  district 948 

Williams,  David,  Green  Lake,  gave  him,  I think,  $15  or  $20  to  work  for 
Stephenson 1753 

15235°— 11 x 


CXLIV 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page. 

Tilton,  Lester,  Chicago,  testimony  of *. 1090 

Aylward,  J.  A.,  my  letter  to,  January  21, 1909;  I think  Ring  is  party  referred 


Ay  1 ward,  testimony  before  joint  investigating  committee  in  regard  to  my 


Blaine,  John  J.,  eleventh  specific  charge  by,  is  not  true,  any  part  of  it 1091 

Brown,  I think  I supported  him  for  United  States  Senate;  supported  Dem- 
ocratic ticket 1096 

Campaign  funds,  did  not  handle  any  for  anyone  during  1908  primary 1093 

Candidate,  I was  not  one  for  nomination  for  legislature;  they  did  talk  to 
me  about  being  one;  I do  not  know  that  they  especially  talked  about 

Stephenson,  thought  they  did  about  him  and  about  others 1091 

Money;  did  not  receive  any  from  Stephenson  or  his  campaign  committee..  1090 
Money,  none  promised  me  any  to  assist  me  in  being  nominated  or  elected 


Neillsville,  Wis.,  resided  there  during  year  1908 ; 1090 

Republican;  I had  been  one  and  am  practically  still  one,  but  not  a “half 
breed;”  not  approached  as  one  to  be  converted  from  Democracy  to  Re- 
publicanism; I was  supposed  to  be  what  they  call  a stalwart  up  there. . 1097 

Ring  asked  me,  I think,  if  I would  work  for  Stephenson;  conversations 
with,  were  before  the  primary;  I think  he  offered  to  pay  services  or  some- 
thing of  that  kind ; this  conversation  later,  I think,  than  one  in  which  he 

tried  to  persuade  me  to  become  a candidate  against  Bradford 1094 

Ring,  M.  C.,  conversations  with,  as  testified  to  before  joint  investigating 


three  different  times  about  C.  M.  Bradford,  who  was  then  running  for  the 
assembly;  he  was  not  friendly  to  Bradford  and  wanted  me  to  run;  told 
him  I did  not  care  to  run  for  assembly,  and  if  I did  I would  pay  my  own 
expenses;  he  said  if  I would  run  and  get  out  and  help  him  he  would  see 
what  aid  could  be  had;  was  a stalwart;  not  positive  he  favored  Stephen- 
son then;  think  he  did  later 1091, 1092 

Stephenson,  I did  not  support  him  at  any  time 1097 

Stephenson  campaign,  did  not  take  any  part  in  it 1090 

Towne,  Silas  R.,  member  of  Legislature  of  Wisconsin  in  1909,  Lavalle,  Wis., 


Do  not  remember  details  of,  trifling  incidents  are  hard  to  remember 


Had  no  conversation  with  anyone  about,  until  day  afterwards;  some 

reporter  attempted  to  interview  me 1409 

No  one  offered  me  money  either  before  or  after,  for  being  absent;  ab- 
sence was  accidental  and  partly  due  to  indifference. . 1411, 1471, 1472, 1473 
Not  present  when  vote  was  taken;  do  not  know  where  I was;  knew  the 

vote  was  to  be  taken 1407, 1408, 1410, 1412 

Talked  with  Keller  about 1413 

Am  not  under  the  influence  of  liquor  to  any  material  extent 1417 

Bribery  of,  no  one  offered  money  either  before  or  after  election  for  being 


Bribery  of,  paid  no  particular  attention  to  charge,  but  think  I arose  to  ques- 

j.: „ £ * * l ji  4.  11 4-  — t ia  m 


though  there  had  been  rumors  that  certain  members  had  been  bribed.  1472, 1476 

Democrat,  always  vote  for 1408 

Democrats,  combination  of,  with  half-breeds  to  prevent  election  of  Senator 

Stephenson 1485, 1486 

Democrats  had  a caucus  and  leader,  but  I did  not  recognize  him  as  such..  1473 
Election  of,  received  1,511  votes,  81  more  than  Davidson,  candidate  for 

governor ; 1484 

Hughes,  John,  I am  sorry  to  say  I know  him . 1491 

Hughes,  never  informed  me  that  there  was  any  prospect  of  electing  a 

Democrat 1485 

If  I had  been  a Republican  I should  have  voted  for  Senator  Stephenson; 
knew  Democrat  could  not  be  elected 1485 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


CXLV 


Page. 

Towne,  Silas  R.,  member  of  Legislature  of  Wisconsin  in  1909,  Lavalle,  Wis., 
testimony  of — Continued. 

Ingram,  was  leader  of  the  half-breeds;  told  him  I was  a Democrat;  I said 
if  you  fellows  will  join  with  the  Democrats  and  help  elect  some  good  Dem- 
ocrat, you  fellows  can  name  the  Democrat;  if  you  will  do  that  I will  stay 
with  you  to  prevent  an  election,  or  go  out  with  you  to  break  a quorum; 
he  said  that  if  Stephenson  was  proven  unworthy  he  would  agree  to  go 

into  joint  caucus;  I said  “that  is  damned  easy” 1412, 1482, 1483 

Keller  had  a conversation  with  me  at  some  time  with  respect  to  voting  for 

Senator  Stephenson,  or  absenting  myself,  or  something 1413 

Milwaukee,  never  in,  prior  to  March  4,  1909 1734 

Stone,  had  a chattel  mortagge  on  farm;  reduced  by  installments 1486, 1487 

Stone,  James  A.,  do  not  know  whether  I said  he  was  pressing  me  on  the 
mortgage  on  my  farm;  and  do  not  remember  giving  that  as  a reason  for 
refusing  to  act  with  “them”  (meaning  the  friends  of  Stephenson)  to  W. 

W.  Power,  who  I do  not  remember  ever  knowing 1478 

Stone,  said  it  might  not  be  safe  to  continue  loan  to  me  as  I was  dipping  in 
politics;  loan  was  for  about  $2,800;  now  transferred  to  State  Bank  of 

Lavalle... 1481,1482 

Stone,  was  interested  in  defeating  the  election  of  Senator  Stephenson;  let- 
ter of,  to  John  J.  Blaine  as  to  investigation;  was  attorney  for  people  who 

loaned  money  on  a mortgage  on  my  farm 1480, 1481 

Strange,  John,  am  not  sure  I heard  his  speech  on  March  4 1491 

Wagner,  his  testimony  first  charge  of  bribery  against  myself  that  I heard. . 1472, 

1475, 1476 

Wayland,  C.  C.: 

Entered  cloak  room  with  him  shortly  before  convening  of  session;  re- 
mained about  20  minutes,  and  do  not  recollect  what  was  said  about 
anything  except  that  I didn’t  want  to  meddle  in  Republican  poli- 
tics; don’t  know  whether  anything  was  said  about  balloting  going  on 
at  that  time 1472, 1473, 1474, 1477 

Former  testimony  as  to  conversation  with,  discussed;  details  of  conver- 
sation as  set  forth  in  former  testimony 1488, 1489, 1490, 1491, 1492 

May  have  talked  with  him  about  mortgage  on  my  farm 1477, 

1478, 1479, 1497, 1498 

Talked  with,  on  March  4 relative  to  attending  or  not  attending  the  ses- 
sion, part  of  the  time  in  room  adjoining  assembly  chamber,  part  in 
the  corridor,  and  in  a cloak  room;  did  not  decide  to  be  absent,  but 

was  absent  through  lack  of  interest  in  the  result  of  the  election 1470, 

1471, 1473 

Talked  with  him  relative  to  the  election  of  a Senator;  do  not  remember 
the  exact  discussion,  but  he  was  urging  that  the  election  of  Senator 
Stephenson  would  be  a benefit  and  ought  to  be  brought  about,  and  I 

made  an  occasional  comment 1411, 1470, 1474 

Trunk,  containing  correspondence,  poll  lists  and  mailing  cards  relating  to  Ste- 
phenson campaign 1215, 1254-1256, 

1691, 1692, 1788-1795,  2082,  2096,  2097,  2098,  2099,  2100,  2101,  2102,  2103 

Turrish,  Henry,  as  to  testimony  of;  to  be  put  in  the  form  of  an  affidavit 1512, 

1690, 1691,  2024,  2025 

Turrish,  Henry,  lumber  business,  Duluth,  Minn.,  affidavit  of 2031 

Boutell,  think  in  the  course  of  the  conversation  with  Hines  his  name  was 

mentioned 2034 

Cook,  known  of  his  unpleasantness  with  Hines. 2031,  2032 

Cook,  some  time  in  December,  1910,  or  the  1st  of  January,  was  in  the  buffet 
car  going  from  Madison  to  Duluth,  and  he  asked  me  if  I remembered  the 

conversation  in  the  Grand  Pacific  Hotel 2034,  2035 

Cook,  Wirt  H.,  interested  with  him  for  about  15  years;  personally  friendly  2031 
Grand  Pacific  Hotel,  conversation  between  Hines,  Cook,  and  myself  in  the 

early  part  of  May,  1909 2032,  2033,  2034 

Helm  committee,  after  my  name  was  used  at,  I did  not  talk  to  anyone  about 

my  memory  of  the  conversation  in  the  Grand  Pacific  Hotel 2035 

Hines,  asked  him  what  progress  he  was  making  with  the  tariff  on  lumber. . 2033 
Hines,  Edward,  known  him  possibly  seven  years;  had  no  unpleasantness 

with  him 2031 

Hines  mentioned  the  name  of  Lorimer  in  conversation  in  the  Grand  Pacific 

Hotel 2033 

Lorimer,  Senator,  have  no  feeling  of  prejudice  against  him 2032 


CXLVI 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Turrisli,  Henry,  lumber  business,  Duluth,  Minn.,  affidavit  of — Continued.  Page. 

McCordic’s  office,  never  been  in 2034 

O’Brien,  William,  discussed  with  him  the  conversation  had  in  the  Grand 

Pacific  Hotel 2035 

Portland,  Oreg.,  now  at 2031 

Stephenson,  name  mentioned  in  conversation  in  the  Grand  Pacific  Hotel; 

I said  to  Hines,  “Mr.  Stephenson,  being  a lumberman,  is  all  right,  isn’t 
he?”  He  said,  “No,  Stephenson  is  an  uncertain  quantity;”  that  he  had 
done  business  for  him  for  20  years  or  more,  and  that  he  really  did  not 
know  where  he  stood  on  the  lumber  question;  he  was  undecided;  do  not 
remember  any  reference  as  “old  Stephenson”  in  that  conversation..  2033,  2034 
Witness,  sworn  as  before  a committee  of  the  United  States  Senate  at  the 
Senate  Office  Building,  in  Washington,  D.  C.,  on  Monday,  July  17,  1911; 
there  testified  to  a conversation  which  Wirt  H.  Cook  had  previously  testi- 
fied to  as  occurring  between  affiant  and  Edward  Hines  at  the  Grand 

Pacific  Hotel,  ’Chicago;  testimony  before  said  committee  given 2031 

Tuttle,  Emery  W.,  mason  and  bricklayer,  Oconomowoc,  Wis.,  affidavit  of 2016 

Account  of  expenditures,  kept  none;  never  called  upon  for  any 2017 

Age,  60  years 2016 

Bowman,  Harry,  received  $125  from;  understood  had  money  for  use  in 

Stephenson  campaign 2017 

Campaign  work  in  five  townships  of  Waukesha  County  in  primary  contest. . 2017 

Money,  all  received  disbursed  legitimately 2017 

Money  not  disbursed  for  the  purpose  of  corruptly  or  unlawfully  influencing 

or  bribing  any  person 2017 

Oconomowoc,  resided  in,  about  past  60  years 2016 

Precinct  workers,  about  $50  to  $65  spent  for  services  of;  unable  to  remem- 
ber names  of  all;  does  remember  names  of  four;  instructions  given  to 2017 

Stephenson,  work  done  for,  before  any  money  received ; at  all  times  in  favor 
of  reelection  of;  money  received  had  nothing  to  do  with  personal  support 

of  affiant  and  his  son 2017 

Stone,  J.  W.,  received  $75  from;  understood  had  money  for  use  in  Stephen- 
son campaign 2017 

Traveling,  about  $140  to  $150  spent  by  affiant  and  son,  and  for  conveyances, 
for  expense  of  circulating  literature  and  putting  up  lithographs,  and 

hotel  expenses,  entertainment,  and  cigars 2017 

Tuttle,  Arthur  C.,  son,  assisted  by,  who  devoted  several  weeks  also  to  cam- 
paign, traveling  in  said  towns  and  through  the  county,  and  advocating 
Stephenson,  putting  up  literature,  and  engaging  men  to  be  at  the  polls 

on  primary  day 2017 

Twohy,  D.  W.,  telegram  to,  in  regard  to  his  meeting  Robert  J.  Shields  in  Chicago 
and  having  alleged  conversation  with,  three  or  four  days  before  election  of 
Stephenson;  reply  stating  he  has  not  seen  Shields  for  several  years;  reason 
for  his  not  being  called  before  committee 1947 

U. 

TTpham,  H.  H.  J.,  attorney  at  law,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1972 

Affidavit  of  Senator  Stephenson  as  to  paying  out  $111,385.49  to  Edmonds, 
Puelicher,  Van  Cleve,  Sacket,  Brown,  and  others,  and  the  disbursement 

of  $107,793.05  of  that  amount;  did  not  dictate  form  of 1980, 1981, 1984 

Barnes,  discussion  as  to  expense  account  of  primary  election.  1988, 1989, 1990, 1991 
Brown,  H.  J.,  did  not  render  ajiy  statement  to  me  as  to  the  disbursement  of 

the  $107,793.05,  or  any  part  thereof 1981, 1982 

Brown,  paid  J.  A.  Van  Cleve  $702.75  out  of  rents  he  collected  for  Senator 

Stephenson 1975 

Cook,  discussion  as  to  expense  account  of  primary  election;  time  of 

filing,  etc 1983, 

1984, 1985, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991 

Edmonds,  did  not  discuss  with  him  the  question  of  his  accounting  for  any 

money  he  paid  out 1978 

Edmonds,  did  not  render  any  statement  to  me  as  to  the  disbursement  of 

the  $107,793.05,  or  any  part  thereof 1981, 1982 

Edmonds,  think  some  checks  had  been  given  to;  do  not  think  I went  over 
statement  of  account  produced  by 1973, 1976, 1977 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


CXLVII 


Upham,  H.  H.  J.,  attorney  at  law,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of — Contd.  Page. 

Expense  account,  statement  of  Stephenson: 

Did  not  dictate  form  of 1904 

Had  seen  Hatton’s,  Cook’s,  and  McGovern’s  accounts,  and  also  Judge 
Barnes’s  and  Tim  tin’s;  the  Stephenson  account  conforms  largely  to 

those 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991 

Itemized  account  of  expenditure  of  $107,793.05 .. 1979 

Know  nothing  of  destruction  of  original  items  of  account. , 1987, 1988 

Was  approved  by  me,  and  was  an  attempt  to  comply  with  the  law  of 
Wisconsin  as  to  the  filing  of  expense  accounts  of  the  primary;  had 

examined  statements  of  other  candidates 1980, 

1981,1982,1983,1984,1985,1986 

Was  trying  to  have  it  conform  to  the  practice  which  had  grown  up;  was 
some  difference  of  opinion  among  lawyers  as  to  time  it  should  be  filed; 
do  not  think  I consulted  with  Senator  Stephenson  on  the  subject; 

did  not  give  an  opinion  on  subject  to  Sacket  or  Edmonds 1985, 1986 

Greenwood,  Senator  Stephenson  paid  personally  $125  to 1973, 1974 

Hatton,  discussion  as  to  expense  account  of  primary  election;  time  of  filing, 

etc.. 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991 

Hutchinson,  Fred  (N.  Ludington  Co.),  paid  personally  $25  to;  was  a 

worker  for  Senator  Stephenson 1974, 1975 

Hutchinson,  Senator  Stephenson  paid  personally  $25  to;  was  a worker  for 

Stephenson 1974, 1975 

Hyzer,  E.  M.,  was  a member  of  our  firm;  has  never  been  in  the  legislature 
to  my  knowledge;  appeared  before  the  legislative  investigating  com- 
mittee as  an  attorney  representing  our  firm  for  Senator  Stephenson.  1972, 1973 
McAllister,  was  paid  $110.50  by  the  N.  Ludington  Co.,  and  charged  to  the 

account  of  Senator  Stephenson 1975 

McGovern,  discussion  as  to  expense  account  of  primary  election;  time  of 

filing,  etc.... 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991 

Money: 

Amount  of,  that  Senator  Stephenson  paid  personally  was  as  follows:  T. 
Reynolds,  $180;  Greenwood,  $125;  Fred  Hutchinson  (N.  Ludington 
Co.),  $25;  H.  J.  Brown  took  $792.75  from  rents  he  collected  for  Sena- 
tor Stephenson,  and  paid  it  to  J.  A.  Van  Cleve 1974, 1975 

Do  not  know  that  Senator  Stephenson  followed  the  payment  of,  any 
further  than  the  first  payment;  I never  was  consulted  about  any  that 

was  paid  out  by  Stephenson’s  managers 1978 

Do  not  think  the  statement  of  the  expenditure  of  the  $107,793.05  com- 
plies with  laws  of  Wisconsin,  as  strictly  construed,  but  does  comply 
with  the  practice  that  seems  to  have  grown  up  among  candidates  as 

to  filing  returns 1980, 1981 

I had  nothing  to  do  with  the  $107,793.05;  that  shows  what  Mr.  Sackett 
and  the  others  disbursed;  I did  not  revise  or  prepare  the  statement 

about  it 1979 

I undertook  to  get  together  the  sum  total  of  the  funds  that  Senator 
Stephenson  parted  with;  found  that  he  had  parted  with  $111,385.49 
on  all  accounts  for  the  primary  election;  this  did  not  include  the  $2,000 
or  $2,500  that  he  contributed  to  the  State  central  committee. . . 1973, 1974 
I went  over  the  items  of  expenditure  with  Senator  Stephenson;  do  not 
believe  I went  over  the  statements  produced  by  Sackett  and  Ed- 
monds; their  statement  was  complicated,  so  I went  to  Senator  Steph- 
enson’s office  at  Marinette  and  got  the  statement  of  expense  that  I 

have  read  from  his  private  book 1975, 1976, 1977 

List  of  checks  and  amounts  paid  to  various  people;  no  controversy  as  to 

genuineness  of  checks 1975, 1976 

Never  advised  on  the  question  as  to  whether  Senator  Stephenson,  by 
stating  the  persons  to  whom  he  paid  the  sums,  might  comply  with  the 

law 1977,1978 

Practice  of  accounting  for  expenditure  of,  in  primaries  and  elections; 
question  of  the  statement  and  affidavit  of  Senator  Stephenson  as  to 

campaign  expenditures  discussed 1980, 

1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990 

Statement  of  the  expenditure  of  $107,793.05;  itemized 1979 

Puelicher,  did  not  discuss  with  him  the  question  of  his  accounting  for  any 

money  he  paid  out 1978 

Puelicher,  did  not  render  any  statement  to  me  as  to  the  disbursement  of  the 
$107,793.05  or  any  part  thereof 1981, 1982 


cxLvm 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page. 

Upham,  H.  H.  J.,  attorney  at  law,  Milwaukee,  Wis,,  testimony  of — Continued. 

Puelicher,  think  some  checks  had  been  given  to 1973 

Reynolds,  Senator  Stephenson  paid  personally  $180  to 1973, 1974 

Sacket,  did  not  discuss  with  him  the  question  of  his  accounting  for  any 

money  he  paid  out 1978 

Sacket,  did  not  render  any  statement  to  me  as  to  the  disbursement  of  the 

$107,793.05  or  any  part  thereof 1981, 1982 

Sacket,  do  not  think  I went  over  statement  of  account  produced  by. . . 1976, 1977 

Timlin,  discussion  as  to  expense  account  of  primary  election 1989, 1990, 1991 

Van  Cleve,  did  not  render  any  statement  to  me  as  to  the  disbursement  of  the 

$107,  793.05  or  any  part  thereof 1981, 1982 

Van  Cleve,  J.  A.,  was  paid  $792.75  by  H.  J.  Brown  and  charged  to  the  rents 

collected  for  Senator  Stephenson 1975 

Vandersee,  do  not  know  him 1984 

V. 


Van  Cleve,  John  A.,  in  real  estate  and  banking  business,  Marinette,  Wis., 

testimony  of 136,  568 

Brown,  Harry  J.,  turned  statement'  of  campaign  expenses  in  Marinette 
County  over  to;  gave  me  a check  for  it  after  campaign  was  over;  was 
Stephenson’s  son-in-law  and  I presume  it  likely  he  showed  my  expense 
account  to  Stephenson;  do  not  know  of  any  funds  paid  out  by  Mr.  Brown 

other  than  Marinette  County  expenses 145, 148 

Campaign  committee,  duties  on;  I acted  as  home  member  of  that  com- 
mittee. Mr.  Puelicher  and  Mr.  Edmonds  were  in  Milwaukee  and  I was  in 

Marinette 137 

Campaign  committee,  shortly  after  announcing  candidacy,  Stephenson 
appointed  Mr.  Edmonds,  Mr.  Puelicher,  and  me  as  a committee  to  look 
after  his  campaign;  appointed  either  at  Marinette  or  Milwaukee;  members 
not  all  together  at  time;  consultation  with  Stephenson  in  regard  to 


shortly  after  candidacy  announced 137 

Campaign  expenses,  I did  not  furnish  any  money  to  speak  of  for;  not 

more  than  $15  or  $20 145 

Campaign  expenses,  large  part  went  for  advertising  and  postage.  - 141 

Campaign  fund,  know  of  no  other  disbursements  than  $52,500  in  six  checks 
to  Puelicher,  $792.75  that  I disbursed  in  Marinette  County,  and  $71.35 

sent  to  C.  H.  Ross,  of  Cavour 149 

Check  for  $2,000,  August  31,  received  from  Stephenson;  on  Corn  Exchange 
Bank;  indorsed  over  to  Marshall  & Ilsley  Bank  and  sent  to  Puelicher. . 143 

Check  for  $2,000  received  from  Stephenson,  drawn  on  Stephenson  National 
Bank,  of  Marinette,  in  my  favor;  indorsed  over  to  Puelicher  by  me  and 
sent  or  handed  to  him  June  28;  do  not  know  what  he  did  with  it;  not  stated 
to  be  for  advertising;  do  not  know  what  Stephenson  said  when  he  gave 


it  to  me,  except  that  I do  know  it  was  for  campaign  purposes 138, 141, 144 

Check  for  $10,000,  July  6,  on  Marshall  & Ilsley  Bank  of  Milwaukee,  drawn 
by  Stephenson  to  my  order;  indorsed  to  and  sent  to  Puelicher;  have  no 
knowledge  of  what  he  did  with  it;  only  check  that  was  on  $50,000  fund 

in  Marshall  & Ilsley  Bank 139, 144, 149 

Check  of  $10,000,  August  24,  on  Corn  Exchange  Bank  of  Chicago,  drawn  in 
my  favor;  indorsed  over  to  the  Marshall  & Ilsley  Bank  and  sent  to 

Puelicher 143 

Check  for  $13,500,  September  3,  on  Com  Exchange  Bank  of  Chicago, 
received  a day  or  two  after  the  primary;  indorsed  over  to  Marshall  & 

Ilsley  Bank  and  sent  to  Puelicher 144 

Check  for  $15,000,  August  20,  on  Corn  Exchange  Bank  of  Chicago;  given  me 
by  Stephenson;  I indorsed  it  over  to  the  Marshall  & Ilsley  Bank  and  sent 
it  to  Puelicher;  can  not  remember  conversation  with  Stephenson  con- 
cerning; understood  to  be  for  campaign  purposes;  think  he  handed  it  to 
me  personally;  he  made  no  statement  as  to  how  it  should  be  used.  139, 140, 143 
Checks,  in  four  cases  indorsed  to  Marshall  & Ilsley  Bank;  in  other  cases 
indorsed  to  J.  H.  Puelicher;  custom  varied  in  regard  to  indorsing  because 
I thought  Puelicher  would  be  away  from  home  part  of  the  time,  and  I 
presumed  he  had  an  arrangement  with  the  bank,  so  that  if  he  was  not 
there  when  check  got  there  the  people  in  the  bank  would  take  care  of  it.  143 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


CXLIX 


Page. 

Van  Cleve,  John  A.,  in  real  estate  and  banking  business,  Marinette,  Wis., 
testimony  of — Continued. 

Checks,  sent  to  me  instead  of  directly  to  Mr.  Puelicher,  because  my  office 
is  right  next  door  to  Stephenson’s.  “I  was  very  much  interested  in  the 
campaign  and  helped  him  all  I could,  and  when  this  money  was  wanted 
I would  go  into  the  Senator’s  office  and  talk  matters  over  and  he  would 

draw  a check  for  whatever  amount  was  asked  for” 141 

Contracts,  made  none  for  payment  of  any  portion  of  money 144 

Conversation  with  Stephenson  concerning  money,  right  at  beginning  of 
campaign  when  funds  were  needed,  matter  was  taken  up  from  time  to 
time;  can  not  remember  exact  time  of  first  conversation  any  more  than  it 
was  shortly  after  he  announced  candidacy;  do  not  recollect  what  was 

said 140,141 

Disbursements  by,  in  Stephenson’s  1908  primary  campaign  in  Marinette 

County,  Wis.,  in  detail 146, 147 

Edmonds,  appointed  campaign  manager  by  Stephenson 142 

Employment  of  assistants,  had  nothing  to  do  with  at  headquarters 147 

Filing  of  expense  account,  I did  not  assist  in  its  preparation  when  it  came 
to  filing  with  secretary  of  state;  was  not  consulted  about  filing;  was  not 
present  when  matter  was  talked  over;  do  not  recollect  talking  with 

Stephenson  about. 148 

Funds,  method  of  securing,  Puelicher  would  call  me  up  and  say  more  funds 
were  needed,  and  I would  go  into  the  Senator’s  office  and  we  would  talk 
matters  over,  and  the  result  of  the  conversation  would  be  that  he  would 

ask  his  secretary  to  draw  a check 142 

Gray,  J.  L.,  paid  $5,  August  29,  for  services  on  primary  election  day 568 

Legislature,  attended  when  in  session;  not  at  day  Stephenson  was  elected; 
attended  once  or  twice  prior  to  election  not  to  create  sentiment  in  favor 
of  Stephenson,  but  because  member  of  State  capitol  commission;  did  not 

speak  to  a member  there,  except  local  man,  maybe 145 

Marinette,  remained  there  substantially  during  entire  campaign,  which 

Stephenson  knew 150, 151 

Marinette,  resident  of  little  over  38  years 137 

Marinette  County,  includes  23  precincts;  entire  vote  of  about  4,200,  of 
which  Stephenson  got  about  3,000;  employed  50  or  60  men  in  county 
election  day;  had  a man  in  each  precinct;  in  large  precincts  we  had  three 

or  four  teams  and  men  at  polls  with  poll  list 569 

Marinette  County  campaign,  took  charge  of  for  Stephenson;  separate  trans- 
action from  State  campaign;  kept  account  of  money  received  and  paid 
out  in  connection  with;  account  separate  from  State  campaign  account; 
paid  out  $792.75  for  campaign  expenses;  kept  account  of  persons  to 

whom  paid;  statement  of  filed  with  legislative  committee 137, 145,  569 

Memorandum  book,  used  during  campaign  in  Marinette  County,  contains 
account  of  expenses  of  $792.75  and  a list  of  checks  sent  to  Puelicher, 
aggregating  $52,500;  shows  men  employed  in  different  precincts  in 

county 568 

Men  employed  election  day,  ascertained  they  were  friendly  to  Stephenson 

before  I made  any  arrangement  with  them 570 

Milwaukee,  visited  two  or  three  times  during  campaign  in  reference  to 
private  business;  did  not  make  trip  to  for  purpose  of  looking  after  cam- 
paign  150, 151 

Money,  did  not  disburse  any  that  was  sent  down  here;  simply  found  out 
that  it  was  needed  and  the  Senator  gave  me  the  checks  and  I sent  them 

down  here;  knew  in  a general  way  for  what  it  was  used 141, 144, 145 

Money,  did  not  know  when  I sent  it  to  Puelicher  for  what  purposes  it  would 
be  used,  other  than  for  campaign  purposes — mean  by  that  campaign 
organizing  in  way  of  advertising  and  opening  headquarters  where  15  or 

20  girls  sent  out  literature  and  all  that  kind  of  thing 142 

Money,  none  improperly  expended  to  my  knowledge;  had  no  information 

of  any  corruptly  expended  in  interest  of  Stephenson 151,  571 

Noyes,  F.  E.,  paid  him  $200  for  editorial  work  on  the  Marinette  Eagle;  was 
friendly  to  Stephenson  and  had  been  supporting  him  before  I gave  him 

the  money 568,  570 

Puelicher,  appointed  campaign  manager  and  banker  by  Stephenson 142 

Puelicher,  J.  H.,  $52,500  paid  out  by  me  was  in  six  checks  sent  to;  do  not 
know  that  he  had  $50,000  in  Marshall  & Ilsley  Bank;  had  heard  it 148,  569 


CL 


DIGEST  INDEX, 


Page. 

Van  Cleve,  John  A.,  in  real  estate  and  banking  business,  Marinette,  Wis., 
testimony  of — Continued. 

Puelicher,  sent  him  $52,500  for  purpose  of  promoting  Stephenson’s  nomi- 
nation as  Senator  at  direct  primary;  talked  with  him  before  I sent  him 
money  and  found  he  intended  to  support  Stephenson;  managed  Stephen- 
son’s campaign  in  1907;  do  not  wish  to  be  understood  that  any  sums  paid 

him  were  in  consideration  of  his  supporting  Stephenson 569,  570 

Ross,  Charles  H.,  of  Cavour,  payment  of  $71.35,  received  by  me  from 
Stephenson  November  28,  was  made  him  for  transportation  of  voters 
to  polls  in  Forest  County;  itemized  bill  from  turned  over  to  legislative 

committee;  did  not  charge  for  own  services 144 

Sacket,  did  not  know  who  employed ; presume  Stephenson  employed 147 

Six  checks,  aggregating  $52,000,  came  down  here  to  Milwaukee;  disbursed 

by  the  committee  and  those  that  were  here 144, 148 

Skidmore,  Ralph,  paid  $8.50,  of  which  $5  was  for  work  done  by  his  stenog- 
rapher during  campaign,  and  $3.50  for  a team,  in  township  of  Lake 568 

Statement  of  expenses  in  Marinette  County,  gave  it  to  H.  J.  Brown  and  he 
gave  me  a check  for  it;  remained  in  bank  until  turned  over  to  legislative 
committee;  do  not  think  it  was  then  turned  over  to  Stephenson;  do  not 

know  whether  a copy  of  it  was  turned  over  to  Stephenson 148 

Statement  of  expenses  in  Marinette  County,  hesitated  to  turn  over  to  com- 
mittee, not  because  of  figures  but  because  this  money  had  been  paid  out 
to  a lot  of  my  friends  up  there  and  I did  not  care  to  give  the  names,  but 
the  committee  finally  insisted  upon  it  and  I gave  them  the  names; 
knew  what  law  required ; proposed  to  give  committee  statement  giving 
expenditures  in  each  precinct;  amounts  are  all  comparatively  small,  and 

I thought  it  unnecessary  to  give  names 145, 146 

Statement  of  expenses  in  Marinette  County,  subsequent  one  contained  all 
information  except  names  of  persons  to  whom  money  was  paid;  shows 
disbursement  in  each  precinct;  shows  $35  largest  amount  paid  in  any 

one  precinct;  did  not  think  anything  about  its  legality  at  the  time 147 

Statement  of  money  received  and  paid  out  by  me  as  member  of  State  cam- 
paign committee  taken  from  memorandum  book  kept  at  time;  will  pro- 
duce memoranda  without  special  subpoena,  but  it  contains  nothing  but 


what  I have  here 138 

Stephenson,  Senator: 

Announced  candidacy  on  the  24th  of  June,  1908 137 

Campaign  cost  him,  I think,  two  or  three  times  as  much  as  he  ever  had 
any  idea  it  would 149 


Talked  with  me  concerning  $792.75  expended  in  Marinette  County 
campaign,  but  he  did  not  bother  me  much  about  details;  did  not 
discuss  with  me  disbursement  of  $107,000  or  $108,000  in  State  cam- 
paign, because  he  left  all  that  to  Puelicher,  Edmonds,  and  Sacket.  150, 151 
Would  canvass  matter  of  money  over  with;  would  finally  make  up 
mind  to  send  it;  would  call  on  secretary  to  make  out  check  for; 
always  after  objections  would  “cough  up,”  but  not  willingly;  did 

not  ask  what  was  being  done  with  money 149, 150 

Would  go  to  see  when  requests  from  Mr.  Puelicher  came  that  funds 
were  low;  “was  much  opposed  to  giving;”  can  not  remember  exact 
remarks  of;  substance  of  first  conversation  with  was  “he  thought 
they  were  spending  too  much  money  down  there;  he  did  not  want 
to  ‘put  up,’  as  you  might  say;  he  did  not  want  to  send  as  much  as 

they  were  asking  for.  He  was  very  much  opposed  to  doing  it 149 

Sum  of  $792.75,  paid  for  Marinette  County  expenses,  of  that  amount  $340 
was  paid  for  newspaper  service;  balance  nearly  all  expended  for  getting 
out  the  vote  primary  day;  few  dollars  listed  for  postage;  no  other  money 

expended  in  county 570 

Sum  of  $12,000,  sent  to  campaign  managers  in  Milwaukee  in  one  week; 
made  no  inquiry  as  to  needs  for  so  large  a sum;  Stephenson  had  advised 
his  managers  Puelicher  and  Edmonds  to  keep  within  the  law,  and  I pre- 
sumed they  were  doing  so  and  think  now  that  they  did 142, 143 

Sum  of  $52,000,  in  connection  with  committee  Stephenson  appointed, 

$52,500  passed  through  my  hands 138, 148,  569 

Votes,  none  purchased  by  money  I disbursed;  I never  had  any  information 
that  votes  were  purchased  from  any  reliable  source  anywhere  at  any 

time  in  connection  with  campaign 151 

Wood,  John,  employed  him  to  get  three  or  four  teams,  to  have  man  at  polls 
with  poll  list,  and  to  get  out  the  vote  on  primary  day  in  Amberg  precinct.  568 


DIGEST  INDEX.  CLI 

Page. 

Vandersee,  impossibility  of  producing,  on  part  of  the  committee 1991 

Van  Houten,  J.  W.  B.,  testimony  of 1212 

Black,  W.  E.,  I think  trunk  came  into  office  during  my  absence,  and  first 
time  I 6aw  it  it  was  in  our  vault  and  label  on  it  was  “W.  E.  Black,  Mil- 
waukee, Wis.;”  would  not  swear  to  that 1214 

Key  of  trunk,  I have  never  had  it 1215 


Trunk,  have  brought  one  to  committee  room  containing  papers;  mostly 
letters  relating  to  Stephenson  campaign;  have  no  lists  of  papers  in;  is 
locked,  I think;  do  not  know  when  it  was  locked;  open  yesterday; 
sorted  papers  in,  then  returned  all  papers  taken  out;  office  force  present 
when  I handled  papers;  none  of  them  retained  or  removed  papers  to  my 
knowledge;  first  knew  of  papers  when  trunk  came  by  express  about  10 

days  ago 1213, 1214 

Trunk,  I did  not  remove  label  from,  in  part;  did  not  erase  certain  marks 
with  a lead  pencil;  do  not  know  who  did;  do  not  know  where  it  came 

from 1215 

Vote  of  Stephenson  in  the  legislature,  tabulated  statement  of 2024 

Voting,  illegal,  and  bribery  and  corruption,  provisions  of  statutes  with  regard 

to 329,  601,  604,  605,  629,  677 


W. 

Walsh,  James  F.,  land  and  timber,  Duluth,  Minn.,  testimony  of 1561 

Cook,  am  his  brother-in-law 1566 

Cook,  conversation  with,  with  reference  to  the  election  of  Senator  Stephen- 
son; talked  of  everything  with,  that  I knew  about  or  heard  rumored 1562, 

1563, 1564, 1565, 1566 

Cook,  Wirt  H.,  not  associated  in  business  with 1562 

Haley,  told  me  something  about  an  alleged  quarrel  between  Hines  and 
Shields  as  to  a settlement  for  work  Shields  had  done  in  connection  with 

the  election  of  Senator  Stephenson 1563, 1564 

Hines,  never  talked  with,  about  election  of  Senator  Stephenson;  do  not 

know  him 1565 

Hines,  not  associated  in  business  with 1562 

Shields,  had  some  little  difficulty  with,  in  1907  or  1908;  had  some  sort  of  a 

claim  against  him 1566, 1567 

Shields,  has  stock  in  some  timber  company  with;  have  not  discussed 

political  matters  with,  since  1907 1562 

Shields,  never  talked  with,  about  election  of  Senator  Stephenson 1565, 1566 

Stephenson,  election  of,  did  not  assist  in;  had  no  interest  in 1565 

Watrous,  Paul  J.,  secretary  of  the  Industrial  Commission  at  Madison,  also 

in  newspaper  business,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1595 

Domachowski,  heard  him  say  he  had  been  offered  $1,500  to  stay  out  of  the 
chamber  while  the  vote  was  being  taken;  made  in  the  presence  of  Ever- 
ett and  Powell;  seemed  to  be  in  earnest  and  excited;  refused  to  say 

who  made  the  offer 1596, 1597 

Domachowski,  never  retracted  story  to  me  of  offer  of  $1,500;  said  it  was  a 
misstatement,  and  that  he  was  joking;  sent  the  news  of  the  story  to  my 

paper;  was  not  published  in  my  paper 1598, 1599, 1600, 1601, 1602 

Everett,  J.  Winters,  heard  the  conversation  with  Domachowski  as  to  the 

offer  of  $1,500;  think  his  paper  used  the  story 1596, 1599, 1601, 1602 

Pearson,  Senator,  present  during  part  of  conversation  with  Domachowski.  1596 
Powell,  W.  W.,  heard  the  conversation  with  Domachowski  as  to  the  offer 

of  $1,500;  do  not  believe  his  paper  used  the  story 1596, 1599, 1601, 1602 

Shields,  Robert  J.,  saw  him  around  the  capitol  immediately  preceding 
election;  talked  with  him  about  the  election  (former  testimony  as  to 

conversation  with,  repeated) 1597,1598 

Wayland,  Chellis  C.,  real  estate,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of 725, 1492 

Account,  I knew  there  was  a statute  requiring  filing  of  one  by  candidate;  I 
knew  there  was  to  be  some  accounting  and  I did  not  know  whether  it 
would  be  itemized  clear  down  to  the  small  items  in  order  to  comply  with 

election  law;  had  not  read  election  law 739 

Account,  I never  rendered  one  to  the  office  of  my  expenses  or  money  ex- 
pended by  me  in  behalf  of  Stephenson  campaign 


727 


CLH 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Wayland,  Chellis  C.,  real  estate,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of — Continued.  Page. 
Account  of  expenditures,.  I kept  a statement  in  general;  I did  not  keep  an 
account  of  smaller  items,  but  I knew  the  character  of  expenditures;  as  I 
employed  men  and  teams  and  put  out  printed  matter,  I knew  to  whom 
I gave  the  money;  I had  that  on  detached  slips,  which  I destroyed  about 
Dec.  15,  when  we  moved  our  office  in  Appleton;  I copied  items  from 

slips  on  to  one  paper;  recollect  I copied  them  exactly  as  on  slips 737,  738 

Bill  for  $49.18  I sent  in  August  5 was,  I think,  for  expenditures  the  first  10 
days;  I made  it  out  when  I came  in  from  the  first  trip,  but  did  not  present 

it  for  about  10  days  after  I received  the  $100 727 

Blaine,  rose  to  protest  against  the  declaration  of  election  of  Senator  Stephen- 
son on  account  of  the  investigation  not  having  been  completed 1498 

Buchanan  Township,  not  under  my  personal  supervision ; I arranged  for  rigs 
to  be  sent  there  primary  day,  and  those  were  sent  to  John  Scanlon;  am 
referring  to  item  of  $66;  there  was  a bill  rendered  for  canvassing;  in  this 
township  there  was  a man  put  on  each  rig  and  a driver;  there  were  paper 
mills  and  men  conveyed  about  2 miles  to  vote,  in  sets,  so  as  not  to  shut 


down  the  factory;  and  when  the  shifts  changed  we  had  to  have  more  rigs; 

almost  all  expense  there  was  for  teams  and  drivers 732 

Campaign  work,  I began  it  during  first  week  of  July,  1908;  devoted 
entire  time  to  it  from  then  until  after  primary 726 


Cannon,  C.  G.,  was  Edmond’s  brother-in-law  and  was  paid  item  of  $10  to  go 
to  old  settlers’  picnic  at  Seymour;  I think  he  stayed  three  days;  his  ex- 
penses amounted  to  a little  more  than  $10,  but  he  settled  at  $10;  spent  it 
For  hotel  bills  and  carfare;  he  probably  had  some  cigars;  he  does  not 

drink;  I do  not  think  he  would  buy  drinks  for  anybody 733,  734 

Cigars,  I furnished  them  for  my  men,  the  object  being  that  when  you  can 
get  a man  to  stop  and  smoke  you  can  hold  him  still  and  talk  to  him;  I 
remember  my  bill  for  cigars  was  about  $95  for  the  campaign;  there  was  $27 
of  that  that  I didn’t  know  that  I had,  but  some  enthusiast  had  passed 
through  the  factories  hammering  away  for  Stephenson  and  he  said  he 

paid  that  bill,  so  I settled  it 729,  730,  734 

City  of  Kaukauna,  west  and  south,  and  townships  west,  advertising,  teams, 
workers,  etc.,  $150,  was  expended  by  John  Watson,  a business  man  there; 
he  did  not  report  to  me;  I knew  in  a general  way  how  he  was  expending  it 
at  the  time;  he  advertised  city  thoroughly  and  told  me  he  sent  out  men  in 
the  townships  around;  sent  rigs  down  to  Combined  Locks,  a paper-mill 

town,  to  bring  men  to  polls  at  Kaukauna,  where  they  voted 732,733 

Edmonds,  E.  A.: 

About  24th  or  25th  of  January  he  said:  “We  can  go  down  to  Madison 
and  come  back  the  next  day,  after  the  first  ballot — it  will  be  all  over 
with;”  I said  I did  not  wish  to  make  any  expense  to  myself,  that  I 
had  wasted  a good  deal  of  time,  and  he  said:  “If  you  will  come  down 
as  my  guest,  I will  pay  your  expenses;”  I told  him  all  right,  and  I 
went  down  expecting  to  return  immediately;  often  invites  me  on 

trips 735,736,737 

Asked  him  once  how  a report  of  expenditures  was  to  be  gotten  up;  he 
said  he  did  not  know  yet;  said  he  was  not  the  manager  now,  but  he 
thought  I would  be  informed;  this  conversation  was  about  middle  of 

September  on  the  street;  I never  talked  to  anyone  else  about  it 737,  739 

Was  associated  with  him  in  business  prior  to  time  he  assumed  manage- 
ment of  Stephenson  campaign  and  am  now;  when  he  was  tendered 
position  of  manager  I made  an  arrangement  with  him  by  which  I 
would  separate  my  business  affairs  during  time  he  was  manager  and 
be  free  to  assist  in  campaign;  that  was  about  the  1st  of  July;  I was  a 

Republican  then  and  Stephenson  supporter 725,  726 

Was  mistaken  in  his  testimony  about  my  being  paid  in  primary;  he  was 
correct  as  to  my  not  being  paid  anything  before  the  legitlature,  but 

in  the  primary  I was  to  receive  pay  for  my  services. 735 

When  I reported  to  him  what  I was  doing  about  treating  in  saloons,  he 
requested  me  to  discontinue  that  kind  of  a campaign  immediately; 

that  was  about  middle  of  August 730 

First  item  in  statement  before  joint  committee  for  $315  for  workers  before 
primary  and  during  day  of  same  and  expense  incurred  by  several  while 
advertising;  polling  lists,  etc.,  and  stenographers 


731 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


cun 


Wayland,  Chellis  C.,  real  estate,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of — Continued.  Page. 

Freedom,  town  of;  item  of  $34  spent  there  explained;  I arranged  with  a Mr. 
Schrader  and  a Mr.  Birdstrom  to  canvass  the  township  and  on  primary  day 
they,  with  their  sons,  were  to  take  rigs  and  start  from  different  parts  of  the 
township  and  bring  to  polls  people  found  to  be  for  Stephenson;  I gave 
them  $15  apiece  for  their  work,  and  I bought  a box  of  cigars  for  $4  to 
be  used  in  canvassing  among  the  farmers;  were  to  furnish  three  teams 

apiece  primary  day 732 

Girls,  paid  at  different  times  to  fasten  badges  and  buttons  on  voters;  item  of 
$7.70  is  for  seven  of  them,  including  dish  of  ice  cream  for  each  girl;  paid 
out  of  campaign  fund;  did  not  report  it  to  Stephenson;  do  not  think  he 

would  have  objected 735 

Heard  something  about  a special  train  that  was  procured  by  some  one  during 

the  campaign 1492, 1493 

Madison,  I went  down  when  legislature  was  in  session  and  election  of  Ste- 
phenson before  it;  arrived  there  January  23  or  24, 1 think 735,736 

Members  of  legislature  I met  when  I was  in  Madison  in  January,  1909;  I do 
not  think  I talked  to  them  about  Stephenson’s  election;  I think  they 
talked  to  me  about  it,  but  I do  not  recall  what  they  said ; it  was  not  under- 
stood that  I was  to  go  down  there  that  time  for  work;  the  day  the  first 
ballot  was  taken  I think  I talked  to  Mr.  Tower,  of  Portage,  in  my  own 

district . 736,737 

Men  employed  in  Outagamie  County,  I got  best  men  I could  who  were  for 
Stephenson,  not  political  hacks,  but  sober,  industrious  men  who  held  po- 
sitions paying  from  $2  to  $5  a day;  selected  them  with  a view  to  their 
nationality  and  religious  association;  I found  that  I would  be  unable  to 
get  men  in  the  country,  so  I would  have  those  in  the  city  who  were 

acquainted  in  country  make  the  trips  and  report 729 

Money  placed  in  my  hands  for  Stephenson  campaign,  I did  not  spend  any 
for  purpose  of  bribing  or  corruptly  influencing  any  voters;  none  to  my 
knowledge  spent  that  way  by  people  to  whom  I intrusted  the  money  for 
use;  I never  had  any  information  it  was  so  spent;  I did  not  furnish  money 

to  others  to  distribute 740 

Outagamie  County,  method  of  organizing,  endeavored  to  get  poll  lists  and 
got  men  to  check  them  up;  got  Stephenson’s  friends  to  assist  in  making 
canvass  of  city  of  Appleton;  found  out  I did  not  have  money  enough  to 
organize  by  precincts;  had  advertising  matter  posted;  began  newspaper 
campaign^ attended  picnics;  passed  out  buttons;  got  up  circulars  and 
put  them  in  every  house;  made  his  name  as  well  known  as  I could  in 

every  corner  of  county;  made  speeches 728,729 

Outagamie  County,  total  amount  spent  in,  is  $887.65 735 

Printing  campaign  badges,  sample  ballots,  instructions  to  voters  in  news- 
papers, bills  stating  what  Stephenson  had  done  for  Appleton,  newspaper 
advertising,  ribbons  for  badges,  stickers,  etc.,  $45;  expenditure  made  out 

of  campaign  fund 735 

Public  office,  I have  never  held  one  or  been  candidate  for  one 735 

Report  of  expenditures  other  than  that  made  to  legislative  committee,  I 
never  made  one  to  Edmunds,  Puelicher,  or  Stephenson;  was  not  asked 
for  one;  I was  prepared  to  make  a report  when  I came  to  Milwaukee  im- 
mediately after  the  primary 737 

Saloons,  I ceased  going  to  or  buying  anything  there  or  buying  drinks  for 

people  in  grocery  stores  about  middle  of  August 730 

Saloons,  I looked  up  the  number  in  Appleton  and  found  out  there  were 
about  68  in  the  city  and  10  in  the  outskirts,  with  grocery  stores  attached; 
from  6 to  10  p.  m.  found  gatherings  there;  I got  a candidate  for  sheriff 
to  go  with  me;  told  him  I did  not  drink  or  smoke,  but  I wanted  to  present 
Stephenson’s  case  to  these  people;  he  said  he  could  drink  all  I could  pay 
for  and  for  me  to  take  a cigar;  I invited  these  people  to  partake  of  a treat 
and  told  them  why  working  man  and  farmer  should  vote  for  Stephenson. . 730 

Services,  difference  between  amount  received  by  me,  $1,199.34,  and 

amount  paid  out,  $887.65,  was  retained  by  me  for 735 

Stenographers,  I do  not  know  the  exact  amount  I paid  them;  I know  I 

paid  one  $15  for  copying  the  Appleton  polling  list 732 

Strange,  in  his  speech  on  day  of  election  said  he  hoped  that  everything  was 
all  right  and  tnat  they  had  done  nothing  they  would  regret 1498 


CLIV 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page. 

Wayland,  Chellis  C.,  real  estate,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of — Continued. 

Sum  of  $95.95  in  account  was  for  both  cigar  expenditures  and  item  listed 
“Headaches  (treats),  $17.15”;  expenditures  all  made  in  Outagamie 
County;  extended  from  15th  or  20th  of  July  and  continued  up  to  the 

close  of  the  primary 734 

Sum  of  $100  received  on  July  27  from  Edmonds  was  for  expenses  I incurred 
in  traveling  about  the  State;  my  first  trip  about  July  6 was  made  to 
ascertain  the  general  line-up  of  the  opposition  and  to  see  their  plan  of 
campaign;  also  to  see  prominent  men  who  were  leaders  in  various  counties 
to  find  out  how  they  stood  and  if  possible  to  interest  them  in  Stephen- 
son’s campaign;  I paid  out  more  than  the  $100;  I paid  my  own  expenses 

for  a considerable  time  and  sent  in  a bill;  item  in  account 726,  727,  735 

Sum  of  $250,  received  August  7,  I can  not  tell  just  what  I did  with  that 
exact  sum;  I can  tell  how  I did  through  the  campaign  and  this  was  part 

of  it 727 

Sum  of  $1,199.18  received  altogether  in  campaign;  statement  of  it  given 

to  investigating  committee 731,  735 

Towne,  Silas  R.: 

Do  not  know  of  him  or  other  members  who  were  absent  being  forcibly 

taken  from  the  hall 1499 

Had  a talk  with,  on  the  4th  of  March,  1909,  in  regard  to  the  senatorial 
election;  told  me  what  Ingram  had  said  to  him;  details  of  conversa- 
tion  1494-1498 

Knew  he  would  not  vote  for  Stephenson;  made  no  effort  to  restrain 

him  from  going  to  the  session 1500 

Never  promised  him  nor  gave  him  anything  of  value  as  a consideration 

for  his  remaining  out  of  the  joint  session 1503 

Was  afraid  he  was  going  to  get  into  trouble  with  Jim  Stone;  said  he 
had  gotten  a loan  from  Stone’s  client;  was  afraid  he  would  foreclose 
him  and  take  his  horses;  I said,  “I  don’t  think  there  is  any  danger” ; 

Stone  told  him  he  was  getting  too  active  in  politics 1501, 1502, 1503 

When  I went  through  the  lobby  with  him  I had  my  arm  on  his  shoul- 
der; I know  why  I was  hurrying;  the  time  was  so  short,  and  if  he  was 
going  to  help  build  up  a quorum,  if  he  went  in  and  they  voted  he 
would  stay,  and  I wanted  those  fellows  to  vote;  and  the  time  was 
so  short  to  the  time  when  he  should  go  in  that  if  I did  not  hurry  I 
could  not  tell  him  what  I had  in  mind  and  ask  him  what  he  would 

do.... 1498,1499 

Transportation  item  for  livery  rigs,  busses,  autos  on  day  of  primary  and 
before,  $164;  most  of  it  was  paid  for  by  me;  different  men  employed  by 

me  made  the  trips;  I paid  the  bills 734 

Wisconsin,  have  resided  there  about  12  years 725 

Workers  on  election  day;  I hired  no  one  for  the  day  of  election  except  the 
drivers.  They  were  to  get  $3,  I think  it  was,  but  men  I obtained  early  in 
campaign,  and  put  in  their  evenings,  and  then  they  were  to  work  also  on 

the  day  of  election;  I gave  them  sums  ranging  from  $5  to  $15 731 

Wellensgard,  Christian  C.,  runs  a pickle  factory  and  is  interested  in  farms, 

Berlin,  Wis.,  testimony  of 835 

Account,  I presented  one  to  campaign  manager  for  money  expended,  at  his 
request;  letter  inclosing  it  written  by  my  son;  account  known  as  Ex- 
hibit 62  in  testimony  before  joint  legislative  committee,  given  from 
record;  my  son  wrote  account  as  I gave  him  the  items;  I do  not  think 
there  are  any  dates  to  these  items,  but  he  happened  to  put  them  down 
that  way;  might  have  got  down  August  when  it  should  have  been  July; 
or  July  when  it  should  have  been  August;  I could  not  swear  to  dates  nor 

amounts  as  correct 837,  838,  846,  847,  859,  860 

Account,  items  in  on  September  3 were  paid  ward  workers;  a good  many  of 
them  were  quarrymen  that  came  down  to  work  at  polls ; money  was  not  paid 
some  of  them  as  wages  for  the  time  they  were  absent  from  their  work  at 
the  quarries;  money  was  paid  in  cash;  paid  by  me  personally  with  the 
exception  of  two  or  three  cases;  I do  not  think  date  is  exactly  correct. . . 855, 

# 856,  869 

Account,  13  items  in  under  date  of  September  2 I do  not  think  all  were  dis- 
bursed that  day;  I think  some  were  paid  sometime  before 869 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


CLV 


Page. 

Wellensgard,  Christian  C.,  runs  a pickle  factory  and  is  interested  in  farms, 

Berlin,  Wis.,  testimony  of — Continued. 

Anglem,  Bill,  town  of  Green  Lake,  item  in  account  of  $5,  August  28,  I 
expect  was  for  purpose  of  circulating  Stephenson’s  petition  for  nomina- 
tion; I can  not  remember  that  he  did;  it  is  so  long  since;  he  is  a Stephen- 
son man;  I do  not  know  that  date  of  item  is  correct 849,  850,  851 

Automobile,  election  day,  $15,  September  2,  item  in  account  for  hire  of  auto 
used  in  town  of  Berlin  and  I think  in  town  of  S.eneca;  belonged  to  a man 
by  name  of  Droopman,  and  I hired  man  named  Wilson  to  run  the  ma- 
chine; that  is  in  account  “paid  Wilson  to  run  machine,  $2.50  ” 855 

Burdick,  W.,  town  of  Green  Lake,  item  of  $5,  August  28,  in  account  was  paid 
him  for  circulating  nomination  papers;  I do  not  know  that  date  of  item  is 

correct 850,851 

Burlingame,  G.,  item  of  $30  in  account  paid  to  him  and  four  men  was  for 
work  he  did  in  putting  up  advertisements  and  circulating  Stephenson 
petitions;  I would  not  swear  to  date  of  item,  August  28,  as  correct;  Burlin- 
game was  Stephenson  man;  money  all  paid  to  him;  was  my  personal 
friend;  I am  satisfied  he  was  paid  latter  part  of  July;  was  to  haul  voters 
primary  day;  but  had  this  money  before  that  day;  he  had  circulated  pe- 
tition and  put  up  posters;  receipt  from  dated  October  5,  1911  840, 

841,  842,  846,  847,  848,  849,  850,  851,  852,  853,  854 
Burlingame,  men  employed  by;  I never  paid  these  men  a cent  to  do  any- 
thing in  my  behalf;  I do  not  know  whether  they  were  Stephenson  men; 
left  selection  of  them  to  Burlingame;  think  one  of  them  was  named 
Frost;  he  said  they  were  all  responsible  men;  I think  I knew  the  men  at 
the  time;  but  I can  not  recollect  the  names  he  gave  me;  were  paid  to 
take  their  teams  and  haul  voters  7 or  8 miles  around  the  end  of  Green 


Lake;  so  far  as  I know  their  votes  were  not  purchased 840,  841,  842 

Business  connections,  practically  sole  owner  of  Berlin  Canning  and  Pick- 
ling Co. ; I own  about  700  acres  in  that  vicinity 868,  869 

Campaign  fund;  I contributed  $60  in  that  county 857,  858 


Charge  that  $1,500  was  paid  to  three  members  of  the  legislature  to  absent 
themselves  on  the  day  on  which  the  vote  was  taken  to  elect  Stephenson; 

I do  not  know  anything  about  it;  I have  heard  it  or  read  it  in  the  newspa- 
pers; I do  not  remember  that  I heard  it  stated  by  any  member  in  a 

speech  on  the  floor,  but  I might  have 866 

Domachowski,  a member  of  legislature;  I did  not  hear  him  say  that  he  had 
been  offered  $1,500  to  absent  himself  at  the  time  the  ballot  was  taken  upon 
which  Stephenson  was  elected;  I heard  of  it,  but  I do  not  remember  that 

I heard  it  on  the  floor;  I have  no  recollection  about  it 866,867 

Greager,  Steve,  has  a small  farm;  he  was  paid  by  me  for  seeing  that  voters 
got  out  in  fifth  ward  in  Berlin;  he  left  his  work  that  day  and  received  $5 

from  me  for  working  at  polls 856 

Grotta,  Jack,  owned  a small  farm  near  Sacramento;  left  his  work  and  re- 
ceived $5  from  me  for  working  at  polls  in  second  ward,  Berlin;  I do  not 

think  he  had  a vehicle  to  haul  voters 856 

Livery  items  in  account,  to  Princeton,  July  5 and  Markesan,  July  6,  were 
to  get  parties  to  circulate  Stephenson  petitions;  my  candidacy  not  an- 
nounced then 838,  839 

Lyons,  Senator,  I never  heard  him  say  on  the  floor  of  the  assembly  that  he 

had  $100  “to  be  good ”;  I do  not  know  where  he  sat 865 

Markesan,  Green  Lake  County,  I do  not  live  there;  livery  items  there  in 
account,  August  20,  21,  22,  and  23,  were  for  teams  hired  there  for  several 
days  when  I was  making  trips  out  into  the  county  to  see  about  getting  out 
teams  and  parties  for  primary  election  day  and  also  getting  Stephenson 
advertisements  up;  I did  not  have  any  to  put  up  for  myself;  was  not  on 

a campaign  tour  in  my  own  interests  exactly  at  that  time 839,  840 

Member  of  legislature,  elected  in  fall  of  1906;  was  a member  during  session 
of  1909;  was  a candidate  during  1908  primary  ; member  from  Green  Lake 
County;  not  now  a member;  announced  candidacy  in  1908  in  newspapers 
July  16  or  17 836,838,839 


CL VI 


DIGEST  INDEX, 


Page. 

Wellensgard,  Christian  C.,  runs  a pickle  factory  and  is  interested  in  farms, 

Berlin,  Wis.,  testimony  of — Continued. 

Money,  I did  not  receive  any  during  primary  campaign;  received  $250.80 
about  September  5 or  6;  it  had  already  been  expended  by  me  during  July 
and  August  for  getting  parties  to  circulate  nomination  papers,  distributing 
advertising;  for  hire  of  auto  liveries  and  to  get  parties  to  polls;  I paid 
sums  out  of  my  own  funds  and  charged  them  to  Stephenson;  there  was  no 
understanding  that  this  money  was  to  affect  my  vote  in  legislature;  all 
of  sum  received  by  me  was  paid  out  in  interest  of  Stephenson’s  campaign . 836, 

857,  869,  870,  871 

Money,  I did  not  spend  any  in  the  interest  of  Stephenson’s  campaign, 
either  directly  or  indirectly  for  purpose  of  bribing  or  corruptly  influencing 

any  electors 870 

Money,  I expended  personally  in  the  primary  $275  and  some  cents,  I think; 

did  not  include  $250  received  from  Stephenson 858 

Never  heard  any  member  of  legislature  say,  upon  the  floor  of  the  hall  in 
which  the  joint  session  was  held,  that  he  had  received  money  either  to  vote 
for  Stephenson  or  as  a gift,  or  to  use  in  primary  or  general  election,  or 

otherwise;  I heard  several  rumors  or  statements 863,864 

Nomination  papers,  show  name  of  party  that  circulates  paper;  I think 

every  paper  is  signed  and  sworn  to  by  man  that  circulates  it 849,  850 

Primary  election,  I came  out  with  the  statement  in  three  or  four  newspapers 
in  my  county  that  I was  pledged  to  abide  by  it;  I took  position  from 

standpoint  of  entire  State  and  not  county 860,  861,  869 

Rosebrook,  C.  M.,  receipt  for  $25  from,  dated  October  5, 1911 852,  853,  854 

Rosebrook,  item  of  $25  paid  to  him  and  four  men,  in  account;  he  has  told  me 
since  he  was  willing  to  furnish  names  of  the  men  at  any  time;  he  has  not 
given  them  to  me;  he  lives  in  town  of  St.  Marie;  he  paid  money  to  the 
men  to  take  their  teams  and  bring  voters  across  Fox  River,  six  or  eight 
miles,  to  polls;  I do  not  know  how  men  voted;  I do  not  think  I instructed 
him  money  was  to  haul  only  voters  favorable  to  me;  think  they  would 
haul  any  neighbors;  I could  not  say  that  hauling  of  these  men  to  polls 

inured  to  my  benefit  and  not  Stephenson’s 842,  843,  844,  845,  846 

Sacket,  had  a conversation  with  him  in  latter  part  of  June;  I had  not  an- 
nounced my  candidacy  then;  I do  not  think  I indicated  it  to  him;  so  far 
as  I know  he  had  no  knowledge  at  the  time  as  to  whether  or  not  I was 

intending  to  be  a candidate 870 

Schrader,  0.,  item  in  account  of  $30  paid  him  and  men  at  Markesan,  was  for 
circulating  Stephenson  nomination  papers  in  Markesan  and  town  of 
Manchester;  they  circulated  petitions  and  advertisements;  I got  men 
and  teams  to  work  at  polls;  part  of  services  rendered  in  July  and  Septem- 
ber; I do  not  know  as  date  of  item  is  correct 850,851,854 

Stephenson,  I was  not  always  looking  after  my  own  campaign  when  I was 
out  for  him;  made  some  trips  for  him  before  I ever  did  work  for  myself; 
when  I talked  with  a man  in  behalf  of  him,  I talked  on  my  own  behalf;  I 
suppose  men  I employed  supported  both  of  us,  I do  not  know;  we  did  not 
draw  any  line  in  taking  voters  to  polls;  did  not  understand  in  advance  for 
whom  they  were  going  to  vote;  I do  not  think  money  disbursed  for  him 

was  for  services  rendered  me  in  my  campaign 858,  859,  869,  870 

Stephenson,  in  legislature  I voted  for  him  on  all  the  ballots;  supported  him 
during  campaign;  have  always  supported  him;  voted  for  him  in  1907, 
when  I was  a member  of  legislature ; had  known  of  him  for  20  years . 836,  840,  860 
Stephenson,  sum  of  $250.80  had  no  effect  on  vote  I afterward  cast  for  him; 
if  I had  not  received  anything  it  would  have  been  the  same;  if  he  had  not 
got  the  majority  at  the  primaries,  I should  have  voted  for  the  other  man 

who  did - - 869 

Three  members  of  legislature,  I do  not  know  the  least  thing  about  their 
being  absent  at  the  time  the  ballot  was  taken  upon  which  Stephenson 

was  elected 865 

Vaughn,  E.,  Kingston,  item  of  $25  in  account,  September  2,  paid  him  and 
men,  was  for  circulating  petitions  and  getting  parties  out  at  the  primary 
election;  the  date  there  is  not  right,  because  this  was  after  election  and 
he  had  the  money  before  the  primary 854, 855 


DIGEST  INDEX, 


CLVII 


Page. 


Wells,  Jabez  H.,  hotel  keeper,  Portage  County,  Wis.,  affidavit  of 

Age,  58  years . - 

Campaign  headquarters  at  Milwaukee,  received  $400  from,  out  of  which 
instructed  to  retain  whatever  services  were  reasonably  worth,  balance  to 

be  used  for  legitimate  expense 

Campaign  work  in  city  of  Portage  and  Columbia  County  during  primary 
contest,  at  request  of  campaign  managers  at  Milwaukee,  who  gave  no 
instructions  except  to  do  whatever  he  could  in  interest  of  Stephenson, 
causing  literature  to  be  put  up  and  circulated  and  kept  up,  and  to  get 
workers  at  polls  on  primary  day  and  provide  for  getting  vote  out;  covered 

period  of  60  days . 

Columbia  County  contains  a large  number  of  precincts;  is  large 

Money  not  disbursed  for  the  purpose  of  corruptly  or  unlawfully  influencing 

or  bribing  any  person 

Personal  expenses  and  expenses  for  poll  workers,  cost  of  keeping  up  litera- 
ture, for  livery  and  conveyances,  hotel  expense,  cigars,  etc.,  amounted 
to  $200 


2018 

2018 


2018 


2018 

2018 

2019 


2018 


Poll  workers,  instructions  given  to;  unable  to  remember  names  of,  except- 


ing few;  names  of  five  given;  none  employed  unless  for  Stephenson  at 


Portage  County,  resided  in,  for  past  58  years 2018 

Services,  retained  $200  for 2018 

Statement  of  disbursements;  kept  no  itemized;  never  called  upon  for 2019 

Traveled  and  talked  with  many  people  advocating  Stephenson;  also  caused 

lithographs  to  be  posted  up 2018 

Wheeler,  William  G.,  attorney,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of 893 

Account,  I did  not  render  one  to  Edmonds  or  anyone  else;  was  not 

requested  to 897 

Barroom  campaign,  none  of  $600  spent  for 896 

Boyd,  John,  paid  $6  for  work  in  town  of  Lima 896 

Campaign,  I had  charge  to  some  extent  in  Rock  County  and  visited  several 
of  the  other  counties  at  different  times -893 


Campaign,  under  primary  system  more  expensive  than  under  old  system  of 
caucuses;  reasons  for  given;  detailed  estimate  of  cost  to  perfect  precinct 
organization  under  primary  system;  cost  does  not  include  newspaper 

advertising  and  expense  of  printing  and  circulating  literature 899,  900,  901 

Clifford,  C.  W.,  gave  him  check  for  $10  August  28,  for  workers  at  polls  in 

city  of  Evansville 895 

Compensation,  I received  nothing  for  what  I did 898 

Expenses  do  not  represent  all  the  money  I expended;  trips  made  during 
campaign  in  detail;  items  of  expense  exceed  the  $600  that  came  into  my 

hands 897,898 

Farr,  F.  G.,  Eau  Claire,  I sent  him  a check  myself  of  $300  to  take  care  of 

campaign  in  Eau  Claire  County 898 

Garbutt,  Orfordville,  I paid  him  $2;  he  told  me  he  worked  at  the  polls 

getting  voters  for  Stephenson,  or  I should  not  have  paid  him 894,  895 

Gazette  Printing  Co.,  $18.50,  that  was  for  printing  campaign  circulars  for 

use  in  Rock  and  Eau  Claire  Counties 896 

Jones,  check  for  $6  paid  him  for  workers  at  polls  and  before  the  primary. . . 896 

Memorandum,  I kept  one  accounting  for  items;  it  is  in  possession  of  com- 
mittee  894,895 

Money,  none  spent  by  me  or  others,  within  my  knowledge,  for  bribing  or 

corruptly  influencing  voters 901 

Mouatt,  Frank,  items  of  $36,  August  31,  and  $19.50  were  for  expenses 
incurred  traveling  aroung  the  county,  including  automobile  hire  and 

money  he  paid  to  different  persons 895,  896 

Primary  system,  does  not  always  tend  to  bring  to  surface  best  men;  vote  is 
smaller  under  system;  smaller  proportion  of  vote  cast  at  primary  than  at 
general  election;  where  I lived,  I am  satisfied  vote  on  primary  day  does 

not  amount  to  50  per  cent  of  registration 902 

Rock  County,  resided  there  all  my  life  until  I moved  to  Milwaukee,  April 

1,  1909 898 

Salmon,  C.  D.,  check  for  $75  to  him  was  for  organization  work  in  Beloit, 
getting  men  out,  and  rigs  at  the  polls  election  day;  letter  from  him  ex- 
plaining disbursements 896, 897 


CL  VIII 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Wheeler,  William  G.,  attorney,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of — Continued.  Page. 

Self,  $100,  that  check  was  for  an  amount  of  money  I drew  from  bank  when  I 
went  out  on  a trip  through  the  county;  I left  $25  in  city  of  Beloit  to  be 
paid  to  find  men  in  each  ward  to  work  for  Stephenson  on  election  day. . 895,  896 
Sum  of  $600,  received  by  me  from  Stephenson  campaign  fund  from  some 
one  of  the  committee;  I used  $300  to  reimburse  myself  for  a similar 
amount  that  I had  advanced  for  political  purposes  in  Eau  Claire  County; 

I spent  balance  to  hire  workers  at  polls,  for  automobile  expenses,  and 

traveling  expenses  of  different  kinds 893,  894,  898 

Whittet,  L.  C.,  paid  $3 896 

White,  Richard  J.,  traveling  salesman,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1324, 1339 

Absent  members  of  house,  three,  at  time  of  election;  had  they  been  there 

would  have  changed  result 1328 

Absenting  of,  from  joint  assembly  room,  for  two  or  three  weeks  a combina- 
tion of  anti-Stephenson  Republicans,  Social  Democrats,  and  Democrats 
would  leave  if  they  thought  Stephenson  would  be  elected,  or  stay  in  if 
thought  he  could  not;  a member  from  Manitowoc  County  named  Wehr- 

wein  hid  in  the  gallery  one  day  to  keep  from  voting 1345, 1346 

Absentees  at  time  vote  was  taken:  Mr.  Ramsey,  Mr.  Farrel,  and  Mr.  Towne; 

did  not  see  them  go  out,  only  know  they  did  not  answer  roll  call 1331, 1335 

Balloting,  I was  in  lobby  during;  a large  room  used  by  members  and  public 
back  of  chamber  proper,  partition  between;  only  those  near  door  could  see 

in 1341,1342 

Bribery,  none  to  my  knowledge;  lot  of  reports  around  about  different 
people  being  approached;  heard  in  a general  way  of  some  corrupt 

methods  being  used 1344, 1347 

Buslett,  assemblyman  from  second  district  in  Waupaca  County,  after  roll 
call  on  March  3,  asked  to  withdraw  his  vote  as  he  was  paired  with  Mr. 

Brown,  who  had  not  voted 1329 

Conversation  held  in  assembly  chamber  before  the  4th  with  Mr.  Farrel  and 
Mr.  Ramsey  at  separate  times,  speaking  of  members  going  in  and  out  to 
break  quorum;  did  not  think  it  any  more  of  a crime  for  Democrats  to 

help  election  of  Senator  Stephenson  than  to  try  and  stop  it 1347 

Election  took  place  at  noon  March  4, 1909;  final  ballot  was  taken;  Senator 
Stephenson  elected;  received  63  votes;  thought  he  would  have  been 
elected  before  then;  did  not  know  it  was  to  take  place  that  day;  brought 

about  by  peculiar  circumstance,  viz.,  absence  of  three  Democrats 1334, 

1339, 1341 


Election  and  absentees,  everybody  was  discussing  that  night;  epoch  in 

history  of  Wisconsin 1334, 1335 

Farrel,  knew  him  well;  was  representative  in  legislature  from  my  district; 
never  discussed  with  him  why  he  did  not  vote  at  election;  did  not  talk 

with  him  before  session 1333, 1334, 1340 

Hughes,  Assemblyman,  a Democrat,  member  of  legislature,  called  Farrel 
to  account  for  being  absent  at  vote,  censured  him  and  charged  him  with 

being  responsible  for  the  election  of  Senator  Stephenson 1331, 1334, 1336 

Knell,  occasionally,  when  he  went  out,  would  leave  money  with  me  at 
office  to  pay  ward  workers  if  they  should  happen  in  at  that  time;  did 

not  give  any  instructions  how  it  should  be  spent 1325 

Knell,  Sheriff,  assisted  him  in  Milwaukee  County  in  campaign  of  1908; 
received  $350  from  him  for  personal  expenses;  paying  hotel  bills,  buying 
cigars  for  the  boys,  etc.;  did  not  use  any,  either  directly  or  indirectly, 
for  bribing  or  unlawfully  influencing  any  electors  in  primary  campaign 

in  interest  of  Senator  Stephenson 1325, 1346 

Madison,  went  there  four  days  before  election;  left  next  morning  after; 
was  there  looking  after  interests  of  Senator  Stephenson;  do  not  know 

whether  Mr.  Shields  remained  there  or  not  after  election 1326, 1333, 1340 

Milwaukee  Hotel,  headquarters,  was  with  Mr.  Knell  during  whole  of  cam- 
paign; directly  under  his  directions;  did  not  see  any  money  expended 

for  bribing 1346, 1347 

Overbeck,  Henry,  know  well;  talked  freely  with  on  senatorial  situation; 
suggested  to  him  night  before  election  to  get  some  one  to  pair  with  Mr. 
Fenelon ; knew  afterwards  he  had  made  arrangements  with  Fenelon  to  ask 
Ramsey;  was  with  him  a great  deal  day  of  election;  asked  me  to  bring 
vote  to  him  at  telegraph  office  as  soon  as  it  was  announced,  so  that  he  could 
communicate  with  Stephenson  at  Washington 1324, 1328, 1329, 1340, 1344 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


CLIX 


White,  Richard  J.,  traveling  salesman,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of — Con.  Page. 

Park  Hotel,  night  after  election  found  Farrel  and  Hughes  there  arguing 
about  election  of  Senator  Stephenson  and  absence  of  three  Democrats, 
quite  a number  of  people  standing  around;  took  both  back  to  bar  and  had 
cigars;  did  not  stop  argument  because  thought  any  facts  would  become 
public,  but  for  sake  of  harmony,  and  was  a friend  of  both.  1331, 1333, 1335, 1342 

Politics,  am  a Republican 1332 

Puelicher,  asked  me  to  assist  Knell;  paid  me  $150  for  expenses  to  and  from 

Sturgeon  Bay  where  my  family  were  then 1325 

Ramsey,  knew  he  was  paired  with  Fenelon;  neither  I nor  any  of  his  friends, 
so  far  as  I know,  talked  with  him  on  this  subject;  did  not  see  him  any  time 
during  day  after  election;  saw  him  some  time  afterwards  on  street  in 

Milwaukee;  did  not  discuss  election  or  why  he  didn’t  vote 1333, 1340, 1342 

Roll  call,  referred  to  by  legislative  committee,  absolutely  certain  meant 

roll  call  in  the  assembly 1348, 1349 

Shields,  Robert,  met  him  at  Milwaukee  in  February,  1909;  talked  over 
senatorial  situation  with  him;  do  not  know  where  he  was  at  time  vote  was 
being  taken;  do  not  remember  seeing  him  near  assembly  chamber  day 
of  election;  did  not  say  he  had  been  to  Washington  to  see  Senator 

Stephenson,  nor  did  I hear  it  from  anyone  else 1328, 1327, 1330, 1344 

Shields,  was  under  the  impression  he  was  at  Madison  for  the  same  purpose 
as  I — to  further  the  interests  of  Senator  Stephenson;  talked  over  in  gen- 
eral way  after  ballot  had  been  completed  how  fortunate  it  was  for  Sena- 
tor Stephenson 1327, 1344, 1345 

Telegram,  dated  Ripon,  March  4,  1909,  to  Ramsey  from  Fenelon,  read  it 
over  his  shoulder,  right  near  coat  room,  asking  him  to  pair  with  him  that 
day  on  vote  on  United  States  Senatorship;  no  one  was  present;  members 
were  walking  back  and  forth;  supposed  he  answered  it,  by  his  not  voting; 

did  not  talk  with  him  about  it 1336, 1337, 1339, 1340 

Towne,  did  not  know  him  at  all;  was  introduced  to  him  after  I had  testified 

at  the  investigating  committee 1333 

Wayland,  was  present  at  Madison  at  time  of  election;  did  not  talk  much 

with,  about  the  election 1328, 1340 

Wilcox,  Arthur  Nelson,  gas  fitter,  election  inspector  in  1908,  Milwaukee,  Wis., 

testimony  of 993, 1894 

Inspector  of  elections,  acted  as  such  in  the  primary  election  of  1908 993, 

994, 1895, 1896, 1897, 1898, 1899 

Inspectors,  how  appointed 994,  995 

Inspectors  in  third  ward,  third  precinct,  Milwaukee,  1908,  I think  they 

were  John  Lavin,  Charley  Winters,  and  Pat  Shanley 994, 1895 

Knell,  W.  R.,  manager  of  Milwaukee  campaign,  I received  $50  from  him; 

did  not  receive  $100  stated  in  specific  charge 994, 1895, 1898 

Money,  I did  not  use  any  and  so  far  as  I know  men  to  whom  I paid  it  did 

not  use  any  for  purpose  of  bribing  or  corruptly  influencing  voters 996 

Sum  of  $50,  how  disbursed,  I was  asked  to  furnish  the  names  of  six  men, 
two  for  each  precinct  in  the  ward,  and  I paid  them  $5  for  primary  day, 
to  hand  out  cards  and  do  what  they  could  for  election  of  Stephenson; 

disbursed  $50  in  behalf  of  Stephenson 994, 1895, 1896, 1897, 1898, 1899 

Winsor,  William  F.,  president  of  State  Bank  of  Mauston,  Mauston,  Wis., 

affidavit  of 2019 

Age,  48  years 2019 

Campaign  work  in  primary  campaign,  at  request  of  managers  at  Milwaukee; 
no  active  work  done  until  about  August  25,  being  absent  from  city;  from 
that  time  on  traveled  about  county  by  livery  rig  and  rail,  visiting  many 

friends  and  talking  Stephenson 2019 

Hanson,  Joseph  T.,  campaign  funds  mentioned  in  affidavit  of  were  kept  in 
affiant’s  bank;  disbursement  as  stated  by  Hanson  substantially  accurate, 
but  figures  not  correct,  according  to  check  made  a part  of  this  affidavit; 
$151.26  now  remaining  unexpended;  funds  deposited  in  name  of  Hanson, 
never  in  the  name  of  affiant;  received  $45  from,  notwithstanding  it 
appears  in  Hanson’s  account  affiant  received  $55,  additional  $10  given 

for  transmission  to  D.  J.  Puffer,  to  whom  money  was  sent 2019 

Mauston,  resided  in  past  48  years 2019 

Money  not  disbursed  for  the  purpose  of  corruptly  or  unlawfully  influencing 

or  bribing  any  person 2019 

Personal  expenses,  disbursed  $45  received  from  Hanson,  in  traveling  about 
county  in  the  way  of  conveyance  expense,  hotel  expense,  cigars,  etc — 2019 

Stephenson,  supporter  of,  prior  to  any  arrangement  to  do  any  work  for — . 2019 

15235°— 11 xi 


CLX 


DIGEST  INDEX, 


Page. 


Wisconsin  investigating  committee: 

As  to  production  of  papers  in  custody  of 452, 453, 454, 474 

Motion  to  strike  from  record  certain  parts  of  testimony  of  Paul  0.  Husting 

relating  to  findings  of,  of  which  he  was  a member 1948, 1952, 1953 

Opinion  reached  by  Senator  Marsh  as  a member  of,  discussion  as  to  com- 
mittee going  into 1103, 1107-1114, 1125, 1126, 1127, 1128, 1129 

Wisconsin  Legislature: 

Findings  of,  not  evidence;  are  in  the  status  of  an  indictment 296, 2025 

Law  requiring  each  house  to  keep  a journal  of  proceedings 863 

Report  submitted  to,  on  March  18,  came  with  papers  from  governor  of 

Wisconsin  to  the  United  States  Senate 322,  323 

Resolution  No.  58,  relating  to  investigation  of  the  primary  and  general 

election  of  1908  and  the  election  of  United  States  Senator  in  1909 2, 3 

Wood,  Harry  W.,  private  detective,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of 1602, 1877 

Black,  William  E.,  understood  he  was  an  attorney  for  Stephenson;  did  not 
know  he  was  Stephenson’s  attorney  in  investigation  before  legislative 
committee  when  I made  application  to  him  to  be  retained;  that  was  in 
his  office  about  two  months  ago;  do  not  remember  saying  to  him  my 
sympathies  were  on  his  side;  did  not  employ  me;  did  not  refuse  me;  said 

he  would  see  about  it;  did  not  see  him  afterwards 1615, 1616, 1617, 1618 

Book  containing  date  of  my  conversation  with  Regan  and  Souther,  can  not 
find  (later  produced);  shows  date  to  be  December  31, 1909,  7 p.  m.;  date 
written  in  Souther’s  office  after  Regan  left;  “A”  referred  to  in,  means 

Regan;  Judge  referred  to  in,  is  Judge  Ryan,  of  Waukesha 1604, 

1605, 1612, 1622, 1623, 1624, 1625, 1879, 1880, 1881, 1882, 1883 


Businesses  engaged  in,  a detective  in  Portland,  Oreg.,  and  Minneapolis 
before  I came  here;  went  into  automobile  business  here  with  J.  A.  Peffer 
in  1908;  in  1909  in  automobile  business  and  did  work  as  a detective  at 

same  time 1602, 1603 

Conversation  with  Kittle  and  Crownhart,  came  together  to  see  me  in  Mil- 
waukee something  like  six  or  seven  months  ago;  told  them  in  substance 
the  conversation  I had  with  Regan;  told  them  I would  charge  them  $10 
a day  to  investigate;  they  did  not  employ  me;  knew  they  represented 

element  that  was  in  opposition  to  Stephenson 1618,  i619, 1620, 1621, 1622 

Conversation  with  Regan  in  Souther’s  presence,  do  not  remember  telling 

it  to  anyone  but  Sanderson,  Kittle,  Crownhart,  and  McGee 1622 

Henning,  E.  J.,  attorney  in  Wells  Building,  offered  my  services  to  him  two 
months  ago;  told  me  he  was  not  employed  in  the  Stephenson  matter  in 
any  way;  went  to  him  after  I saw  Black;  did  not  tell  him  I had  been 
offered  employment  from  “La  Follette  gang,”  but  preferred  to  get  it 

from  Black. 1614, 1615, 1616, 1618, 1882 

Kittle,  have  seen  him  two  or  three  times;  saw  him  first  in  Sanderson’s 
office;  meeting  accidental;  was  about  a month  before  I met  him  and 
Crownhart  together;  discussed  story  Regan  had  told  me  with  him;  do 
not  know  whether  Sanderson  had  told  it  to  him  before  I came  in.  1618, 1621, 1622 
McGee,  Charlie,  attorney  in  Wells  Building,  told  me  if  I would  talk  to 
Henning  maybe  Henning  would  put  me  out  to  investigate  Stephenson 

matter.?..... 1614,1616,1622 

Milwaukee,  have  resided  there  since  latter  part  of  1895 1602 

Morris,  Gov.,  had  never  seen  him  until  he  came  into  the  court  room; 

never  made  an  application  to  him  for  retainment  through  other  parties. . 1618 

Plankinton  House,  asked  to  stay  out  of,  by  house  detective,  Elmer  Hyde; 

reasons  for 1626, 1877, 1878 

Prinz,  James  A.,  talked  with  him  within  the  last  two  weeks  near  the  Plank- 
inton House;  did  not  remark  to  him  that  I did  not  believe  Regan  knew 
anything  about  the  Stephenson  matter;  recollect  I stated  to  him  that  I 

did  not  believe  Regan  had  done  what  he  was  accused  of v 1878, 1879 

Records,  if  I am  doing  business  with  a person  I take  down  everything  so 
that  I can  show  it  to  him;  when  I get  through  with  a case  do  not  keep  any 
more  track  of  it;  destroy  records  then;  have  none  of  any  of  my  cases  for 
last  16  years *612 


DIGEST  INDEX, 


CLXI 


Page. 

Wood,  Harry  W.,  private  detective,  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  testimony  of — Continued. 

Regan,  M.  J.: 

Claimed  all  the  time  that  Wagner  was  guilty  of  perjury. 1635 

Conversation  with,  in  presence  of  Souther,  December  31,  1909,  in 
Souther’s  office,  Merrill  Building;  said  Shields  had  sent  him  a tele- 

fram  from  Washington  and  been  to  see  him  with  regard  to  keeping 
lamsey,  Farrell,  and  Towne  out  of  the  legislature  and  that  Shields 
made  remark  that  he  had  come  from  Washington  with  carte  blanche 
from  Stephenson  to  draw  any  amount  of  money  that  was  needed  to 
keep  these  three  men  out;  said  Shields  made  him  proposition  to  go 
to  Madison;  said  when  Shields  sent  him  another  telegram,  saying 

he  was  coming  to  see  him,  he  left  town 1604, 

1605, 1606, 1607, 1610, 1634, 1635, 1636, 1637, 1638, 1639, 1879 

Expressed  himself  as  believing  money  had  changed  hands 1636 

Had  been  a prosecuting  witness  against  Wagner;  he  thought  that 
Wagner  had  lied  in  regard  to  him;  his  attitude  toward  Wagner  was 
that  if  Wagner  would  tell  the  truth  in  regard  to  him,  he  would  do 

anything  he  could  to  help  Wagner  out 1609, 1635, 1636 

I deny  the  statement  he  made  on  the  stand  about  what  he  said  when  he 
was  sitting  down  here  with  me  on  the  rail;  what  he  did  say  when  I 
told  him  I had  repeated  his  statement  was:  “I  am  going  to  deny 
every  part  of  it  from  A to  Z,  for  the  La  Follette  gang  are  a crooked 
bunch  and  I am  not  going  to  give  them  one  word  that  is  going  to  help 
them.”  I said:  “What  am  I going  to  do  when  they  ask  me  these 

auestions — they  have  my  statement?  ” He  said : “ Do  as  the  rest  of 

lem  have  done  on  the  stand — say  you  don’t  remember  ” 1881, 1882 

Repeated  for  third  time  conversation  that  occurred  in  presence  of 
Souther,  at  an  accidental  meeting  at  corner  of  Second  Street  and 

Grand  Avenue,  Milwaukee;  no  one  else  present 1627,1628 

Saw  him  at  his  residence,  1011  State  Street,  seven  or  eight  weeks  ago; 
stopped  to  talk  to  him  to  see  if  there  was  anything  new  or  anything 
of  that  kind  that  he  would  say  in  relation  to  the  Stephenson  matter; 

he  did  not  repeat  the  conversation  in  Souther’s  office 1632, 1633 

Second  conversation  with,  in  Plankinton  Hotel;  met  him  there  acciden- 
tally; same  thing  said  as  at  Souther’s  office,  as  I can  remember;  did 

not  make  a note  of  date 1607, 1608, 1626, 1627 

Talked  with  him  one  day  last  week;  we  just  spoke  about  him  being 

subpoenaed  as  a witness 1610 

Went  to  his  house,  on  Cass  Street,  and  he  and  I looked  over  his  papers 
to  find  telegrams  that  he  had  received  from  Shields;  did  not  find 

them 1608, 1609, 1628, 1629, 1630, 1631 

Sanderson,  attorney  in  John  C.  Kleist’s  office,  made  remark  to  me  that  he 
thought  Stephenson  matter  ought  to  be  investigated;  told  him  I was 
ready  to  go  to  work;  that  was  about  10  months  ago;  we  were  alone  in  his 

office;  he  did  not  retain  me 1613, 1614 

Sanderson,  first  narrated  conversation  with  Regan  in  presence  of  Souther 

to  him  about  a year  after  the  conversation 1620 

Souther,  Frank,  street  contractor,  Milwaukee, had  talked  with  him  in  regard 
to  Wagner  being  sent  to  State  prison,  and  he  mentioned  to  me  there  might 
be  a chance  of  finding  out  something  that  might  help  Wagner;  told  me  he 
was  going  to  see  Regan  in  his  office  that  evening  and  that  I should  come 

up;  kind  of  sympathized  with  Wagner 1603, 1604, 1611 

Souther,  have  talked  with  him  two  or  three  times  about  Regan’s  story  of 
Shields;  asked  him,  about  10  days  ago,  if  he  remembered  the  conversa- 
tion, and  he  said  he  did 1611 

Stephenson  controversy,  have  made  an  effort  to  be  retained  in  connection 

with, three  different  times _ # 1612 

Stephenson  controversy,  offered  my  services  to  both  sides;  did  not  succeed 

in  getting  employment  from  either  of  them 1620 

Wagner,  I was  trying  to  assist  in  finding  something  that  might  help  him  in 
some  way;  was  not  exactly  a friend  of  his;  I knew  him;  my  sole  interest 

was  to  get  some  information  from  Regan  that  might  help  him 1609, 1635 

Wagner,  was  up  at  Waupum  and  had  a conference  with 1636 


CLXII 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


Page. 


Wyseman,  Arthur  7.,  practicing  lawyer,  Manitowoc,  Wis.,  affidavit  of 2019 

Age,  30  years 2019 

Campaign  work  in  city  and  county  of  Manitowoc,  during  primary  contest, 
at  request  of  campaign  managers;  talk  with,  he  would  look  after  distribu- 
tion of  literature  and  circulation  of  nomination  papers  and  correspond 

and  talk  with  fr'ends  in  interest  of  the  Senator 2020 

Expense  incurred  in  circulating  literature  and  correspondence  and  in  travel- 
ing and  for  services;  paid  $135.88  on  bill  rendered,  which  was  itemized 

and  which  affiant  has  not  seen  since 2020 

Manitowoc,  resided  in,  past  30  years 2019 

Money  not  disbursed  for  the  purpose  of  corruptly  or  unlawfully  influencing 

or  bribing  any  person 2020 

Stephenson,  supporter  of  at  time,  consented  to  do  work  in  campaign 2020 


Z. 


Zimmerman,  Fred  R.,  member  of  the  Legislature  of  Wisconsin  in  1909,  testi- 
mony of 1504, 1516 

Absentees,  do  not  remember  all 1524, 1525 

Absentees,  number  of,  to  affect  the  result  of  election;  question  discussed . 1517-1520 

Absentees,  probably  some  of  them  were  paired 1530, 1531 

Buslett,  was  paired  with  Senator  Brown  on  March  3;  if  his  vote  had  been 

counted  the  result  would  have  been  63  for  Stephenson  to  62  against 1527, 

1528, 1529, 1530 

Domachowski,  heard  him  make  statement  with  reference  to  an  offer  made 
in  connection  with  voting  for  United  States  Senator  on  March  4,  after  the 

election  of  Senator  Stephenson 1504 

Domaschowski,  talked  with  him  about  the  absence  of  three  Democrats; 
asked  him  what  he  supposed  had  become  of  these  three  fellows;  he  said, 

“ Well,  when  you  can  buy  a man  to  do  a thing,  he  will  do  almost  any- 
thing.” He  said,  further,  he  was  offered  $1,500  to  stay  away  from  the 

session;  never  said  who  made  the  offer 1504, 1505, 1545, 1546 

Domachowski,  told  me  he  had  been  offered  $1,500;  understood  that  to  be 
a corrupt  offer  for  the  purchase  of  his  vote ; did  not  ask  him  who  made  the 
offer;  am  not  prepared  to  swear  that  I did  ask  him;  am  not  in  a position 
to  say  that  I did  or  that  I did  not;  do  not  remember  anybody  near  when 

conversation  took  place 1540-1544, 1545, 1546 

Domachowski,  was  interviewed  by  reporters  as  to  statement  of  offer  of 
$1,500  to;  probably  published  on  the  4th  or  5th  of  March;  Milwaukee  and 

Madison  papers  were  interested 1544, 1545 

Farrell,  John,  knew  he  was  absent  on  March  4;  left  the  chamber  during 

the  roll  call 1506, 1509, 1534 

Farrell,  the  time  between  the  time  that  the  protest  was  being  read  and  the 
time  that  the  balloting  was  going  on  could  not  have  been  more  than  two  or 
three  minutes.  I do  not  want  to  appear  as  trying  to  hedge  on  my  testi- 
mony; if  I had  to  say  to-day  which  statement  is  absolutely  correct  I 
would  say  that  the  statement  made  two  or  three  years  ago  was  correct  in 

point  of  minutes  than  my  statement  to-day 1537, 1538 

Farrell,  think  he  left  while  the  protest  was  being  read 1537 

Fenelon,  Dick  White  said  he  was  responsible  for  pair  of,  with  Ramsey  1506, 1507 
Fenelon,  pair  of,  with  Ramsey  did  not  affect  result  of  the  election  of  Senator 

Stephenson 1517-1522 

Hoyt,  Dr.,  heard  Leroy  talking  to,  asking  him  to  get  up  and  change  his 

vote 1522 

Leroy,  Eddie,  heard  him  talking  to  Dr.  Hoyt  the  day  when  it  would  take 
one  vote  to  elect  Stephenson.  I remember  his  saying  to  him  “Get  up 

here  and  change  your  vote  and  we  will  stand  by  you  ” 1522 

Leroy,  think  he  was  very  anxious  to  see  Stephenson  elected  right  away; 
there  was  something  suggestive  in  the  remark  that  he  would  stick  by  him; 

just  how  much  that  might  carry  with  it  I do  not  know 1531 

Leuch,  believe  Davies  made  offer  to,  to  do  certain  things;  I would  rather 
take  Mr.  Leuch’s  word  that  he  made  it  than  Mr.  Davies’s  word  that  he  did 

not 1523 

Leuch,  told  me  that  one  of  the  Stephenson’s  detectives  had  urged  him  to 
stay  in  the  joint  assembly  in  order  to  help  build  up  a quorum,  and  that 
for  doing  that  he  was  to  have  any  thing  that  he  wanted;  told  me  this  on 
the  1st  or  2d  of  March 1505, 1506 


DIGEST  INDEX. 


CLXIII 


Page. 


Zimmerman,  Fred  R,.,  member  of  the  Legislature  of  Wisconsin  in  1909,  testi- 
mony of— Continued. 

Lyons,  ex-senator,  I remember  a statement  alleged  to  have  been  made  by, 
when  he  said  that  he  had  been  given  $100  “to  be  good;”  never  heard 

him  make  the  statement;  Haight  told  me  about  this  statement 1505, 1506 

Never  heard  of  any  other  offers  to  members  to  do  or  refrain  from  doing  any- 
thing that  would  effect  the  election  of  Senator  Stephenson 1505 

Pairs,  general  subject  of,  discussed 1517-1522, 1527 

Ramsey,  Dick  White  said  he  was  responsible  for  the  pair  between  Ramsey 

and  Fenelon 1506,1507 

Ramsey,  pair  of,  with  Fenelon,  did  not  affect  result  of  the  election  of  Sena- 
tor Stephenson 1517-1522 

Ramsey,  Thomas,  knew  he  was  absent  on  March  4 1506 

Ramsey,  went  out  just  as  soon  as  the  senate  got  into  the  assembly  chamber, 

or  within  a minute  or  two 1525, 1536 

Rules,  do  not  remember  joint  convention  adopted  any 1526 

Steering  committee,  was  chairman;  tried  to  keep  track  of  where  the  men 
were;  steered  them  either  out  or  in,  as  it  might  be  necessary,  to  prevent 

the  election  of  the  Senator 1532 

Think  it  would  be  an  offense  to  offer  to  pay  a man  for  remaining  at  his  post 
of  duty  and  performing  it,  when  he  was  told  that  he  incurred  no  obliga- 
tion to  vote  for  any  particular  person 1523, 1524 

Think  one  vote  would  have  effected  an  election  on  January  27 1522, 1523 

Towers,  subject  of  his  vote  discussed 1519 

Towne,  I went  out  to  try  to  find  where  he  was  while  the  vote  was  pro- 
ceeding  1509 

Towne,  saw  him  and  Wayland  walking  together  in  the  assembly  chamber 
March  4;  Wayland  had  his  arm  very  tenderly  around  him;  other  details 

as  to  actions  of  Towne,  Farrell,  and  Ramsey  on  March  4 1506, 

1507, 1535, 1536, 1538, 1540 

Towne,  Silas,  knew  he  was  absent  on  March  4 1506 


Voted  against  Senator  Stephenson  and  my  purpose  was  to  determine 
whether  he  could  be  sent  to  Washington  by  the  State  of  Wisconsin  and 
when  he  got  there  represent  the  State  with  any  honor,  either  to  himself 

or  to  Badger  State 1531, 1532 

Voted  for  Henry  Allan  Cooper  on  first  day  we  balloted;  on  final  ballot 

voted  for  ex-Mayor  Sherburn  Becker,  of  Milwaukee 1504, 1522 

Was  delegated  to  watch  as  many  members  as  I could  on  the  day  of  election . 1510 

Wayland,  saw  him  and  Towne  walking  together  in  the  assembly  chamber 

March  4;  had  his  arm  very  tenderly" around  Mr.  Towne 1506, 1538, 1540 

White,  never  knew  him  until  I got  to  Madison;  mistook  him  for  Mr.  Knell 

last  Friday  in  this  room  because  I had  the  two  confused 1533, 1534 

White,  told  me  he  had  suggested  the  pair  between  Ramey  and  Fenelon. . . 1506, 

1507, 1516, 1517 


o 


C ' 

m 


fe;. 


'.-V 


>■>  • 

v ; 


